Skip to main content

My Updated GOP Candidate Rankings (we're at a dozen...)

As I've been doing following every GOP debate, I thought I'd update my candidate rankings. My most recent rankings (up til now) were posted a couple weeks ago at the following link -

http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-updated-gop-candidate-rankings-now.html

Since then, I've learned former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is still in the race. While I had heard that Mr. Gilmore entered the race a while back, since I had yet to see him in any debate (even at the JV table), I assumed he dropped out. Well, apparently I was mistaken, as he made his first such appearance last week on Fox (News). So, we're back to a dozen candidates. Hopefully that number shrinks quite substantially following the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. Without further ado, here are my updated rankings:

12) Ted Cruz (down 1 spot): It seems that once anyone gets to know Ted Cruz, there's a 97.86% chance they won't like him. Hell, George W. Bush and Bob Dole, among many other Republicans, have even expressed their dislike of the Texas senator. So how is he in contention for the GOP nomination? I have no fricking idea. Perhaps among many GOP voters the question isn't, "Who would you most like to have a beer with?" it's "Who would you most like to bash over the head with a bottle of beer?"

11) Marco Rubio (down 1 spot): Rubio is inching ever so closely to overtaking Senator Cruz for my least favorite Republican candidate. While his debate performances have often been lauded by conservative talking heads, they give me headaches. Regardless whether he's approached with a question about ISIS or his favorite movie, Rubio seems to respond in an angry, combative, paranoid tone of voice, which leaves me wondering, "Did he yell 'I do!" at his wedding?"

10) Carly Fiorina (down 2 spots): She might be a good debater in the sense that she often speaks articulately, with emotion, and knows how to bash everyone around her, Hillary Clinton in particular. However, over the course of all seven debates, I believe I've heard her utter one factual statement. Everything else has been hogwash. Now, whenever she opens her mouth, my mind immediately thinks, "I wonder what kind of BS she's going to spew this time." After she falls short this election season, it's my belief her life goal will be to debunk those whom debunked her Planned Parenthood claims, even though those claims have been debunked more times than Donald Trump has spoken highly of himself.

9) Mike Huckabee (no change): The guy comes across like a grandfather at times, telling his grandkids a handful of stories every time they get together. While this makes him more personable than most other GOP candidates from the surface, once one digs into the actual content and accuracy of these very stories, they soon realize he's full of crap, which detracts from that initial appeal. If he would begin his stories by saying, "Let me say up front this is just a parable. It's not true in the literal sense, but I feel it makes a good point," I'd have more respect for him. However, I think there's less chance of that occurring than finding a winning lottery ticket on the sink of a bar by the name of Drink Because You're SOL.

8) Rick Santorum (down 1 spot): The guy is a slightly toned-down version of Marco Rubio, as he often sounds angry, but it's not quite as constant. He's also toned down his anti-LGBT rhetoric, which has been nice. I'm not sure why he's still in the race. Maybe life at home is boring him, he's delusional about his chances, or he's attempting to set the record for most kiddie-table debate performances.

7) Donald Trump (down 1 spot): So the guy wants to convince the public he can destroy every terrorist organization around the globe, yet can't face moderator Megyn Kelly of the conservatively-biased Fox News Channel in a debate? Mr. Tough Guy indeed...

6) Ben Carson (down 1 spot): Mr. Carson comes across like a nice guy, but the more he talks, the less sense he seems to make. Did he really call Vladimir Putin a "one-horse country"?

5) Jim Gilmore (debut): Like 99% of the population, I hardly know anything about this guy, which is enough to place him at #5 on my list. Yes, that's how little I think of the previous seven candidates.

4) Chris Christie (no change): Senator Christie perplexes me. He comes across like this year's version of John McCain (from 2008) and Mitt Romney (from 2012), which likely wouldn't bode well for him if he became the party's nominee. Away from the debate stage, he comes across as a moderate Republican, willing to work with the other side to get things done. However, on the debate stage, he comes across as extremely partisan and anything but moderate. I don't know why candidates like Christie continue to use this tactic in today's day and age. Psst, there are such things as smartphones, the Internet, and YouTube now...

3) Jeb Bush (no change): I think Bush had his strongest debate showing yet, but how much will that impact his standing in the polls and the likelihood of him becoming the party's nominee? It's too early to tell. It'll be interesting to see if the Jeb transformed to Jeb! regressing back to Jeb even potentially to the point of Jeb? will once again progress to Jeb! 

2) Rand Paul (no change): In my opinion, the big winner of the Fox News debate, if there was one, was Rand Paul. The crowd was behind him from the start. He was provided more time to speak than usual, and used that time to try and appeal to moderates, conservatives, and liberals alike. He also avoided the seemingly inevitable boxing match with Chris Christie, so that's good...

1) John Kasich (no change): The Ohio governor was slightly less repetitive in his most recent debate showing. However, his performance was still fairly forgettable. He's polling well in New Hampshire, but is struggling elsewhere. It'll be interesting to see if a solid showing in New Hampshire helps boost Kasich in other states or if the state is a mere outlier and he'll drop out soon regardless of his standing in The Granite State. In any case, Mr. Kasich, would you mind telling us about balancing the budget again? Thanks...

My hopeful 2016 presidential election: Democrat Bernie Sanders vs. Republican John Kasich (no change)

My predicted 2016 presidential election: Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. Republican Donald Trump (Clinton vs. Ted Cruz last time)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"