No, the old line leaders of the Regressives will not allow a young Cuban American and a woman to be their P and VP candidates. That would be forward thinking.

Look for Bush and Walker to be the candidates. They are politicians with some influence in Washington.

However, they will still get beaten by the Progressive machine. Just fact, no arguing about it.

High school pep rally quality after mega dose of X-X-X koolaid.

I wonder what you would have left to say if you did not include a racist, bigoted, name calling, labeling catharsis.
About as effective as .....nyah-nyah-nahya-nan-yah.

And the old line progressives will allow an old crony dishonest woman wanna be annointed to be their candidate? That would be forward thinking?

Wow! Drink Sanka, dude!

I stated that the old-line leaders of the GOP would not have their party represented by a young Cuban-American or by a woman. These are not the demographics that represent Republicans.

They would best be served by Bush and Walker.

However, I said, the Progressive movement will beat them.

Nothing racist was said, nothing bigoted. The opposite of Progressive is Regressive, isn't it?

No, Carly Fiorina is not a Progressive!:evil6:

Please, all your posts.....no not fair...MOST of your posts always include sarcasm, animosity and no facts. Your repition of your original post is a lot off from what you said originally

Do you disagree with me that a young Cuban-American and a woman are not the demographics of the GOP?

Do you disagree with me that Bush and Walker would better serve the Republicans than Rubio and Fiorina?

Do you disagree with me that at this time it looks as though the Democrat choice of Mrs. Clinton would win over any Republican in the field?

My point was the TONE of your posts, not the content.

If you think people can seriously consider your point of view after reading insults or sarcasm, THAT might be something for you to ponder.

1. I, for me, will not look at ethnicity, race or color when considering. Obviously this is important to you, but not me. Nor, I might add,do I think either party nor most adult voters without some weighted motivation.

2. Long way to go. I, just me, will wait until debates are over and then look at who is still standing.

3. I do not agree, Ms. Clinton has one good thing...name recognition. She also brings a ton of baggage with her. That baggage will need to be addressed, as she refuses to do it now.

It never gets old listening to the party of old people (GOP) calling Hillary Clinton OLD.

While I did not post that comment, and find that kind of adjectives a bit objectionable, it did prompt me to investigate a bit.

AGES OF DECLARED CANDIDATES FOR 2016 ( I rounded the ages but the link carries it out)

Sanders. 75
Biden. 74
Webb. 70
Trump. 70
Clinton. 69
Perry. 66
Carson. 65
Kasich. 65
Bush. 63
Chaffee. 63
Florida. 62
Graham. 61
Huckabee. 61
Santorum. 58
Christie. 54
Paul. 54
Omalley. 54
Walker. 49
Cruz. 46
Rubio. 45
Jindal. 45

Democracy in Action P2016 - Ages of Potential 2016 Presidential Candidates on Inauguration Day Jan. 2017

Just for info

I apologize..I erred in typing, or my iPad made me do it (good thing nobody reads these) but where it lists FLORIDA as being 62 years of age on Inauguration Day, it should be FIORINA.

And the democrats are the party of young people? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

There are young folks, in their 60's, that look and act older and there are some in their 70's and 80's who look and behave younger.

Why do some jump to offense when the adjective old is used and readily accept the other adjective....young without similar reaction?

OLD is the adjective of use by the trolls on here when speaking of anyone who is a Republican. Along with Tea Party members....white sheet wearers...racist....whatever works.

Those words allow them to ignore real issues presented here.