Election 2016

Carly Fiorina Takes Rand Paul's Place in Republican Top 10

But Donald Trump continues to dominate the GOP field, with Ben Carson capturing second place.

|

DonkeyHotey/Flickr

Donald Trump continues to dominate the 2016 GOP presidential field in terms of mass appeal, earning 28 percent support from Republican and Republican-leaning voters in a new Quinnipiac University National Poll. Coming in second, with 12 percent, is newly top-tier candidate Ben Carson, while Jeb Bush and Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Florida) rounded out the top five with 7 percent support each. 

Notably, Trump also tops the hell-no list for conservative voters—26 percent say they would "definitely not" vote for him—while Carson has the least definitely-nots of any GOP candidate (5 percent). Meanwhile Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was anathema to 14 percent of the conservative crowd, despite polling low in the support category (2 percent). 

The overall makeup of the Republican top 10 has changed little since the stratified Fox News debate August 6, with one exception. Carly Fiorina—widely agreed to have "won" Fox's junior-varsity presidential debate—has found her way from the also-running crowd to the A-list, while Paul—who received the least talk time of any of the top candidates during the first debate—has slipped to 11th place in this new poll. Fiorina received 5 percent support, as did Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee also fell below Fiorina and Kasich in the new poll. Here are the complete GOP-roster results:

Quinnipiac University

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton still leads, with support from 45 percent of Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters—though this is down from 55 percent in July. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders now claims 22 percent popularity among liberals, with Vice President Joe Biden close behind him at 18 percent. Clinton's support was markedly higher among women (50 percent versus 38 percent), while Sanders supporters lean more male (29 percent versus 16 percent).

Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb each scored one percent support from Democratic respondents. Eleven percent said they're undecided, which was the same percentage of undecided GOP respondents. 

When asked if they had to vote today between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, Clinton came out on top—but just barely—with 42 percent of the vote, compared to Bush's 40 percent. Ten percent said they wouldn't vote.

Clinton fared worst among older adults in this hypothetical hell of an election, with only 39 percent of those 65 and older going for her (compared to 48 percent for Bush). Boomers and Gen X'ers split pretty evently among the two candidates, but millennials were much more likely to go for Clinton (49 percent versus 30 percent). Blacks were also strongly pro-Clinton—only 3 percent of black respondents said they would vote for Bush. Fifty-five percent of Hispanic respondents said they would vote for Clinton, versus 35 percent for Bush. 

Clinton also came out on top in hypothetical runs against Trump and Rubio. Biden and Sanders also won in imaginary match-ups against Trump, Rubio, and Bush. 

Advertisement

NEXT: A bit of Internet history, or how two members of Congress helped create a trillion or so dollars of value

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Notably, Trump also tops the hell-no list for conservative voters?26 percent say they would “definitely not” vote for him…

    So, there’s that.

    1. Idk. I’m leaning towards a blow this bitch up vote for Trump. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. Just as things can always get worse, they can always get better. Don’t be part of the problem, be the solution. Help make America palatable again. Don’t vote for Trump for anything.

        1. No.

          1. I see what is going on here. The Mrs. must be a hot broad with sweet cans, and because of her sweet can-ness, she would vote for Trump. Trump gets the hot broad vote. If you dislike hot broads and America, then you are not on Team Trump (and you are probably a 3).

            1. Exactly. I want America to get the president we deserve.

              1. Good and hard?

        2. You sound like a republican candidate for president. “Don’t be part of the problem, be the solution.” So….don’t vote republican? Or don’t vote for an established politician? Vote the lesser of two evils, at least we’ll have an evil that is not as evil as the evil that is not as less? Funny thing about voting for the “lesser of two evils,” your vote is cast for an evil.

          1. That’s not actually very funny, honestly.

            1. No, it’s sad.

      2. The issue I have with this is how many people voted for Obama because they wanted to “Punish republicans.” This didn’t work well then, and it won’t work now.

    2. The same 26% that voted for Romney? How’d that work out?

      1. Wait, people voted for Romney and not against Obama?

        1. +1 The lesser of two evils

          I’m not doing that again. I WANNA PULL THE LEVER FOR EVIL!1!

          The only remaining question is who’s more evil Trump or Clinton?

          1. If your’e going evil then go all out, vote trump for prez and pencil in clinton as vice prez.

          2. Chelsea.

          3. I WANNA PULL THE LEVER FOR EVIL!1!

            Is nominally *and* purely, maliciously evil on the ballot somewhere? I feel like with all the unintended consequences and bald-faced lies, that an out-and-out evil politician might be the way to go. Trump seems too genuinely self-interested, grandstanding, and not evil enough.

            I’m talking about somebody who 100% buys into the fact that cronyism is the only way they will get things done. Someone who runs on a platform of giving government money to the rich and fucking the little guy, prioritizing the violent-felon immigrants and guaranteeing them a minimum wage, and taking guns out of the hands of anyone that voted against him. Trump, Sanders, even Clinton, good or bad, seem to ideological. I wanna vote for someone who just wants to blow up a school bus full of Nuns or mandate that every public soup kitchen, once a year, shoots one of it’s ‘customers’.

            It just seems like you end up paying Mexican immigrants to burn down orphanages or get a Congress/SCOTUS/electorate that is strongly opposed to and spends all of it’s time creating policy against paying Mexican immigrants to burn down orphanages.

            1. Newsletter, do you even have one? And, how do I subscribe?

        2. Ok, then the 26% who will vote against trump voted against obama. How did that work out? Yea, that works too.

        3. I voted for binders. Sounds cozy

  2. Now if we could just add a relegation system to the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB.

    1. This

    2. What’s that? When the last place team gets demoted?

      1. Yup. Split the leagues in two, for example the NFL has 32 teams. Put four teams (selected by some metric) into the relegation league. They play a full season against each other and the winner gets to play the last place team in the main league and if they beat them they switch leagues.

        You can play with the numbers if you want like having six or eight teams in the relegation league and more than one team has a chance at moving up but the principle is the same.

        And if you wanted something even more exciting allow people to freeboot their way into the league. The four teams in the relegation league can be joined by up to four other teams that are not currently in the NFL. To play they have to abide by all the rules but if one wins the relegation league and then beats the bottom team in the main league they get to buy the franchise rights of the team they beat and replace that team, personnel and all, (though minus the name and logos and such) in the main league.

  3. What about millennials?

  4. When asked if they had to vote today between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush…

    Poll respondents opted to eat a bullet.

    1. You know who else opted to eat a bullet?

  5. Of course CNN is using the earlier polls to justify excluding Fiorina from their debate, likely to protect Hillary’s perceived vagina advantage.

    1. Ooo! Good band name, “The Vagina Advantage.”

      1. Oh! I took it as the advantage she receives from the fact that she, conceptually, has a vagina.

  6. Sweet! But will Fiorina get to participate in the next ‘grown-up’ debates? I suspect CNN will fabricate a reason to keep her out because they know she’d trounce Hillary in any debate. Although I align more with Paul, he comes across poorly and doesn’t articulate his message well–not even to those who agree with him.

    1. Wish we could get RP this advice

      “Just tell ’em you’re gonna soak the fat boys and forget the rest of the tax stuff…Willie, make ’em cry, make ’em laugh, make ’em mad, even mad at you. Stir them up and they’ll love it and come back for more, but, for heaven’s sakes, don’t try to improve their minds.”
      ? Robert Penn Warren, All the King’s Men

      1. Trump is following that strategy

        1. Because it works. And I really wish someone would light a fire under his ass (NB to DOJ: Not literally!) and explain that abstract discussions of economics or analyses of The Federalist Papers bore the average American. There’s a place for intellect but he’s going to need more.

          1. Did Obama use that strategy?

            How about Jimmy Carter?

            How about Rand Paul in 2010?

            How about Ron Paul, he who won not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8, not 9, not 10, not 11, but 12, yeah, count em’, 12 congressional races?

            Yes, sometimes that may work; more often than not, not so much.

            1. Did Obama use that strategy?

              Yes we can.

              Yes We Can

              YES WE CAN!!!

              because, We are the ones we’ve been waiting for

            2. How about Jimmy Carter?

              How could I be a crook? I’m a Christian

            3. It’s kind of relative, I mean, Carter was up against Gerald Ford. Sand is more interesting than Ford ever was.

              1. Oh yeah?! I’d like to see sand try and navigate airstairs as entertainingly as Ford!

      2. don’t try to improve their minds.

        Except I don’t think Paul ever attempted this. There are many cogent and persuasive arguments in favor of a more Libertarian nation, but he doesn’t make them. Usually he just preaches to the choir and has lost more support than he’s gained. Would love to vote for him for President, but that’s the end of a tough road that he doesn’t appear capable of traversing. But he’s still young and maybe he’ll be ready for a future election.

        1. “Usually he just preaches to the choir…”

          Maybe that is because he’s more a part of the choir than not.

        2. Not directly, but his overall presentation comes across as pretty damn dull. Of the critiques I’ve seen of him around the web, the words “lecture”, “stodgy”, “abstract” and “intellectual” come up a lot.

          1. God forbid we elect an ‘intellectual’ President. I know Obama presents himself as one, but he’s clearly not.

            1. It’s about presentation. As much of an asshole Trump is – he’s no dummy. Everything he’s doing is shrewdly calculated to draw attention and it’s not just him getting lucky on one fuckup to the next. Politics has always been that way.

              Paul is intellectual, but he’s getting bogged down in details and boring the shit out of everyone by trying to explain and perusade and seek nuance. He’s never going to get anywhere near where his intellect will do him any good if he keeps up like this.

              1. Running for President is the ultimate high-stakes competition and the slightest mistake can destroy a contender. Rand’s failure to stand out (in a good way) in the first debate doomed him as effectively as Howard Dean’s scream. He’s done for this cycle, but would like to see him try again in the future.

                1. I agree.

              2. Your first paragraph is interesting. He already said he “manipulated” politicos and demanded a return for his money. Makes me think this is the best way to get whatever he wants, the best way to manipulate his heir apparent. He promises to put his support and his voters to a candidate of his choice, for a price.

            2. RASCIST!

    2. I thought this as well, until last night. Rand was in town here in North Idaho and I got to hear him speak and shake his hand and get a picture afterwards. He is much more likable and personable in person than he is when he’s doing a filibusterer or an interview on TV. The message was a great message, simply, but he tied the issue together well and articulated his positions well and even contrasted his potions with examples of Dems and Repubes.

      I think his campaign is just fucked though. No one knew he was in town. He didn’t even fill up the venue which was a surprise. I know Rand Paul fans who didn’t know he was in town. The local skwspaper didn’t report it. I am on Rand’s email list and I didn’t get a notice. It was strange. Whoever should have been promoting that failed. Or, maybe they just don’t care because Idaho always goes Repube in the generals. IDK.

      1. If he’s a failure as a candidate, makes one wonder what he’d be as a president.

    3. 1. Were it not for the LP, Paul’s fake libertarianism would not get him an office-boy job in God’s Own Party. The tokenism can no longer be disguised is all.
      2. Brazil elected a woman president and US economic hitmen (and hitwoman) working for “both parties” are doing their utmost to destabilize her government like they did in Paraguay.
      Thanks to DemoGOP prohibitionist meddling, the US is about as popular as Satan in most of the land area of South America. Voting for a third party would help. Voting by chromosome count probably won’t. Then again, Robert Heinlein suggested it couldn’t possibly make matters any worse, other things held equal.

  7. Surely, CNN can stuff one more clown in the clown-car.

  8. I’m trying to remember who were the frontrunners in the Dem pack back in 2007. Because if I remember correctly, it wasn’t Obama.

    I mean, I know people like to get all excited over this dumbfuck horserace, but you’re just jerking yourselves off until the primaries at the very least.

    1. Yay! Circle jerk!

      1. Eating the cookie is good, right?

    2. All I remember is Obama, Edwards, and Hillary. Even now, I think Obama was the least-awful choice of those three.

      1. Wikipedia says the others were Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel, Kucinich, Bayh, Vilsack.

        1. Oh, no wonder I couldn’t remember the rest of them.

          1. I remember laughing about Dennis “We need a Department of Peace” Kucinich, who is also considered to be in the top ten or so of the worst mayors in American history.

            1. top ten or so of the worst mayors in American history

              Not to mention a notorious race baiter. He exploited the fears of the whites in Cleveland to get elected, and then he gave all the prime jobs in his cabinet to his college buddies (sound familiar?). I read a detailed article of precisely how he became mayor and how mind-boggling incompetent and corrupt his administration was. Total scumbag!

              1. Willie Horton level of race baiting?

                1. Far worse. He basically presented himself as the only hope for the white majority against the growing minority population in Cleveland. Some of the rhetoric was as bad as anything you’d see from the Klan or Aryans. But that kind of thing evidently doesn’t work on me because I didn’t vote for Bush in ’88 or ’92.

        2. Bill Richardson was a big favorite in these very comments. More popular than Ron Paul for a while. He was the “Great Libertarian Democrat Hope”. You can look it up.

          1. He had the Mexican thing going for him. If he added sodomy and weed, he’d have been the official Reason endorsement.

            1. I think he benefited from a bit of confusion with his predecessor, GayJay.

          2. He was the best of that bunch by far.

    3. you’re just jerking yourselves off

      What I do fourteen hours a day is my business.

      1. And here I thought Crusty was a Simpsons reference. Little did I know…

        1. I thought it was a Hot Fuzz reference.

          1. Never seen it.

            1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oJzmlu8DFA

              The aspect ratio on the video is off, but it’s the best I could find on short notice.

            2. It’s pretty damn funny.

              1. I should have chosen the name “movie reference.” You people would think so much more highly of me.

                1. You did pick a moniker I have mentally associated with thieves and dog muck…

                  1. What, recalling (UN)civil servants is better? You are associated with bureaucrats, snobby transcendentalists and asshole religious folks.

            3. I’ll have to check it out then.

            4. You should see it, if only for the Greater Good.

              1. *Intones*The Greater Good

                /cultic echo

    4. Wait how did you…

      /puts tape over web cam

      1. You laugh, but one of the internal IT guys at my old work used to call into people’s webcam when helping them, leading to tape over webcams. Because there was no way to accept or decline the call.*

        *I didn’t experience this myself so the last sentence is just what I heard.

    5. I know Clinton wasnt anywhere near the top in August 1991.

    6. Where the Election Stands: June 2007

      “New York Sen. Hillary Clinton established her lead among the Democratic candidates early in the process. Since January there have been two occasions when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who has been in second place during most of 2007, came within striking distance of Clinton in Gallup Polls, but she has otherwise maintained her lead, which has ranged from 9 to 19 percentage points. In Gallup’s latest poll, conducted June 11-14, 2007, Clinton leads Obama by 11 points among Democrats (33% to 21%).

      Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (a formally announced candidate) and former Vice President Al Gore (who has not ruled out a bid but has said he has no plans to run at this time) have been competitive for third place among Democrats. Each has the support of at least 10% of Democrats, not too far behind Obama, but there has been little indication that either Gore or Edwards (let alone the other Democrats who will campaign for the nomination) are making significant enough gains to challenge Clinton.”

      The point i think is notable is the fact that Hillary had a ~20% lead over obama at times in 2007, which evaporated only shortly before the primaries in 2008. As of late 2007, she was still considered the lead, but after the first primaries in January she lost 3 in a row, and was trailing consistently after that.

      1. Great, but we’re almost into September.

  9. I don’t see why Trump couldn’t eat up the supporters of Carson and about 12 of the other guys. It’s not like they’re against crazy. Oh well, there’s always a chance he’ll eat a fetus on live TV.

    1. Embrios! Breakfast of champions!

      1. This Embrios, whoever the hell he is, keeps taking our jobs and should be deported!

        1. It’s a breakfast cereal made from genuine fetuses! Yum!

        2. I’m not certain that changing the euphemism to “deporting the embryo” will get conservatives on board for abortion rights…

    2. He does have enough money to buy considerable inventory from PP.

    3. You didn’t stick around very long in yesterdays thread once you stirred up the gun debate. How come? Don’t like when your narrative is broken to pieces?

      1. He uses Reasonable to block all facts that counter his preconceptions. He never even sees these comments.

      2. I get really agitated in gun debates. One, I don’t actually have all the answers, two, you people are all freaking crazy.

        1. You also get really destroyed in gun debates, much like every other debate you’re involved in.

        2. Also, the answers you DO have are wrong.

        3. How can you get agitated over a discussion of an inanimate object? What other inanimate objects make you agitated? Oh, cars, right…what else? Golf balls? Hammers? Furniture?

  10. Good to see Bush down to 7%. His unfavorability is second only to Trump. Time to treat him like a minor “vanity” candidate.

    1. They’re all vanity candidates.

      1. Not Bernie!
        He’s doing it for LOVE (of the little people).

        1. Which can also be a form of vanity….

          1. *cough! MOTHER TERESA!!! *cough!

        2. Definitely a form of vanity

  11. Rand should just put himself out of his misery. I’ll still vote for him in the primary if he makes it that far, but he’s been a huge disappointment. I was hoping for a more polished version of his old man, but he’s come across as being smarmy and wishy-washy. I have no faith in his ability to turn it around. Just go back to the senate and be a lone voice of sanity (sometimes).

    1. “…he’s come across as being smarmy and wishy-washy…”

      You mean a typical politician.

    2. He tried to be too many things to too many constituencies. And in the process lost them all.

      Tried being a liberty candidate in the mold of his dad. Tried being a religious evangelical. Tried being the guy that would bring minorities into the GOP. Tried being a sensible non-interventionist who still wants to engage and have a role in the world.

      He ended up losing each and every one.

  12. Rand Paul is strongest with the Tea Party and Born Again Evangelicals. Moderate/liberal Republicans think he’s a douche.

    1. I think Cruz is taking a lot of Rand’s potential support.

    2. Libertarianism is seen as a threat by both left and right.

      Reason if you are going to give me the auto-play ads just do a pop up instead of scrolling me to the top of the page 5 times in the middle of a comment. And you don’t need to reply the same ad over and over. argh!

      1. Libertarianism is seen as a threat joke by both left and right.

        FTFY. Seriosuly, you guys aren’t taken seriously.

        1. Yeah, that’s why they always go out of the way to blame every problem on libertarians. The right knows they’re losing on socon issues. The left knows they’re losing on socialism. Unfortunately those issues are all that differentiates them with their insane bases.

          I’m outta here. I’m done fighting this ads.

          1. Yeah, that’s why they always go out of the way to blame every problem on libertarians

            I have never once witnessed this behaviour that I can recall. I’ve only ever seen them blaming “the other side” and ignoring you guys.

            1. Then you should open your eyes.

          2. And what is the libertarianish Rand Paul losing on? The “free market cure all?”

            1. And what is the libertarianish Rand Paul losing on?

              Having all the charisma of a limp trout.

              1. And that.

              2. Rand needs a Hollywood Makeover, so he can strut into the next debate in a fashionable new suit and haircut to some sort of hip WWE-style theme and smackdown a bewildered Donald Trump.

            2. Most people are suspicious of “unregulated”, well, anything. I think that suspicion is wildly misplaced, but that doesn’t change the reality. And even when they realize that a light touch from government is good in one area, it rarely transfers beyond that.

              Getting people to come around to libertarian ideas requires someone who can help them get over those suspicions. I thought Rand might be able to do that, at least on certain issues. He doesn’t seem to be doing too well.

              I don’t want to play the card that the parties do and just blather on about how it is all about messaging, but I do think that is a big issue for libertarians. We’re seen as crazy extremists. You need someone who can articulate why that isn’t the case through the right combination of optimism, charisma, appeal to emotion, and well reasoned concrete examples of where liberty makes things better.

              1. Well said.

        2. Agree with you are Uncivilservant.

          The idea that the Tea Party is some wonderful collaboration between libertarians and conservatives is bullshit. The TP is team red neocons who thought changing their name would garner them more votes.

          1. The Tea Party was a response to the uncontrolled spending by Bush 2 and Obama. The House was taken back by the Republicans, with the Tea Party’s influence in many races. Then the House did shit. And now the response is Trump.

            Where do we go after Trump fails?

            1. The Tea Party was a response to the uncontrolled spending by Bush 2 and Obama. The House was taken back by the Republicans, with the Tea Party’s influence in many races. Then the House did shit. And now the response is Trump.

              Where do we go after Trump fails?

              This is right.

              The establishment GOP is getting what it deserves. They failed to address the concerns of their constituents. They deserve to get their asses whipped by Trump. Trump is the GOP blowing itself up. Boo hoo.

              1. Pre-trib or post-trib?

            2. Where do we go after Trump fails?

              Sometimes you need to burn down the village to save the village. Those new commercially available flamethrowers will come in handy.

            3. what outranks a trump?

              1. Flipping the table the fuck over and leaving?

              2. A Joker? I mean, there’s plenty of those in the deck

              3. Well, a 2 of Spades will do for this one.

          2. The TP is team red neocons

            The whole point of the TP was to focus on economic issues. Neocon/socon/whatever didnt matter as long as you were fiscally conservative.

        3. That’s not “fixed.” Both can be true. We’re a joke because we have little to no popular support. If we did have more support, we would be a threat to both left and right. Do you disagree?

      2. Why are you not using adblock or ublock?

        1. He wants to finance reason the painful way.

          (Or is on a work computer.)

          1. This is what happens with me.

            Stupid lack of admin install privileges. But it’s smart really. If they gave me those privileges I’d end up playing MS Flight Simulator X via Steam all day.

    3. Depends on how you define “moderate/liberal Republican.”

      The big gripe I see about him on Free Republic is lack of hawkishness and his lack of love for Israel. Those people ain’t moderates/liberal Republicans.

      1. I’m going off the poll numbers Elizabeth posted.

    4. Sadly, the Tea Party supports Trump much more than Paul. Even much more than Cruz (26% to 13%).

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015…..referrer;=

      The chickens have one home to roost with all that fascination with the Tea Party a few years ago.

      1. That implies that Trumpism is a consequence of Reason’s sympathy for the TP around 2010. note that there is no evidence for this. It’s just something you like to say. You are stupid.

  13. I had posted this late the other night. I would not vote for Carly but I think she will do well. Her CEO experience will translate I think well into running for President although not necessarily being President. It’s all about sales, presentation, preparation, obfuscation, etc. Doesn’t even matter that she wasn’t that successful at it. She developed all those skills getting to that position.

    1. I started to pay attention to her when she fucks with Seth Meyers about carlyfiorina.org

      1. She got my attention when she started talking about zero-based budgeting.
        Sweet talk me more, Carly. I could be had for zero-based budgeting and an education voucher system. I’m very, very easy at this point.

        1. I’m very, very easy at this point.

          go on….

      2. Seth Meyers proves his vast ignorance of economics and ethics simultaneously.

      3. I don’t watch talk shows so I didn’t know about her trolling of Seth Meyers until I looked it up just now after seeing your comment, but that’s funny. The butthurt in the comments of the article was tasty too. http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..06697.html “OMG, so petty and thin-skinned. Not presidential at all!” So you admit Obama isn’t presidential?

        1. “OMG, so petty and thin-skinned. Not presidential at all!” So you admit Obama isn’t presidential?

          Most of the people here say the same thing about Trump.

          1. And they’d be right.

            1. I’m luvin your tears, keep em coming.

              1. WHYCOME FAGGOTS NOT LUV MUH TRUMP

                1. Cytotoxic just needs him the Trump Rump. He is a bit of a Trump Gump himself.

                  …keep your stick on the ice, Cyto.

    2. The CEOs job is seldom to be in the trenches fighting the fight with the rest of the execs. Her job at a company like Hewlett-Packard or wherever the fuck she worked, would be to drive up the stock price and make shareholders happy enough that their investments multiply. It might not be fair to blame her totally for the missteps of the company during that tenure, you’d have to know more about the structure of the company and the roles of the executive officers. One of these days I’ll care enough to read more about her supposed failures as a CEO.

      1. The fact she worked her way up to CEO from a lowly secretary is what I find most impressive. She was handed the reigns of HP right before the tech bubble burst, and in spite of those screaming “she destroyed HP!”, HP is still alive and well–possibly due to her. No way to know if her leadership ‘destroyed’ or ‘saved’ HP without venturing into a parallel universe. But that’s what a leader does: they step up, make tough decisions, and own the consequences. I think that describes Fiorina rather well.

        1. own the consequences

          I think part of the problem is people don’t feel that she (or most CEOs) really do that. Right or wrong, the perspective is that somebody who walks away with millions of dollars from a company that’s hemorrhaging people and money hasn’t “owned the consequences”.

          1. Did she walk away or was she replaced? All I know is I’ve never heard her make excuses about her time at HP or blame her predecessors (unlike someone else we all know) for why things didn’t go better.

            1. (unlike someone else we all know)

              Hitler?

            2. She was fired from HP.

              http://www.bloomberg.com/polit…..tt-packard

              That is her take on it, at least.

        2. I voted for her once before and would do so again.

          1. You and I were probably the only ones. Then again, I would have voted for a fence post over Boxer.

            1. Short of maybe Tom McClintock, she’s probably the single best GOP candidate I’ve ever had the chance to vote for for a California statewide office.

              1. She was a terrible candidate, her message was nothing like what shes saying now.

                1. I don’t entirely disagree, but let’s be fair.

                  She could’ve singlehandedly invented a time machine and gone back in time to kill Hitler and prevent the holocaust and she could have been running against someone who consumes the flesh of disabled orphans on live television and she still would’ve lost because there was an “R” next to her name on a California ballot.

                  1. still would’ve lost because there was an “R” next to her name on a California ballot.

                    This is absolutely true. Fiorina had virtually no backing by the Republicans (typical for California candidates who seldom win) while Boxer had the media on her side as well as nearly unlimited cash. Yet some people hold this up as an example of why she can’t win a national election. Huh? I applaud her for taking the chance and coming in as close as she did.

                  2. True, but that’s why she should have run as a small government conservative. You’re going to lose anyway – trying to pander to care bears just destroys your credibility along the way.

                    And you never know – lightning could strike and a conservative could get elected. Turn out in 12 in CA was pretty low – not least because a lot the reps I know didn’t even bother to vote because they thought all the headline races were douches (no sexism intended).

              2. Also a big fan of McClintock. He would have made a much better Governor than Arnold, but he didn’t have the fame or name recognition and lost the recall election.

                1. It’s really a shame – he could have revitalized the republican party in CA had he won.

    3. She’ll ultimately be recruited by Trump as a VP candidate because she doesn’t have an overshadowing personality, business background, and a vagina to help him paper over his issues there.

      She’ll do the right thing and decline.

      1. This seems unlikely since Trump has already taken jabs at Fiorina. I think it’d be a smart move for him, but we’ll see…

        1. At this point, I kinda consider it a foregone conclusion that Trump gets the nomination. The field is that weak and he can finance himself. Seeing who Trump goes to for the VP nod and early potential advisors/cabinet ministers is going to be one of the most entertaining carnivals there is.

          Seriously, at this point I’m working the phones to try lining myself up a spot in his administration.

          1. Get a job trying to increase level of top flight talent on the Supreme Court.

            1. Obama wanted to appoint wise latinas.

              I just wanna appoint latinas that can read the weather.

          2. He’s going to pick Carson. He’ll use that and immigration as wedge issues to spit / suppress blacks from the democrat base – which will leave them (the dims) truly fucked.

          3. Really? Guiliani was in the lead 4 years ago too.

            1. Enthusiasm matters more than numbers.

              The enthusiasm for Trump is something I’ve not seen for a candidate leading in the polls for awhile.

  14. Well, the important thing is that, going forward, I trust that Carly won’t bleed from her eyes, or from her….whatever….

    1. I really want Trump to call her something nasty and misogynistic in a live debate. I want her comeback to be “Trump” his comment though.

      1. “Would you trust a woman who had both her tits chopped off?”

        1. OH SNAP

        2. Damn, Nikki. You hard, girl.

        3. Trump is far more comfortable trusting women who’ve had her tits added on.

        4. This is why I only read my own comments.

        5. Would you trust a woman who had both her tits chopped off?

          Would.

          1. Don’t care. Had sex.

            /CrustyJuggler

  15. If nothing else, it would be comical seeing a Biden or Sanders vs Fiorina after Hillary implodes what with all of the vagina voters would be tripping over themselves as they backtracked.

    1. You’re going to see biden take off in the polls, he’ll take some of sanders supporters and the party is looking to ditch clinton. People like biden, he’s like your bumbling old grandpa. He has the experience, he has the knowledge, he knows how to talk to people. He’s an extension of obamas policies but he will be a contender.

      1. I have said many times, including here, that Biden is the greatest hope for America. Not because he will be a great president, but becuase he can beat Hillary, and that is ALL that matters, imo.

        I won’t be happy unless she is sent to federal prison and tried for treason.

  16. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  17. Meanwhile Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was anathema to 14 percent of the conservative crowd, despite polling low in the support category (2 percent).

    I guess moderating his positions didn’t work out too well. No one told him!

  18. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  19. Yikes. As has been pointed out here MANY times, Paul didn’t receive less time in the first debate…he elected to use less of the time allotted to him with short answers. You’re whining as much as Trump about unfair treatment.

    1. Your comments are always right on point. I like you. Do you want to hangout sometime?

      1. Thanks for the complement (they’re few and far between), but no.

        1. Hey joe, would you like to hang out? I think you’re dreamy and I would absolutely not steal your keys and push your car into a river.

          1. Hey, you never offered to do this with me, you cocktease!

            1. He didn’t know that you were interested in drowning in the trunk of your car.

        2. *compliment.

          You are welcome. Give it some thought: you, me and a large oatmeal raisin cookie. Think about it.

          1. Me spell good one day.

                1. That’s dumb even for you, joe. You realize that you’re a gigantic moron, right?

    2. Drunk already, joe? At least tell us it’s just beer and not your usual Goldschlager/Kahlua/vermouth mixture.

      1. Hey, leave the Golden Russians out of this.

        1. Exactly. Joe would never indulge anything this cool

        2. Hey, there’s a disgusting beverage here, man!

        3. Aw hell, “Golden Russians” sounds like something kinky that Cyborg would bring up.

      2. Do you suppose his alcoholism is why his wife left him? Or maybe it was the fact that he’s a substitute teacher.

        1. Do you think that he “is smart enough to be embarrassed at how stupid he is”?

          1. Oh, no. No way. You remember joe from the old times. No way.

            1. Joe would not appreciate the brilliance of your phrase which, true to my word, you will note, is in quotations.

              Warty, I even told my wife about your phrase and she tells me that I have already overused it.

              1. I’m not good for a whole lot, but occasionally I come up with a phrase that someone on here loves. I remember The Wine Commonsewer really liking it when I said something to the effect that I wished Ron Paul would stop infecting me with his horrible optimism.

        2. Do you actually think he’s still got the substitute job? I figure he has to be down to doing impersonations of (drunk) Tyrion Lannister at children’s birthday parties at this point.

          WHERE DO WHORES GO, CHILDREN? (burp)

          1. On TV news?

            1. Sucking dick all the way to the top? I know that’s what I did! I mean…would do! Shit!

      3. Epi, everyone knows that joe’s preferred drink is a shot of Grenadine.

        1. I thought he liked small beer.

          1. I would have said Night Train or Thunderbird, but I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

            1. GET IT??? BECAUSE HE’S SMALL?????

              1. Is this a dick joke or a height joke or a fat joke?

    3. Jackand Ace, are you Joe from Lowell?

      SECOND REQUEST

      1. Missed your first one. Actually, no, but I wouldn’t want to ruin everyone’s wet dream here.

        1. Well, you’re doing an impressive job of imitating joe’s smarmy pedantry and complete lack of substance, then.

          1. You’ll have to admit that there is this overwhelming paranoia around here about who commenters really are. It’s really quite amusing.

            1. “Overwhelming” is stretching it, but not outrageously so. “Paranoia” does not hit the mark; its more like a pronounced curiosity.

              1. YOU showed curiosity…you asked. Based on all the epithets hurled at me through this Joe, I would say it’s paranoia.

                1. Again, it’s probably because you do a really excellent job of having exactly the same faulty ideas and expressing them in the same obnoxious ways as that little, little man. Congratulations, i guess.

                  1. Thanks. However, I would read through all the comments starting with mine, and rate all of them on the obnoxious scale. It would be interesting to see your definition of the term.

                    1. I don’t think i’m gonna do that. Sorry!

                    2. Ok, enjoy your day!

  20. Being the establishment’s tool to attack Trump sure is working out great for Rand.

    1. Was it a stroke?

      1. That caused your decent into madness?

        Maybe, I thought it was just some roid od.

    2. Wait, what?

      1. Yeah, I’m not seeing that, either.

        1. Not seeing what?

          1. Any sign of intelligence on your part.

            1. Do have a substantive critique?

              I realize that ad hominem attacks make you feel better about yourself, but they’re not persuasive.

              1. Hilarious. You’re one of the dumbest idiots here. You don’t get to call for ‘substance’ when you have none.

          2. Not seeing that Rand is being an “establishment tool” by attacking Trump.

    3. Did a horse kick you in the head?

    4. Maybe untreated syphilis?

      1. Untreated syphilis tends to make for masterful philosophical dissertations.

    5. definitely early onset Alzheimer’s.

  21. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  22. Even if they did a handstand with Rand, it looks like it’s over for him. That’s what happens when you have a POS like Jesse Benton and crew running your campaign.

    I’m voting for freedom and liberty. Screw these politicians.

  23. Huckabee, Christie, Rubio all beat Paul.

    Fuck it.

    1. I’ll give credit to Christie for having the balls to discuss serious entitlement reform. It’s the biggest issue we have to be concerned about in both the near and long term but no one is ballsy enough to address it. Much as he’s anathema to me on most everything else, this alone puts him in my top five.

    2. The voters get what they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us get what the voters deserve, too.

  24. The media chooses the candidates by choosing the issues. They chose immigration. It was probably chosen as a way to kill off any minority support for a Republican. It’s clearly working, Trump is winning the Republican nomination and every single Democrat trounces Trump in the polls.

    It could backfire if minorities go ballistic on Trump and scare white people into voting as a block, the way minorities do.

    The media has convinced people that two losing wars don’t matter, privacy doesn’t matter, the Patriot Act doesn’t matter, the debt and the deficits don’t matter, ObamaCare doesn’t matter, a stagnant economy doesn’t matter. All that matters is Latino immigration. You’d think no other people come to America even though most immigrants are Asian.

    Rand Paul’s defense of privacy means nothing. Crony capitalism means nothing. 4000 dead soldiers means nothing.

    Liberty means even less in the world of Trump vs Biden.

    1. Trump’s ascent is the logical consequence of the Left’s long embrace of identity politics. The SJWs and institutional Left played the identity politics game forever without ever thinking there’d come a point where white people felt the need to form a white identity bloc.

    2. The media didn’t choose immigration. Conservative morons did.

      1. Two years ago immigration took a back seat to ObamaCare, the deficit/debt and NSA spying. Suddenly, there are stories of immigrant murderers and rapists, the same thing that the media previously reported, if at all, as just plain murders and rapes. It seemed that there were dozens of articles about how the media was suppressing the races of the killers and rapists. Suddenly, race matters?

        No doubt that “conservative morons” jumped at the bait but they didn’t lay the bait out, that was the media. Fox started it but when the left media saw the visceral reaction of both the conservative racists and the minority racists they knew they had discovered electoral gold. ObamaCare and the NSA disappeared like snitches into witness protection.

        Bill of Rights? We can’t afford a Bill of Rights when there are alien invaders everywhere killing, raping and destroying “The American Way”.

        1. No one was really talking about immigration that much until Trump made his speech and took off in the polls.

          1. It’s been an issue of some note for decades. The problem was allowed to fester, and now it’s a huge issue. Issues are often like that.

  25. Most women who said they would vote for Clinton said they would do so because she was a woman……and that’s its. Fiorina would upset that apple-cart. Almost on that alone the GOP should be getting behind her.

    1. the GOP should be getting behind her.

      RAPE CULTUREZ!!!!1!1!!

  26. Note to foreign readers: the closet socialists supporting candidate Bernie are called “liberals” in American political slang.

  27. This isn’t correct. The last I saw Christie had slipped into 11th place, not Paul. And that was just about a week ago. So something is definitely not right here. There hasn’t been some sort of Christie surge.

  28. ysl tote bag There is already a provisional clause, “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. We have to decide what that means. During the original debate, the author of the clause said it would exclude diplomats and aliens. According to common law it would also exclude occupying foreign soldiers.

    http://www.themeforest.my-styl…..t-on-chain
    http://www.clickonbookmark.com…..-on-chain/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.