T Nation

The 'Donalds' Running Mate?


#1

So with the "Donald" being way ahead in even the most conservative of polls,
it begs the question as to who will be second fiddle to the "Donald"

Probably the only Republican not sucking off the dicks of the Koch Brothers.

So what say you ?

Oh, one other thing. I would love to see an amendment passed that states that if you are running for Pres, you get exactly 100 pre election day to spew your shit. Thats it.
I hate this 18 months before the election I am going to start campaining bullshit.


#2

Ivana.


#3

I say you are incredibly premature with such a question. In fact, by the time the election heats up in the actual election year (2016) Trump won't be a factor, unless he runs as an independent which is possible. But, I really don't think he wants to be known as the guy who helped elect Hillary Clinton, so I'm betting he wont run as an independent.

Trump is certainly a brash speak your mind candidate. They are fun in the beginning but wear very thin as the weeks flip past. I will guess that after the first couple of debates his numbers will begin to drop. He does not nearly have the depth of knowledge regarding domestic and world affairs that the others have. This will be clearly seen in the debates.

He may hang around long enough to cut a deal with the person who is actually going to win the nomination. Maybe he wants to be secretary of the Treasury, or some other cabinet post, who knows? But, one thing for absolute certain- Trump WILL NOT be the republican nominee, not now, not ever!


#4

Donald is more concerned with addressing issues than offending people with words, and he is speaking in a way that is captivating people.

As for the establishment GOP being worried about what the Donald is saying, they lost the last 2 presidential elections to Barack Obama, so WTF do they (the GOP establishment) know.


#5

ZEB: what say you on just keeping the election propoganda to the last 90 days before the general election ?
With social media et al, do you not think that a candidate would not be able to get his message out in a 90 day period ?

This "may" or may not "help" with the cost of campaining.

What it would do I believe is to help maintain the entire counties Sanity !


#6

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/david-koch-gay-marriage-amicus-brief-115752.html

Please stop with the bullshit talking points, and at the very least KNOW what your boogie-man stands for before riffing off with the typical Huffington Post nonsense.

shit man. You're bright. Use it.


#7

Rather, Ivanka. He runs with her, he'll win.


#8

In that case then, if the Donald dies . .. ...

we still end up with a women president !

Oh the irony !


#9

A critical component in understanding the "art of the deal" is knowing to keep your cards close to your chest and not let the other players see your hand before it's time to play it. Some of the potential candidates to consider for VP are currently involved in their own campaign to be president. It would be stupid to play that card prematurely.

He could pick someone now thinking they are a good choice only to see them tank in primaries. Just considering the the other candidates it would be wise to see how they are able to fair on their own, without the benefit of riding his coattails.


#10

This is America where we have a first amendment right to freedom of speech. If you don't like it you should move to another country where they do have such stupid laws.

If your stupid hundred day rule were law it would be off limits for candidates to discuss issues involving other candidates in a timely manner.

For example none of the candidates would be allowed to discuss today's New York Times article about Hillary Clinton having classified data on her private email server. They would have to wait until next year before they could discuss it. By then Clinton will be using the ole "it's old news" excuse and it would be next to impossible to get that information out to the legions of low information voters.

It takes a very long time for new ideas or news to register with the vast majority of voters and even then it is very difficult if not impossible with a lot of time. A hundred days would leave no time to educate anyone who isn't seriously interested in politics.


#11

Mit Romney will go down as the guy responsible for electing Hilary.


#12

How so?

(I'm just curious...or maybe the sarcasm went by me? That happens!)

Mufasa


#13

Because his campaign was the last republican campaign for the foreseeable future that had a chance. At one point Romney had Obama on the ropes but he was too much of a gentleman to go in for the kill. When Romney lost '12, that's when Hilary won '16.

I really think our only chance of avoiding Hilary at this point is if she blows it. The presidency is hers to win she just needs to keep her shit together.


#14

Losing to Obama is nothing to be ashamed of. He's actually a very charismatic individual and a good campaigner.

Of course we won't confuse that with his incredibly poor record as President.


#15

Ha ha I hear you brother.

The problem with that is the typical voter does not get involved until way late in the game. I worry that if we only had 90 days of campaigning there is a sector of people who would miss it entirely.

I know that sounds odd to political junkies like some on this thread but it could happen.

Besides to me it is the greatest sport on earth. I really enjoy watching the interviews, debates and the strategy unfold.

Hello, my name is Zeb and I'm a political junkie.

:wink:


#16

You'll have to explain that one to me...


#17

Not at all my friend, not at all.

History shows us that it is difficult for one party to keep the White House for 12 years in a row. It has only been done once (in the modern day) by the republicans when Ronald Reagan served two years then his VP George H.W. Bush ran and won keeping the White House republican for 12 straight years, 1980-1992.

It also happened for the democrats after Roosevelt died in office. Harry Truman his VP won on his own, back in 1945.

What you are now saying is Hillary is strong enough to actually keep the White House for the democrats after 8 failed years of an Obama administration. In my opinion she would have had a much better chance had Romney defeated Obama in 2012.

By the way, no one was ever elected to the Presidency with such high negative poll numbers as Hillary. Some of the latest poll numbers that I've seen show her negative numbers to be hovering between 47% and 50%. That means that out of those who know who Hillary Clinton is 47% to 50% do not like her. Now, if she was an unknown those numbers would have the potential to improve. But, after about 24 years in the public eye most everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is and about half the country does not like her.

How does she change that? Does she once again try to "reinvent herself"? They tried that in 2008 and fell on their faces.

If someone has a poor impression of a candidate like Marco Rubio they may change their mind once they hear him speak and see him more often. Whereas when they drag Hillary out her numbers tend to go down. That's why they did such a low key announcement of her entering the campaign this time around. They have tried to run a very low key race because they know that the more people see her the less they like her.

I'll stop right here only to make a prediction of my own. If there is no third party candidacy of a conservative such as there was when Ross Perot handed the Presidency to Bill Clinton TWICE, Hillary will lose to whomever the republicans nominate.

She would give some of the republicans a close race but still lose. Whereas I believe that certain republicans if nominated (and choose the proper running mate) could very well hand Hillary quite a large electoral defeat.


#18

The PWI forum would be almost non-existent if we did that. Certain members would have to abstain from posting altogether.


#19

ZEB my brother in iron, I actually agree with you on this last point.

I am hoping that actually Bernie is the go to guy. If you look at his past 24+ years, things he said that long ago have not changed.
He has held his position all through time, and yet the Republicans have not dug up to much on him as of yet.
Do you think that is because they do not consider him a threat yet ? Or is it still to early in this cycle.

Also, I never really thought about politics as a spectator sport, so IF i change my mindset it may help with my dislike of politics in general ?

Thank you for the great reply...

killerDIRK


#20

The republicans have not said a word about Bernie and for good reason. It is the GOP's wildest wet dream that a 73 year old half balding, grey haired socialist who lacks even the slightest bit of charisma could be the democrats nominee.

If God smiles on America and Bernie Saunders is the democrats nominee it will the biggest republican landslide since Reagan took 49 out of 50 states from Walter Mondale in 1984.

The left wing press would love to have us believe that we are nearing socialism. They have been feeding the left wing Bernie Saunders craze. But, the fact remains that our current (and very charismatic) President Barack Obama won not because he is a left wing (semi-socialist). He won in spite of it. He won because of the power charisma and his uniqueness as potentially the first black President (which by the way proves most whites are not racist).

As I have always said, the major part of the electorate vote, not for policy but for personality.

America today is every bit a capitalist nation with no intention of swinging left on economic issues. And even if they were Bernie Saunders would not be the flag bearer of such a take over.

It's interesting that Hillary actually has to worry about a Saunders challenge. And she does need to be just a bit concerned because mostly the left wingers vote in the democrat primaries, just as the right wing votes in the republican primaries. This will pull Hillary farther left which makes her even more unelectable than she already is (if that is even possible) when the general election process begins. So, God Bless Bernie Saunders he is helping the GOP in a great, great way!

Anyway, I certainly hope that looking at politics as the greatest game available will help you at least tolerate it somewhat.

I have been looking forward to Presidential elections ever since I sat with my Dad as a 9 year old and watched the Presidential election returns on TV. He would make it fun by putting up a wall map and we'd color in the states as the returns came in. My Dad was an avid democrat and used to tell me why democrats were the best answer in solving the nations problems.

So how did I end up a republican?

Ronald Reagan who used to be a democrat and card carrying union member said it best: "I didn't leave the democratic party the democratic party left me."

I have to agree with the greatest modern day President.

And while the republican party has disappointed me on many occasions I do believe that the republicans are the best hope at this point of digging us out of the mess we are in (even though they have been part of the problem in the past).

What we need is a strong republican President who wins by a good margin and a republican controlled Congress. We then have at least a chance of turning this country around. And God knows we will never turn it around with the pathetic left leaning democratic party who tries to divide the country based on race and economic class warfare. Pandering to the electorates greatest fears. If JFK were alive today, based on his voting record and what he did and wanted to do as President he would be a republican! That's how far the democrats have fallen. This would all be clearly pointed out if we actually had an unbiased media. Always keep in mind the republicans have to field a stronger candidate than the democrats because the GOP has to defeat the democratic nominee and the left wing liberal media. But this Presidential election year we can do it!

That's how bad Hillary is and also that's how good the GOP field is!

Okay, sorry about the long post but I am passionate about this particular "game".