Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential nomination/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Too uninformed to just change the article suggestions go here[edit]

Ted Cruz is going to be alarmingly funny when he inevitably runs, right? Ikanreed (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember the record ratings for Republican debates in 2011? There are only a few people in this world that can make them go higher. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Any news on Paul Ryan? --TiaC (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

He's doing a Mitt. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Helpful Ideas on candidates (that we'd like to see giving the nomination a shot): Fun, article or talkpage?[edit]

I was inspired by this line in the Boris Johnson article:

"Being a natural-born U.S. citizen (born in New York City, therefore he has dual-citizenship), which means that while it may be unlikely, he could, theoretically, run for President of the United States in the future, if he so chooses."

to suggest that we add a section with helpful suggestions to make the GOP think out of the box, but where would such a section fit? In the article itself, on this talkpage, or in the funspace?

Please, Republicans, seeing your field of dubious and/or boring drones from the reject pile of politics, you really could do worse than Boris. C'mon people, make that grey matter boogie and help the Republicans become a party with a future, or at least help them to provide us with a more entertaining primary and presidential campaign! ScepticWombat (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just think, he could end up both President and Prime Minister. SophieWilderModerator 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There's also the Shrieking White-Hot Sphere of Pure Rage, but it's probably not winning over big donors. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben Carson?[edit]

First to say he was running, but missing from the list. Is it because he's black? --Seth Peck (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's rather "There's at least 23 candidates running, we only have 12 up and I have no time to research them all." Osaka Sun (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
He would be a better candidate to have on the list as he is more well known than John Kasich, has been flogged on right wing news services, and more likely to be entertaining than most others. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Need to have them all up here. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal.[edit]

Bobby Jindal has mentioned that he would run. Why isn't he listed? Supyloco (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added him, but please feel free to revise/add to the information on him and his (dis)advantages. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann?[edit]

Any news on whether Michele Bachmann is going to try her luck again?

On the same note: Any bets on whether Sarah Palin is going to try for the same kind of "I might run, shine the spotlight on me"-antics she practised last time around (by stalking the primary caravan and promoting herself)? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not very likely for either; Carly Fiorna is being cast for the role of token woman in the primary debates. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 16:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Senator for South Carolina wants to run for President, yup that one[edit]

See here: <https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-18/who-s-excited-about-lindsey-graham-flirting-with-a-presidential-run->. I'll withold my opinion for now, but what do you guys think about that? Alsto003 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Alex

He may actually take up the cause, not necessarily to win, but as was discussed elsewhere to give voice to the issue of leadership in the global jihad. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 01:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't get the damn pic to upload right. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 02:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham on the Commander-in-Chief issue: "President Obama's "policies are getting people killed...Almost 300,000 people have been killed in Syria on his watch ...Letting people out of Gitmo in this environment is irresponsible... need I go on? nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 03:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

CPAC Straw poll[edit]

CPAC Straw poll is this Saturday. Rand Paul (the paleoisolationist) won two years straight, and the maverick Ted Cruz ran second last year. The only reason Mitt & Jeb ever got in was to head off these two cause Chris Christie has no popular appeal. Meantime the grassroots are getting behind Walker who gets no financial support from the GOP Governors Association chaired by Chris Christie. So, here's my predictions on the outcome of the straw poll: 1) Walker; 2) Jeb; 3) Rand Paul; 4) Ted Cruz; 5) Christie.

The big news would be if Paul, Cruz or (god help us) Christie beats Jeb. After Walker gets Jeb & Christie's donor base (including GOP Gov. Assn. money), he's unstoppable. The only remaining question is to what extent the isolationist and anti-immigrant sentiment remains in the Conservative movement, cause those sentiments expressed by Paul & Cruz are the onlyissues that have wider appeal outside the Republican Party. Anybody want to wager if Rand Paul (two time top vote getter) can beat out Jeb Bush for second place? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 CPAC Results: Rand Paul wins three years running. Percent/Candidate

  • 25.7 Sen. Rand Paul
  • 21.4 Gov. Scott Walker
  • 11.5 Sen. Ted Cruz
  • 11.4 Dr. Ben Carson
  • 8.3 Former Gov. Jeb Bush
  • 4.3 Former Sen. Rick Santorum
  • 3.7 Sen. Marco Rubio
  • 3.5 Donald Trump
  • 3.0 Carly Fiorina
  • 2.8 Gov. Chris Christie
  • 1.1 Former Gov. Rick Perry
  • 0.9 Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • 0.8 Former Gov. Sarah Palin
  • 0.3 Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
  • 0.3 Former Ambassador John Bolton
  • 0.1 Sen. Lindsey Graham
  • 0.1 Former Gov. George Pataki
  • 1.0 Undecided
  • 0.7 Other

(3,007 votes cast Feb. 25-27 at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Conducted by the Polling Company Inc./WomenTrend). nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 16:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

When is the last time a CPAC winner from the poll the year before the election was the actual candidate?
Not sure; but this is an important base of the GOP, and it shows where and what policies matter (social consevs vs economic conervs, foreign policy vs domestic issues such as taxes & abortion, etc.) The next big event upcoming is the Governers Assn. meetings (both Dem Govs & GOP Govs).
(ec)Analysis: So, I overrated Jeb's appeal (or effort to go after conservatives), but Christie falls off the charts beaten by the token female Fiorina, Trump, Rubio, and Carson. Gay basher Santorium beats foreign policy expert Rubio; Jeb still gets his ass handed to him by Paul and Cruz, the two guys with populist appeal the donor base fears most. Carson beats Jeb, meaning the social values (Christian Right) element still is pissed-off and won't be fooled again by the New World Order-big government-RINO-Bush clan. Also, it appears the social values conservatives are going for Carson over Perry, Huckabee and Santorium. Entrapeneurs, as represented by Trump, beating Christie and Perry, flexes its muscle against more established business interests represented by Jeb. Santorium beating Rubio is somewhat a surprise, probably a reflection of name recognition and experience. Also rans: Lindsey Graham, and specifics on leadership issue in the foreign policy debate have yet to take root. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 17:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Overall, adding Paul & Cruz together (37.2%) it reflects a rising libertarian element, with populist appeal outside traditional GOP voters, within the conservative movement and Republican party. 80% of Republicans self-identify as conservative, so 37.2 % of 80% = the appeal of libertarian isolationism + its outside appeal from non-aligned mainstream and crossover voters. This threatens traditional defense contractors, jobs, and the military industrial complex represented by traditional internationalist Republicans such as Jeb, Lindsey Graham, Palin, Bolton, Walker, Rubio, and virtually the rest of the entire field. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC

History of the Winners: 2008 Romney, 2009 Romney, 2010 Romney, 2011 Papa Paul, 2012 Romney, 2013 Rand Paul, 2014 Rand Paul, 2015 Rand Paul. [1] nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As this relates to a General Election scenario: There is roughly, at the outer most, a 60/40 percent split (more likely 65/35 percent) between traditional Wilson-FDR-Ike-Johnson-Nixon interventionists vs the growing libertarian isolationism in (A) the General electorate, (B) the Republican party, and (C) the Conservative movement. One can surmise the Democratic party has similar numbers. The American people are reactive and not proactive, meaning they will rise up as one in the face of a Pearl Harbor, Golf of Tonkin, 9/11 scenario. But this is always short-lived, not longer than one presidential term (like the Civil War or WWII). Any prolonged engagement like Vietnam or Afghanistan they will grow weary of. Rand Paul boasts he proposed a Declaration of War against ISIS, not an AUMF. He doesn't tell you the unlimited budget-busting authority which a formal Declaration of War automatically gives to a shitload of government agencies (pp. 49-80 pdf). This of course totally shitcans his entire small government economically responsible message. IOW, his "Declaration of War" is posturing and designed to fail, even if as President he proposed it in response to an attack. I suspect the peace/war foreign policy issues will decide Rand Paul's future well before November 2016. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you say "a rising libertarian element"? For once, Smith, I gotta say: you're maybe right. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
They'll discover pot legalization and banking regulation reform go arm in arm. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 19:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

2052 nomination[edit]

A tad early but Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky (Chelsea Clinton's daughter). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Declarations[edit]

Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina both declared their campaigns within two days of one another. Keep updating this part whenever someone new declares so we can put them up. Serocco (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We're using aa a formal announcement at a press conference as the standard for confirmed, not an exploratory committee or FEC filings, right? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 12:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Actual, spoken statements on live television by candidates - that's the only qualification. Which is exactly what Mike Huckabee just did barely half an hour ago. Serocco (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina[edit]

The bit that said "She also looks like the woman who laid you off." was not intended to be a reference to her appearance, but rather a reference to both Mitt Romney looking "like the man who laid you off" and that fact that she sacked a shitload of HP employees in her disastrous career as HP CEO. I think the comment should go back. What say you, Ikanread? Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Walker[edit]

"recklessly and without much of a reason", this should probably be reworded, for several reasons. (1) Skipping Florida is a brilliant strategy. (2) He cannot win Florida running against not one, but two favorite son candidates who have won general elections statewide. (3) It's a waste of money and precious campaign resources.(4) He does not need Florida to win the nomination. (5) The inevitable loss would be trumpeted nationally by a hostile media as a failure and falsly proclaimed as a symptom of a fading candidacy. (6) The fix is in - Rubio is Walker's VP choice when Walker inevitably becomes the nominee. (7) The statement makes RW look uninformed, prejudiced, and lacking is a basic understanding of American presidential electoral politics. (8) Walker's statement this early to TIME magazine is as good as a declaration of candidacy. nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 05:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

America is doomed[edit]

Not because any of these is gonna become President, but because every single one of these moronic egotrippers is a prominent, wealthy, influential citizen of the USA. When you have a great number of people like this in positions of power, you should be afraid. You should be very afraid. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Find me one country where there aren't rich nutters. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 18:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not just that they're there, but that there's so many of them, and they're out in the open. I'm not an expert on every country in the world, but for a Western country considered part of the civilized world, the extent of their influence and nuttiness in the US seems quite unprecedented. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@fuzzycatopotoe Andorra maybe? Is there some country that doesn't have any rich people?SolPyre (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's not that there are plenty of rich people that's worrying, but the fact that a democratic system which was supposed to reflect some form of one man one vote ideal seems to produce leading politicians who are all wealthy and upper class. I don't know if polls have been conducted on this question, but it would be interesting to contrast the share of US voters who think that rich people make for better leaders and the median and spread of income of Members of Congress, Presidents etc., especially in comparison with those of "Middle America". ScepticWombat (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
*excuse me as I insert my two cents about publicly funding elections* WalkerWalkerWalker 08:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Publicly funded elections which are called 4 weeks in advance of the polling date. Problem solved.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Image of a clown car[edit]

Cartoon

As everyone on this site is calling the Republican Party nomination a clown car (including me), could someone find a picture of a clown car we can include here (you know, license and stuff, or else I'd just upload something from Google Images and use the fair use or whatever license)?--Arisboch (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikmedia commons delivers... it isn't the classic tiny car disgorging an unrealistic number of bodies, sad to say. Slurm und Drang (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's awesome, too. Didn't think they had such a picture.--Arisboch (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Call me a concern troll, but Bobby Jindal's caricature in that seems racially insensitive. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Big Chief Monk Boudreaux
Perhaps you'd be less concerned if you knew what it was referencing? It's the costume worn by African American carnival participants in the New Orleans Mardi Gras. They are known as the Mardi Gras IndiansWikipedia's W.svg. Bongolian (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh, that clears it up. Thanks. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The ironic thing[edit]

Republicans have 16 candidates because for the most part there is very little light between them on the issues. What slight differences may exist -- Paul versus the rest of them on the merits of unending Middle Eastern war -- get backpedaled, and Paul has disappointed by doing so much backpedaling. More importantly, just about any Republican with some kind of national name recognition, and some with none, feels no qualms about becoming a candidate. There's no risk that any of them will damage the party in the actual election by dividing the base; the base is united about pretty much everything. The Republican base has many, many ideological litmus tests and each candidate must check all the boxes. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore joined[edit]

Anybody got anything on this guy? I never heard of him until today. Regardless, the ex-governor of Virginia has thrown his hat into the already crowded ring. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oi vey, now my bracket needs a play-in game. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Ehrlich[edit]

The former Governor of Maryland, who lost to Martin O'Malley, will not run for the Presidency.Serocco 07:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The who with the what now? It all be for naught anyway, as all will be trumped by Trump. Stupidity 2016! But anyway. Whoever gets nominated by the once great old party matters little as (s)he is getting clobbered in the general regardless. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The polls - the same "name of the week" as last time around?[edit]

I wonder if the Top 3 of Trump/Fiorina/Carson is simply the first round of the "name of the week" stuff we saw in the 2012 Republican race where any number of contenders would rise to the top of the list only to disappear just as quickly. Any thoughts on whether that's what we're seeing again? ScepticWombat (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. But back thaen every single one of those names of the week was the "anti-Romney". I can't see who the Romney is this time around... Jeb might have been it at the beginning, but right now it looks more likely he'll drop out thaen poll well enough in one the early states to gain momentum (a friend of mine always says: Don't talk about momentum. If you talk about momentum, it is gone) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I might agree with Avenger on that, in that the 2012 cycle was dominated by the anti-romney vs. Romney cycle, whereas this one is a bit more open field. We should wait and see--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush?[edit]

The top Googled phrase for Jeb Bush is "Is Jeb Bush still running?" and nobody has cared about Jeb for ages. I think it's fair to take him out of the "could win" category. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ehh, he has a good lead in endorsements. I wouldn't count him out just yet. As the primaries approach it's not inconceivable that the moneyed Republican establishment could coalesce behind him if they start seriously fearing a Carson or Trump nomination. You've got to remember it's still really early. Only people who are really into politics (e.g., people who edit wiki pages about politics) are paying any sustained attention. Suggested reading. --Ymir (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead in the water[edit]

I'd be more prone to put Christie there than Fiorina or Kasich to be honest. Still plenty of time for people's popularity to fluctuate either way. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

George Pataki[edit]

The former three term New York Governor has announced his departure from the race. A little bit sad, because he was pretty sane (basically a Democrat), but he's better off being a Democrat stooge. Serocco 23:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Some pruning needed?[edit]

I can't be the only one who thinks this article has slowly filled with unreadable, rambling walls of text. Vulpius (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. It can be reworked, but a lot of it is relevant information. Serocco 04:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
We're still separating the wheat from the chaff. We want to keep it readable but also leave room for others to participate... By the caucus we should probably have it in better order. Plutoniumboss (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cruz eligibility[edit]

The section on Cruz includes this little gem: "Well, if he can even legally be president, since there's still no clear answer. How's that for irony?"

May I humbly suggest RationalWiki should not embrace the lowbrow xenophobia that the right wing has aimed at Obama for the last eight years? The referenced URL (at PolitiFact) doesn't do much to support the claim either, stating "Most legal scholars maintain that Cruz is in the clear despite his Canadian birthplace... The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that 'natural born' citizenship means citizenship held 'at birth.'" There's really no point in adding a birtherish sneer at Cruz, and it makes us look as shallow, xenophobic, and fact-resistant as the people this wiki exists to refute and criticize.Heywood (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If Ted Cruz can't take the heat, he (and his dominionist father) should stay out of the kitchen ("Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz's Father, Told Tea Partiers Obama Should Go 'Back To Kenya'")[2]. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't actually answer my point, unless you're trying to say "Why yes, liberals SHOULD be as racist as the modern GOP." Heywood (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's lowbrow xenophobia, at least not when we do it. The liberals that are challenging Ted Cruz's eligibility are doing so not from a racist or bigoted perspective; they're doing it because they don't want him to be president, and that's a pretty good reason. He should not be president. Regardless, his mother was a Canadian citizen as well, and his father was not an American citizen. He was also born on foreign soil. There's a pretty legitimate question to be raised there with regards to his eligibility, especially if a successful suit can stop his campaign. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, one could argue that the xenophobia was built into the Constitution at least on that one point of who could be POTUS ("natural born"). The Framers wanted to keep out foreign interlopers, and probably especially Tories (many of whom — post facto ironically — became Canadians), from running the country. Cruz's former law professor, a constitutional scholar no less, has argued that the more originalist one is about the Constitution, the more one has to doubt about Cruz's eligibility to become POTUS (and also implying that Ted Cruz is very much an originalist). Bongolian (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
If I can interject: Heywood, calm your tits. This is not Reddit. The article is neither pro- nor anti-: It is a statement of fact that Cruz, the GOP's last hope of averting a Trump nomination, has inherited the same "birthers" who attacked Obama for eight years. What's more, Cruz is a "natural born" Canadian by his own definition. This is a salient point and, I would argue, essential to the story of this campaign. If you still can't appreciate the irony, then I suggest you scan Ted Cruz's page on RW, which reinforces his claim to the US Presidency. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This isn't about xenophobia - it's about the law. I made a point here that has yet to receive a reply. IANAL, but the law seems pretty clear. It comes down to his mother's residency in the USA. Was she resident in the USA for long enough after her 14th birthday to qualify him as a citizen? If so, Cruz is a citizen. If not, he isn't. There's nothing xenophobic in that. rpeh •TCE 21:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Rubio "dead in the water"?[edit]

Yeah, he had a crap night last night, but I wouldn't pull the plug on him until some of the bigger southern states -- and states with Hispanic populations -- have had their say. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well when you are the stablishment GOP's hopeful and you finish fifth after getting third in Iowa then you are going to be abandoned by the establishment. All of that big money will now be going to Kasich who has campaigned slightly to the left of Rubio.--Owlman (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
He's not done yet. rpeh •TCE 23:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I laughed at Kasich and Rubio switching places all of a sudden. It's like the primary only just started, and the last 6 months were meaningless, clown car bullshit. What a waste of time and money. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think Kasich should be there, but I just feel uncomfortable not putting someone against Trump besides Cruz.--Owlman (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Trump[edit]

Since Trump is one of the biggest domestic and international stories for coming months, I suggest we clean up some of the inaccuracies and errant talking points that have crept into this article. A sampling:

  • Trump and his ilk are very much the product of conservative talk radio, Fox News, and the GOP itself

Trump is at war with Fox News and the GOP establishment.

  • not even a close primary: he beat Rubio in his home state by like 30 points

The Florida primary is not until March 15th.

  • Refuses to pledge not to run against the eventual nominee as a third-party candidate.

Not true. [3]

  • "candor" is seen as a positive among conservatives

Support from "conservatives" for Trump in any context should be used cautiously; thus far, Conservative Republicans are the only group who have expressed a willingness to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to oppose him (the evil Koch Brothers and the right-wing National Review). Trump revived the "Republicans want to throw Grandma from the cliff" rhetoric. Ironically Trump core supporters are Democrats. Bernie Sanders says he targets, appeals to, and has been successful with the same demographic group. Note: these are not traditional, right-wing, conservative GOP voters.

In this period of insurgency and realignment within the Parties, I would suggest we clean up the more obvious misstatements and be cautious about leaning on stereotypes of older constituencies, voting groups, and ideological blocs. nobsLewinsky 2020 20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Gilmore dropped out[edit]

And apparently we did not even mention it... Pizzameister (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just like in 2012, he apparently never did any real campaigning and most people never even heard of him. His two presidential campaigns were most bizarre, given his record of failure in his home state of Virginia. I wonder why he bothered at all. Is there such as thing as a "vanity campaign"? --Cosmikdebris (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't Virginia the state where all Presidents used to come from? Yeah his campaign was bizarre, though in his defense he seems to have replied to more Rachel Maddow RFCs than any other GOP candidate... Pizzameister (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's right next door to D.C, with lots of farmland. And traveling by carriage through that swampy wilderness was not hygienic or fun. So it makes sense that so many Presidential farms are located in northern VA. Adams kept his place in New England, and the distance definitely played a role in his usurpation by Hamilton. I used to live in VA; it was a lot more relevant to national politics back when it was a blue state. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hasn't it gone blue in a couple of recent elections? Mostly due to Washington people living in VA? Pizzameister (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope so. It's good to have you back, Mark Warner. He's the counter-argument to "businessmen make bad politicians." Plutoniumboss (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)