(Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular . . .
Come again?
Rubio is a star and raw talent just as Obama was in 2008.
Rubio would be the strongest candidate in the general but he won't make it there. The Jeb W. Romney campaign will salt the earth under his feet. And from a conviction standpoint it's difficult to be impressed. Rubio has made one big legislative effort in his career and he abandoned it immediately when the winds changed.
Ted Cruz is to the right what Bernie Sanders is to the left...an ideological purist.
Ted Cruz is an ideologue who has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of his supporters. Unfortunately, that seems to be working for him. It says quite a bit more about the far right than it does about ol' Ted.
And let's not forget Fiorina who, while some may not like her tenure of challenging the status quo at HP, was the first ever female CEO of a Fortune 100 company.
Oh, good lord. "Challenging the status quo" is probably the saddest spin that I've seen of a complete failure of a tenure that resulted in the firing of more than 30,000 people, a golden parachute for Carly, and a giant jump in stock prices when the market saw that she had been fired.
If you want to believe that she'd be a good politician (and not just an anti-Hillary prop) that's fine . . . but you'd do well to not base it on her career in the private sector.
Wow, you show no ability to have an independent perspective even if you are a leftie. For starters, the 4 governors I mentioned all still have very favorable ratings in the states they led. Jeb is still wildly popular in Florida many years after he left, and that is now a very purple state. Kasich is very popular in Ohio too after turning that state around, and the same is true of Walker and Perry.
As for Rubio, no Democrat can come close to criticizing his legislative accomplishments when Obama had ZERO accomplishments before being elected, and in Hillary's tenure as a Senator, she also did not sponsor a single major piece of legislation. The single biggest vote she had was voting in favor of the Iraq war. When you factor in her dismal record as SOS, she has nothing to run on.
As for Cruz, I am not his biggest fan, but he is exactly what I stated...the Conservative Purist just as Sanders is the Socialist/Progressive Purist. They speak to the extreme elements of both parties, and they rarely stray from their extreme views. If we truly wanted a Presidential debate about the core principles of Conservatism vs Socialism, these would be the two guys to face off.
As for Fiorina, as with any executive or CEO of a major company, there are many more objective data points to talk about, and I can discuss the fact that during her tenure, revenues doubled, the growth rate quadrupled, cash-flow quadrupled, and the company moved up 17 spots in terms of its size. She presided over the company during a time when all tech companies were faltering from the dot.com bust, the whole economy was in a downfall after 9/11, etc... She will indeed have to speak to the positive and negative data points, but given her ability to effectively communicate compared to Hillary's hiding out and declining to answer questions or take interviews, I think Carly will outshine Hillary in any debate. As for not winning the CA race in 2010, no Republican could have won that seat. Hillary had to move to New York to be elected, and had she tried to run in the South in Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, Georga, South Carolina, etc... Hillary would have lost be probably more than Fiorina lost to Boxer, so again, it will be hard for the Clinton campaign to brush off the fact that Hillary had to pick one of the bluest states in order to be elected to the Senate.
