Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:50 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
I hope that Huckabee decides to run in 2016. He'll only be 61 years old and will have an even more dominant media presence and a recognized voice in America. But if he doesn't run again, for whatever reason, whom would you lean toward supporting in 2016?

For some reason, I find myself very drawn toward Jeb Bush. I've always liked him and think he is much more of a leader than a follower. What do you all think and who would you lean toward supporting if Huckabee did not run?

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:13 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
Maybe Mike will run in 2016 but I have my doubts. As a Florida resident I really liked Jeb Bush as our governor for two terms. I think he is great, however, I just don't think he can outrun his last name as a presidential candidate. I wish he had run for US Senate against Bill Nelson.

Other than Huckabee, I like Rubio and Jindal.

_________________
Ken



Post by FirstCoastTerp Liked by: ColoradoMom4Huckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Well, since the problem last night - the biggest one - appears to have been latinos, how about Rubio or even better Jindal (no, not technically a latino, but point remains)?

Paul Ryan would be a sound choice as well. Maybe after for more years of obama economics people will be willing to listen to him?

I also wouldn't mind Rand Paul. I don't really like his foreign policy but other than that he's good.



Post by Wendero Liked by: mxnwilson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 1049
Location: California
Likes: 151
Liked: 36
I would be ecstatic if Huckabee were to run in 2016, but I doubt he will run. If Huckabee doesn't run, I would like Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or Susana Martinez to run.



Post by Grant Liked by: IowaforHuckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:38 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
Unlike the rest of you, I DO believe Gov. Huckabee will run in 2016. I believe the reason he didn't run this time was he didn't see a path to victory...he thought Obama would be impossible to beat! At the time he didn't know all the adversity Obama would face and, had he run, the outcome may have been different. In 4 more yrs. Gov. Huckabee would have made all the money he would need to make to be pretty much set for life. He could always return to FOX after a run so what would be holding him back? He has always said he believes we should each be the somebody to do something....I think he will take another go at it. I can't even think of anyone else because I've got my heart set on Huck. I don't particularly like Rubia. I like O'Donnell or Martinez or maybe Chrisitie if he could tone himself down a bit. However, I don't think there is ANYONE who could do half the job Gov. Huckabee could do.



Post by nrobyar has received Likes: 4 cschande, Huckabeliever, Miranda, TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1599
Location: Richmond, VA
Likes: 146
Liked: 215
Hey everyone. I've been away for far too long, mainly due to the fact that the forum was messing up for me every time I got on, but I'm happy to see that it's functioning properly at least for the time being.

Republicans nationwide are doing a lot of soul-searching right now, and when some of the senseless finger-pointing starts to die down, they'll be doing even more soul-searching. Here's my rough takeaway of what happened the other night: in any election where Democrats turn out in greater numbers by six percentage points over Republicans nationwide, our candidates are going to have a tough time pulling off a win. Romney actually managed to win independents by 5 points, but it wasn't enough to offset the D/R differential in the electorate. Many analysts thought 2008 was just a fluke, and that the electorate adjusted back to reality in 2010 and we'd see roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in 2012. That didn't happen, and people are now beginning to force themselves to deal with the fact that there are just more Democrats than Republicans out there right now, and we're not going to be winning any national elections any time soon until we do something to change that. It's just not enough to rely on our GOTV efforts and hope the other side stays home. If there was ever a time when that should have been enough, you would think it would have been this year. But it wasn't.

So where do we go from here? I think the only way we can start reversing these trends is if we find a way to make the Republican party more attractive to a greater portion of the electorate. That probably sounds obvious enough, but part of what it means is that I don't think we lost because of the candidate we chose (and anyone who knows me will know I've never been a fan of Mitt's). I think there's a lot of truth to what TVV has been saying in other threads about the way as a party present ourselves to minorities, and I would add to the middle class and blue collar workers as well.

The problem with our candidate this year, in my mind, wasn't so much about the positions he'd taken or the way he ran his campaign (I actually think he ran a pretty solid campaign). Instead, the problem with Mitt, in my opinion, was that he became the perfect caricature for everything the Republican party represents in the minds of those who despise us or simply don't trust us. He was the old, rich, white guy who only cared about himself and old, rich, white guys like him. In the election cycle immediately following the rise of Occupy Wall Street, we nominated the perfect picture of the 1% (and I think that was the plan all along by those who got the Occupy movement rolling).

So what does the party need, and where do we go from here? Well, I can't speak to what the higher ups will eventually come to realize, but there's already a lot of talk about how we need to start moderating on immigration. I think we can actually do a lot of that simply by moderating the way we talk about the issue, and being willing to give up some of our more extreme (in the eyes of the electorate) positions on some of the peripheral issues (i.e. "If your parents brought you here in illegally, no college for you!"). We're also going to need to find new standard bearers for the party, so to that end I think we'll see more minorities given larger roles in the party (and we have some very deserving up-and-coming minorities who really should be given such roles regardless of race). But we've really got to do a lot more than that.

We also need standard bearers who can appeal to the Average Joe. Standard bearers with humble roots who can't be accused of being part of the "old, rich, white guy" wing of the party. In other words, we really need more standard bearers like Huck, and I can only hope that the establishment figures who actually care about the future of the party (and not just the future of their own power and control over the party) will start to realize that and give people like Huck a chance.

I know we're all pretty bummed right now about what happened the other night. I'm particularly bummed about what happened in a lot of those close Senate races and with the votes that we lost on protecting marriage. However, if this loss leads to a remaking of the Republican party in a way that further ostracizes the Tim Tancredo's and Karl Rove's of the party while making more room for Huckabee Republicans, we could see some very good things come out of this election in the years to come.

So, having said all that, in answer to the original post in this thread, I still think Huck will and should run in 2016, and I think he'll be better-positioned to succeed than ever assuming the party does the kind of soul-searching required to recover from this. And, behind Huck, I really like Mike Pence, who just won the governorship up in Indiana. I do believe we have to make some changes in terms of how we pick our standard bearers, but I also think we have to keep our standards when it comes to picking presidents, because it's not enough just to win, presidents also have to be able to govern effectively, otherwise we could end up doing more harm than good to the party in the long term. That's why I still prefer governors over legislators for the White House, and that's why Huck and Pence are my top choices for 2016.

It's good to be back!!! :D

_________________
ATTENTION GUESTS: Thanks for checking out our Discussion Forum. Before you go, please take a minute to click on the image below and get registered to join the discussion. You'll enjoy all the perks, such as being able to track which posts you've read already. It will also allow us to contact you with important news and information. Plus, we'd just love to hear what you have to say!

MEMBERS: Want to put the "Get Registered" image in your signature? Learn how here.

______________________Image______________________



Post by cschande has received Likes: 5 bmk2307, FirstCoastTerp, Miranda, ohiorepublican09, Southern Doc
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
Major

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 2:50 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Plainfield, IN
Likes: 4
Liked: 90
I definitely think a Huck-Rubio or a Huck-Jindal (or even a Jindal-Rubio) ticket would be amazing. But the ticket isn't going to matter if we don't start appealing to a much larger group.

Things could get even tougher as puerto rico could become the 51st state sometime soon (they voted for the first time that they wanted to become the 51st state and our congress just has to vote on it now). That would be an additional 3 million people that would probably currently vote with the Dems. With that and continued immigration we should be expecting to see so many hispanic voters that a general election wouldn't even be close when the dems are grabbing 71% of that group.

It is an easy but complicated solution: we must come up with some form of amnesty. The immigration issue hasn't even been an issue until the past couple of decades and the GOP has taken a stance on it that will cost us election after election. If we do not move back in the direction that Bush was leading us (when he took over 40% of the hispanic vote) we will continue to lose.

Thoughts?



Post by karrboy84 Liked by: Grant
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 1049
Location: California
Likes: 151
Liked: 36
karrboy84 wrote:
I definitely think a Huck-Rubio or a Huck-Jindal (or even a Jindal-Rubio) ticket would be amazing. But the ticket isn't going to matter if we don't start appealing to a much larger group.

Things could get even tougher as puerto rico could become the 51st state sometime soon (they voted for the first time that they wanted to become the 51st state and our congress just has to vote on it now). That would be an additional 3 million people that would probably currently vote with the Dems. With that and continued immigration we should be expecting to see so many hispanic voters that a general election wouldn't even be close when the dems are grabbing 71% of that group.

It is an easy but complicated solution: we must come up with some form of amnesty. The immigration issue hasn't even been an issue until the past couple of decades and the GOP has taken a stance on it that will cost us election after election. If we do not move back in the direction that Bush was leading us (when he took over 40% of the hispanic vote) we will continue to lose.

Thoughts?

I completely agree. My parents immigrated to the U.S. and we do not support amnesty. Like Marco Rubio, my parents and I aren't "anti-immigration" but we are pro-legal immigration; however, that doesn't mean the GOP shouldn't find some way to compromise on this issue. They shouldn't give amnesty to all illegal immigrants, but they should try to agree on some fair solution to the problem. President Bush's guest worker program was a good start, but the GOP's staunch opposition to the Dream Act was a disaster, turning off many minority voters from the GOP.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:20 pm
Posts: 221
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Likes: 14
Liked: 29
I broadly agree with everyone's commentary. I should also add that while I can see that it may not be a good move strategically to put social issues front and center in the next election, we need to do a much more effective job in both getting out the evangelical Christian vote and educating liberal Christians and Catholics on the importance of voting Life.

This is an excellent article by Joel Rosenberg...

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/more-than-6-million-self-described-evangelicals-voted-for-obama-why-what-else-do-the-exit-polls-tell-us-about-how-christians-voted/

It's good to see the number of evangelical Christians voting for Obama drop from 7.8 million in 2008 to 6.4 million in 2012. That said, if you moved these 6.4 million voters into the Romney column it would have resulted in a landslide for him! Further, those who vote for a party which supports abortion as part of its platform when they have a clear alternative to support a pro-life party will often disparage pro-life supporters as being simplistic single issue voters...that we're clearly unsophisticated. Do they not realize that they do more damage to our ability to both evangelize and influence politics than any group outside of the Church! As a Catholic bishop recently suggested one has to question their personal salvation, and whether they are more interested in being with the in-crowd focusing on "cool" (albeit important) issues such as poverty rather than the controversial issue of Life. They are living to please men not God.

We must focus on educating, registering and mobilizing Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles...and that there is no more important issue than protecting the most vulnerable among us!



Post by colinashley Liked by: IowaforHuckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:33 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
My take on the post election chatter was the election was not lost by the independent votes but by lack of turnout from the base of the Republican party. I for one, did not vote for the first time in my adult life. I simply could not vote for Romney because of the negative way he ran his campaign against Newt and Huckabee and because I don't really know who he is or what he represents.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:33 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:28 pm
Posts: 875
Likes: 150
Liked: 48
Quote:
Mike Huckabee Leads GOP for 2016 in Iowa, Hillary for Dems

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/08/mike ... -for-dems/

All of the potential candidates, like Obama, are strongly pro-abortion and would draw strenuous opposition from the pro-life community should they become the nominee.

On the Republican side former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as the nominal leader of the pack, taking 15 percent of the vote in a nine-candidate field.

But that was only 3 points better than Ryan, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, each of whom took 12 percent. Bush had 11 percent, followed by Rick Santorum at 10 percent and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at 9 percent.

Bringing up the rear were Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 5 percent and Sarah Palin at 4 percent.

All of the potential Republican candidates surveyed are pro-life with the exception of Rice.

_________________
~*Roanna

http://twitter.com/raspberrygirl12
http://roannaj.blogspot.com/



Post by ohiorepublican09 has received Likes: 2 Grant, Huckabeliever
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:41 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 2017
Likes: 71
Liked: 66
Chris, it is great to hear from you! I'm glad you took time to write that post as that is what I've been meaning to type for the last two days.

It really saves me time when people already express my opinion for me! :mrgreen:

_________________
Brett

--Attention Guests--
Join the Discussion!
Click the graphic to join!
Image

:army



Post by bmk2307 Liked by: cschande
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:32 pm 
Offline
** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 1265
Location: McAlester, Ok
Likes: 173
Liked: 107
ohiorepublican09 wrote:
Quote:
Mike Huckabee Leads GOP for 2016 in Iowa, Hillary for Dems

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/08/mike ... -for-dems/

All of the potential candidates, like Obama, are strongly pro-abortion and would draw strenuous opposition from the pro-life community should they become the nominee.

On the Republican side former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as the nominal leader of the pack, taking 15 percent of the vote in a nine-candidate field.

But that was only 3 points better than Ryan, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, each of whom took 12 percent. Bush had 11 percent, followed by Rick Santorum at 10 percent and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at 9 percent.

Bringing up the rear were Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 5 percent and Sarah Palin at 4 percent.

All of the potential Republican candidates surveyed are pro-life with the exception of Rice.


Sent this to Drudge

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:54 pm
Posts: 579
Location: norfolk
Likes: 0
Liked: 23
I definitely think Huckabee could have won this time, because he does not have the high negatives like Romney did for much of the campaign. He is also a more principled conservative, and would not have angered the Ron Paul delegates at the RNC. He is not one that is beholden to Wall Street. While I liked Romney once I learned about his real record of achievement, I never thought he was one of the better candidates, but he was pretty good. I will do everything possible to get him to run, and if he does not, well then maybe Bob McDonnell.

_________________
Be My Friend on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:02 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
I could be wrong, but I do not think that Huckabee will run again.

Let's see how Susanna Martinez does as governor over the next couple of years. I thought her RNC speech was fabulous. If she holds to conservative principles and does a good job for the people of her state, she would be a great candidate for the GOP.

Other than her, I think that Marco Rubio should be our candidate.

Both are articulate, principled, conservatives and can bring in new demographics to the GOP.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:34 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
ConservTexan wrote:
I could be wrong, but I do not think that Huckabee will run again.

Let's see how Susanna Martinez does as governor over the next couple of years. I thought her RNC speech was fabulous. If she holds to conservative principles and does a good job for the people of her state, she would be a great candidate for the GOP.

Other than her, I think that Marco Rubio should be our candidate.

Both are articulate, principled, conservatives and can bring in new demographics to the GOP.

Rubio might be flash-in-the-pan, but too many people find him attractive because he's young, Hispanic, and a well spoken. I'm at a point where I just can't trust any legislator to be conservative based solely on their voting records and speeches. I need to see evidence of governance and leadership.

In fact, let's make it a new rule in the GOP - you must have executive experience to run for the nomination.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:43 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Martinez MIGHT just be the perfect package IF she turns out to be as promising as she seems. It's just hard not to look back at Palin and cringe all over again.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:46 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:14 pm
Posts: 2120
Likes: 509
Liked: 440
My hope would be Huckabee/Rubio or maybe Huckabee/Martinez. If Mike decides not to run, my pick would be Rubio. I like Jindahl, of course, but Rubio has the charisma that some of the others who may be contenders just don't have. He also may be able to pull in some of the younger voters and women voters, and would definitely grab more of the Hispanic vote.

I agree about our candidates having executive experience. But let's face it, the general population could care less.



Post by IowaforHuckabee Liked by: mxnwilson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:56 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
ohiorepublican09 wrote:
Quote:
Mike Huckabee Leads GOP for 2016 in Iowa, Hillary for Dems

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/08/mike ... -for-dems/

All of the potential candidates, like Obama, are strongly pro-abortion and would draw strenuous opposition from the pro-life community should they become the nominee.

On the Republican side former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as the nominal leader of the pack, taking 15 percent of the vote in a nine-candidate field.

But that was only 3 points better than Ryan, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, each of whom took 12 percent. Bush had 11 percent, followed by Rick Santorum at 10 percent and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at 9 percent.

Bringing up the rear were Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 5 percent and Sarah Palin at 4 percent.

All of the potential Republican candidates surveyed are pro-life with the exception of Rice.

I couldn't help but laugh at the irony - after expecting Huck to be going toe-to-toe with Hillary in 2008, he might actually end up going up against her in 2016!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:30 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I was all for Marco Rubio, and then I saw an interview with Karl Rove where he had good things to say about Rubio. That scares me :tinfoil


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY