What's behind door #3? Well we have......Jeb Bush

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Plurality victories are so unusual in presidential elections :sarcasm: see Clinton (twice)

No, I'm pretty sure 1992 was proof positive that Bill Clinton was unelectable.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Plurality victories are so unusual in presidential elections :sarcasm: see Clinton (twice)

Exit polling showed the Perot voters were evenly split between Bush and Clinton, meaning he was probably not a factor in the race. It would be hard to make the case that Meeks voters would have split between Rubio and Crist, which leads to the logical conclusion that Rubio would have lost in a banner year for Republicans.

Bring him on!

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

Exit polling showed the Perot voters were evenly split between Bush and Clinton, meaning he was probably not a factor in the race. It would be hard to make the case that Meeks voters would have split between Rubio and Crist, which leads to the logical conclusion that Rubio would have lost in a banner year for Republicans.

Bring him on!

LMAO! You are in rare form on this thread. I think you actually forgot it was a three-way senatorial race when you touted Rubio's 49% as proof of his unelectability. And now this...

I'll grant you amnesty to re-read your post and self-correct the "logic" you used to reach your conclusion there.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

If those two are the best you got you guys are in deep do do.

Please tell me who the Democrats are going to nominate in 2016 that is going to cause this "deep do do"?

You are going to have to do better than Hillary or Biden.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

He's very polished and slick. Scarry polished and slick. Not much on substance, really, but very effective at delivering messages. You know, kinda like your boy (was that racist?).

Oh, and Rubio is, for all intents and purposes, Jeb. He is the protege'.

This is what liberals don't understand, Obama changed the game in 2008 with Hope and Change. The presidential election is no longer what your policies are or even what you are saying, it's how you say it that counts.

So which Democrat can deliver their message better than Marco Rubio? Definitely not Biden, won't be Hillary either, so who?

The only Democrat that can deliver his message better than Rubio is already in the Oval Office. Republicans have learned this over the past two elections, democrats seem to believe it's all about the party which couldn't be further from the truth for either party.

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Please tell me who the Democrats are going to nominate in 2016 that is going to cause this "deep do do"?

You are going to have to do better than Hillary or Biden.

Hillary would win in a landslide... assuming she stays healthy.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

Hillary would win in a landslide... assuming she stays healthy.

Yeah, that was supposed to happen last time

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by 108

isn't that what you guys thought last November?

Yep. And we were right.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

Hillary would win in a landslide... assuming she stays healthy.

So you really think that an old white woman, who is past her prime, and offering more of the same for the past 8 years, is going to get on a national stage with a young hispanic male, who is polished and smooth and bring home a landslide?

If this is the case you obviously haven't been paying attention to the last two presidential elections.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 108

isn't that what you guys thought last November?

I think a lot of conservatives felt this way last November. For me last November hammered home that President Obama has changed the way Americans elect their presidents. Style is now ahead of substance.

Obama was/is smooth the only problem for Democrats is they don't have another Obama waiting to take over and like him or not Rubio is a very polished politician.

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gator10010

So you really think that an old white woman, who is past her prime, and offering more of the same for the past 8 years, is going to get on a national stage with a young hispanic male, who is polished and smooth and bring home a landslide?

If this is the case you obviously haven't been paying attention to the last two presidential elections.

Gee lets see...

What % of population are women vs. what % are hispanic?

[rivergator]

I hope we wouldn't see either Bush or Clinton, and I'm pretty sure we won't. It's a big country, and those aren't the only two families.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

Gee lets see...

What % of population are women vs. what % are hispanic?

Gee your missing the point...


If Barack Obama has proven anything the past two elections, it is that elections are about style and like it or not Rubio has way more style than Hillary has ever had.

Hillary = John McCain 2008

[gator421]

Originally Posted by gator10010

This is what liberals don't understand, Obama changed the game in 2008 with Hope and Change. The presidential election is no longer what your policies are or even what you are saying, it's how you say it that counts.

So which Democrat can deliver their message better than Marco Rubio? Definitely not Biden, won't be Hillary either, so who?

The only Democrat that can deliver his message better than Rubio is already in the Oval Office. Republicans have learned this over the past two elections, democrats seem to believe it's all about the party which couldn't be further from the truth for either party.

I think Regean proved it not Obama.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by gator421

I think Regean proved it not Obama.

Perhaps but Obama has taken it to another level. The man had everything working against him in 2012 and somehow pulled a rabbit out of his hat.

[mdgator05]

If Jeb runs, Rubio doesn't. Rubio has always been Jeb's go-to guy. No way he runs against Jeb, who would be able to recruit a decent chunk of what would be Rubio's campaign staff.

I tend to think Jeb won't run in the end, as he would likely prefer the role of "advisor" rather than actual candidate (especially given the toxicity of his last name). But they won't be running against each other.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by Row6

Exit polling showed the Perot voters were evenly split between Bush and Clinton, meaning he was probably not a factor in the race. It would be hard to make the case that Meeks voters would have split between Rubio and Crist, which leads to the logical conclusion that Rubio would have lost in a banner year for Republicans.

Bring him on!

Paging Row6, paging Row6...cleanup on aisle #23! There's a bit of an issue there with your "logical conclusion." Last chance to fix it before your amnesty period expires.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gator10010

This is what liberals don't understand, Obama changed the game in 2008 with Hope and Change. The presidential election is no longer what your policies are or even what you are saying, it's how you say it that counts.

So which Democrat can deliver their message better than Marco Rubio? Definitely not Biden, won't be Hillary either, so who?

The only Democrat that can deliver his message better than Rubio is already in the Oval Office. Republicans have learned this over the past two elections, democrats seem to believe it's all about the party which couldn't be further from the truth for either party.

If it's a white guy doing the talking, they will lose badly. No race card will severly hamper their efforts. . . despite their cries to the contrary.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

He's very polished and slick. Scarry polished and slick. Not much on substance, really, but very effective at delivering messages. You know, kinda like your boy (was that racist?).

Oh, and Rubio is, for all intents and purposes, Jeb. He is the protege'.

Except "my boy" actually was the editor of some rinky-dink publication called the Harvard Law Review, a position not acquired without proven smarts, and a law professor at some Jr College called U. of Chicago. Marco went to Santa Fe and then transferred into UF - we all know what that route means, right?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

Except "my boy" actually was the editor of some rinky-dink publication called the Harvard Law Review, a position not acquired without proven smarts, and a law professor at some Jr College called U. of Chicago. Marco went to Santa Fe and then transferred into UF - we all know what that route means, right?

Isn't strange that he has no publications?