PDA

View Full Version : Elections The 2012 Republican Nomination NEEDS to be


ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 05:39 PM
Chris Christie

VP - Marco Rubio.

They'd shred Obama Biden.

The debates would be epic and would give the American People the most clear cut difference in political vision since Carter V. Reagan

Discuss.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 05:43 PM
He's not interested. Any serious candidate is really looking to 2016.

In 2012 we'll have a clownshow, either Romney, Pawlenty, or some nut will emerge bloody with the nomination, and Obama will roll. Hopefully he has no coattails and the 6-year reverse occus in 2014.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 05:47 PM
He's not interested. Any serious candidate is really looking to 2016.

In 2012 we'll have a clownshow, either Romney, Pawlenty, or some nut will emerge bloody with the nomination, and Obama will roll. Hopefully he has no coattails and the 6-year reverse occus in 2014.

I know he's said he's not interested but IMO the guy is the best at articulating a logical and coherent voice to fiscal conservatism and less Govt. He's a passionate guy too and has excellent verbal skills as well as hands on experience.

I would suspect that Christie will jump in the race after Labor Day. If he runs.

Romney is ok but he's no fireball

Can the R's really afford to wait until 2016?

All the sh*t will be out of the horse by then.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 06:12 PM
I'd be fine with that ticket, but it wouldn't take long for some from the moronic wing of conservatism to start leveling accusations of "RINO".

chiefsnorth
04-26-2011, 06:13 PM
Won't be so much left to fight over by 2016 on the current course. It will be like being resident of Greece.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:19 PM
I'd be fine with that ticket, but it wouldn't take long for some from the moronic wing of conservatism to start leveling accusations of "RINO".


I know there are those that are looking for a 45 year old Ronald Reagan and/or Abe Lincoln but that guy doesn't exist.

I'd consider getting behind

1) Christie
2) Romney
3) Pawlenty

No way

1) Palin
2) Huckabee
3) Gingrich
4) Well, all the rest of them are tedious. Mitch Daniels? Jesus he looks like a turtle in a sweater and is just as exciting.

That being said Romney and Pawlenty are about as exciting as Legal Envelope. There both efficient and can do the job and just as inspiring. Christie on the other hand can stir the pot and could absolutely pin Obama to a wall in a debate.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 06:23 PM
I know there are those that are looking for a 45 year old Ronald Reagan and/or Abe Lincoln but that guy doesn't exist.

I'd consider getting behind

1) Christie
2) Romney
3) Pawlenty

No way

1) Palin
2) Huckabee
3) Gingrich
4) Well, all the rest of them are tedious. Mitch Daniels? Jesus he looks like a turtle in a sweater and is just as exciting.

That being said Romney and Pawlenty are about as exciting as Legal Envelope. There both efficient and can do the job and just as inspiring. Christie on the other hand can stir the pot and could absolutely pin Obama to a wall in a debate.

Ultimately, I'd support any of those you mention over Obama in the general election, and I'd move Mitch Daniels into the top group, but otherwise we see this race in very similar terms. :thumb:

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:27 PM
Ultimately, I'd support any of those you mention over Obama in the general election, and I'd move Mitch Daniels into the top group, but otherwise we see this race in very similar terms. :thumb:

Pawlenty and McDaniels are really interchangeable. I'm just being shallow and ruling him out because he's goofy looking and too short. I'm worried that Indy Women voters will automatically tune him out because of that. IMO many people want their President to be physically imposing in stature, good looking or both.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 06:30 PM
I'd be fine with that ticket, but it wouldn't take long for some from the moronic wing of conservatism to start leveling accusations of "RINO".

I think your real problem would be from the religious wing. Not nearly enough Bible thumping by Christie.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:33 PM
I think your real problem would be from the religious wing. Not nearly enough Bible thumping by Christie.

Who would the Conservative Evangelicals be behind right now?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 06:38 PM
Who would the Conservative Evangelicals be behind right now?

Whoever screams "abortion is teh debbil and I'll sink the ship with us on it to reverse Roe v Wade!!!!11!!1!" the loudest.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 06:40 PM
Won't be so much left to fight over by 2016 on the current course. It will be like being resident of Greece.

Drama.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 06:41 PM
I think your real problem would be from the religious wing. Not nearly enough Bible thumping by Christie.

The Republicans would be quite a party if they didn't have to herd around Palin-eaque retards who think guns and abortion are the most important issues we are facing right now.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:44 PM
The Republicans would be quite a party if they didn't have to herd around Palin-eaque retards who think guns and abortion are the most important issues we are facing right now.

What do you think is the most important issue facing America now Zach?

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 06:45 PM
The Republicans would be quite a party if they didn't have to herd around Palin-eaque retards who think guns and abortion are the most important issues we are facing right now.

If they could just get the religious zealot wing to STFU for 8 years the Republicans could really dominate. Too many independents get turned off by the God squad.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 06:46 PM
The next election will have next to nothing to do with the Republican nominee. It will be a referendum on Obama. I think a Romney or Pawlenty would be sufficient to win. The only thing the Republicans could do to impact the race would be to have a clown show.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:47 PM
Whoever screams "abortion is teh debbil and I'll sink the ship with us on it to reverse Roe v Wade!!!!11!!1!" the loudest.

They'll fall in line for the Republican nominee the same way Black people vote for the Dem. nominee. They may complain but in the end they'll vote against Obama.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 06:47 PM
The next election will have next to nothing to do with the Republican nominee. It will be a referendum on Obama. I think a Romney or Pawlenty would be sufficient to win. The only thing the Republicans could do to impact the race would be to have a clown show.

Totally disagree. It is easy to show how clownish the other side is right up until you wheel your own circus act up to the forefront.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:47 PM
The next election will have next to nothing to do with the Republican nominee. It will be a referendum on Obama. I think a Romney or Pawlenty would be sufficient to win. The only thing the Republicans could do to impact the race would be to have a clown show.

I hope you're right Saul but Obama has money and a the office behind him. The Repub. nominee has to give the people a reason to vote the guy out.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 06:49 PM
What do you think is the most important issue facing America now Zach?

Debt, driven primarily by absurd entitlement spending and secondarily by insane military spending.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 06:51 PM
They'll fall in line for the Republican nominee the same way Black people vote for the Dem. nominee. They may complain but in the end they'll vote against Obama.

The problem is you can't get through the primaries without the psycho vote, and that goes for both parties.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 06:53 PM
Totally disagree. It is easy to show how clownish the other side is right up until you wheel your own circus act up to the forefront.

How is that a disagreement? The Republicans just need to not be a clown show. Someone like Romney, while far from perfect, is very polished. A dynamic candidate is not needed. Just don't be an idiot.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
I hope you're right Saul but Obama has money and a the office behind him. The Repub. nominee has to give the people a reason to vote the guy out.

We don't need that at all. Obama has given plenty of reasons to be voted out. All that is needed is someone to not screw it up. We don't need a Brett Favre. We need a Brad Johnson.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 06:57 PM
Lots of 20 and 30 somethings can't tell the difference between the two parties.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 07:05 PM
Lots of 20 and 30 somethings can't tell the difference between the two parties.

One won't get out of your wallet and one won't get out of your bedroom. Pretty easy, really.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 07:24 PM
One won't get out of your wallet and one won't get out of your bedroom. Pretty easy, really.

It can be if you have the right messenger. If you get one of those soft R's out there and they dance and do a jig then Obama is going to crucify the party as being the party of George Bush who wants to end retirement benefits for everyones Grandma.

The R's need a guy who can counter all of that or it's not going to penetrate the skulls of the Independent voters.

Christie can do it. Romney? maybe Pawlenty? maybe

Bewbies
04-26-2011, 08:19 PM
If things continue on the current course the only way Obama has a chance is for a Ross Perot situation to come about.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 08:28 PM
It can be if you have the right messenger. If you get one of those soft R's out there and they dance and do a jig then Obama is going to crucify the party as being the party of George Bush who wants to end retirement benefits for everyones Grandma.

The R's need a guy who can counter all of that or it's not going to penetrate the skulls of the Independent voters.

Christie can do it. Romney? maybe Pawlenty? maybe

I think the Republicans need to pull a Clinton. It's the economy, stupid. Spend the entire campaign hammering the debt. Show it from every angle. Show how you could literally steal the entire wealth of every billionaire and the entire Fortune 500 and still only be able to run the country for one year. Hammer that and ignore all other issues. When Obama says "oh yeah, but what about abortion?" just counter with "none of that will matter after you've run us into the ground."

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 08:28 PM
If things continue on the current course the only way Obama has a chance is for a Ross Perot situation to come about.

I don't think anyone like Paul or Trump would run as a third party.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 08:31 PM
I don't think anyone like Paul or Trump would run as a third party.

Sadly it's been proven that only Republicans will vote in large numbers for a 3rd party candidate.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 08:43 PM
I found this interesting and probably the main reason why some of the heavy hitters are staying out

Haley Barbour ultimately decided not to run for president after concluding that Barack Obama will be too tough to beat in a general election race, according to two advisers familiar with the Mississippi governor’s decision making.

Barbour "wanted to run, he would have loved it,” said one of the advisers (who both asked for anonymity). But while he saw a path to winning the Republican nomination, the governor and his inner circle became gun-shy when they considered Barbour’s prospects of prevailing against Obama and a likely united Democratic party behind him in the general election, the advisers said.

“It would have required an inside straight,” said one adviser.

Barbour and his team were convinced that he could emerge as the conservative alternative to presumptive front-runner Mitt Romney in the GOP primary contest and ultimately win the party’s nomination. But beating Obama looked far more problematic.

The only two incumbents to lose the presidency since Herbert Hoover were Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. In both instances, one of the Barbour advisers noted, there were common circumstances: both men faced ideologically-motivated primary challenges from within their own party and popular third party candidates snagged critical votes in the general election.

ChiefsCountry
04-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Christie and Rubio is the dream ticket. I would vote for it in a heart beat.

mlyonsd
04-26-2011, 08:52 PM
I found this interesting and probably the main reason why some of the heavy hitters are staying out92 was exactly like that. I voted for Perot.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 08:52 PM
According to the most recent USA Today poll, 46% of Americans say they will "definitely not" vote for Obama. 31% will "definitely vote for" Obama. That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome.

An additional 23% say they would consider voting for him. In order for him to get 50% of the vote, he would need 83% of those undecideds to go his way.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 08:57 PM
92 was exactly like that. I voted for Perot.

I definitely believe there will be some kind of 3rd party candidate this year that will siphon off votes from the right, probably a tea party candidate.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 09:00 PM
Christie and Rubio is the dream ticket. I would vote for it in a heart beat.

If it happens they would be a powerful opponent. If Christie was successful and served two terms then Rubio would be experienced and in his prime in 2020 at age 50. With the increasing power of the Latino vote in the USA in the next 30 years it would be a wise move

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 09:01 PM
I definitely believe there will be some kind of 3rd party candidate this year that will siphon off votes from the right, probably a tea party candidate.

Not likely. If there is, it will be a candidate that mostly brings out new voters, not voters who would have otherwise voted Republican.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 09:02 PM
According to the most recent USA Today poll, 46% of Americans say they will "definitely not" vote for Obama. 31% will "definitely vote for" Obama. That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome.

An additional 23% say they would consider voting for him. In order for him to get 50% of the vote, he would need 83% of those undecideds to go his way.

You really don't buy those numbers do you?

In the same poll 45% definitely not voting for Romney, 46% for Huckabee, 64% for Trump and 65% definitely not for Palin.

Who the fuck are they going to vote for then?

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 09:02 PM
I definitely believe there will be some kind of 3rd party candidate this year that will siphon off votes from the right, probably a tea party candidate.

I doubt it. The stakes are too high. Perot got in in '92 because he had a personal grudge with George Bush the first. I don't see that in this election cycle.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 09:06 PM
Not likely. If there is, it will be a candidate that mostly brings out new voters, not voters who would have otherwise voted Republican.

I think it depends on who becomes the Republican candidate. I don't see the Tea Party supporting Romney, Huckabee or Trump. Maybe Pawlenty and definitely Palin or Bachman.

I think you are underestimating the Tea Party if you think they are going to go in lock step with whoever the Republican Party nominates

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 09:07 PM
Jeb Bush or Rubio will win in 16' because both are coming up with ways to pander to the hispanic voter which will be a crucial vote moving forward.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 09:09 PM
I doubt it. The stakes are too high. Perot got in in '92 because he had a personal grudge with George Bush the first. I don't see that in this election cycle.

I don't think they give a shit. These are the same people that are going to put up a primary opponent against Boehner.

mlyonsd
04-26-2011, 09:13 PM
...definitely not for Palin.

:reaper:

:toast:

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 09:14 PM
Jeb Bush or Rubio will win in 16' because both are coming up with ways to pander to the hispanic voter which will be a crucial vote moving forward.

As someone who usually votes center-left I admit I really really like Rubio (no homo).

cdcox
04-26-2011, 09:33 PM
I know there are those that are looking for a 45 year old Ronald Reagan and/or Abe Lincoln but that guy doesn't exist.

I'd consider getting behind

1) Christie
2) Romney
3) Pawlenty

No way

1) Palin
2) Huckabee
3) Gingrich
4) Well, all the rest of them are tedious. Mitch Daniels? Jesus he looks like a turtle in a sweater and is just as exciting.

That being said Romney and Pawlenty are about as exciting as Legal Envelope. There both efficient and can do the job and just as inspiring. Christie on the other hand can stir the pot and could absolutely pin Obama to a wall in a debate.

If the Republicans are smart this is what they will do. Run someone reliable and boring that can just be an alternative to Obama. If the economy takes another dip, or the Middle East drives oil prices sky high, or some other catastrophe, the Republicans can be there with a "Plan B". If they run one of the circus clowns favored by the birthers or the teabaggers, the election is over.

Just run a reliable candidate that isn't Obama. That has the best shot of winning.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 09:38 PM
If the Republicans are smart this is what they will do. Run someone reliable and boring that can just be an alternative to Obama. If the economy takes another dip, or the Middle East drives oil prices sky high, or some other catastrophe, the Republicans can be there with a "Plan B". If they run one of the circus clowns favored by the birthers or the teabaggers, the election is over.

Just run a reliable candidate that isn't Obama. That has the best shot of winning.

Pretty much. The more I think about it, the more Romney seems like the right man for the job. He's center-right, has a strong financial background, and looks straight out of central casting for POTUS. In 4 or 8 years, the Republican bench will be very deep as the junior Congressmen from 2008 take over the mantle.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 09:49 PM
Chris Christie

VP - Marco Rubio.

They'd shred Obama Biden.

The debates would be epic and would give the American People the most clear cut difference in political vision since Carter V. Reagan

Discuss.

Did you know Rubio disowned the Tea Party and Christie is on the Global Warming bandwagon?
Other than that I kinda like Christie. He has balls. But Rubio is not what Rs think he is. He just has captivating rhetoric but he's a NeoCon. JMO I am flabbergasted at your other choices though. The other two on your list earlier are definite RINOs. They will not roll Obamacare back. Remember Romneycare in Mass. Might as well just re-elect Obama.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 09:50 PM
How is that a disagreement? The Republicans just need to not be a clown show. Someone like Romney, while far from perfect, is very polished. A dynamic candidate is not needed. Just don't be an idiot.

You have a party that is completely fractured beholden to totally different things. The growing pains the Republicans are going through is a zero sum game.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 09:53 PM
Lots of 20 and 30 somethings can't tell the difference between the two parties.

Well, that's quite astute of them since there isn't much of a difference. That's the problem with the over 40 crowd.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 09:53 PM
You have a party that is completely fractured beholden to totally different things. The growing pains the Republicans are going through is a zero sum game.

Really? What are those different things?

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 09:54 PM
Pretty much. The more I think about it, the more Romney seems like the right man for the job. He's center-right, has a strong financial background, and looks straight out of central casting for POTUS. In 4 or 8 years, the Republican bench will be very deep as the junior Congressmen from 2008 take over the mantle.

Yup he's gonna look great calling Obama a socialist and talking about re-pealing Obamacare. If flip-flopping is what did John Kerry in during the 04' election Mitt will suffer the same fate.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 09:55 PM
According to the most recent USA Today poll, 46% of Americans say they will "definitely not" vote for Obama. 31% will "definitely vote for" Obama. That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome.

An additional 23% say they would consider voting for him. In order for him to get 50% of the vote, he would need 83% of those undecideds to go his way.

That will change when the Republicans elect the asshats the leadership finances and presents.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 09:56 PM
I'll say Mike Huckabee wins the nomination.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 09:57 PM
Yup he's gonna look great calling Obama a socialist and talking about re-pealing Obamacare. If flip-flopping is what did John Kerry in during the 04' election Mitt will suffer the same fate.


That will change when the Republicans elect the asshats the leadership finances and presents.

Thanks, you two. I was just thinking that I should take advice about nominating electable candidates from Ron Paul supporters.

Paul: 0
Saul: 0

BWillie
04-26-2011, 09:57 PM
Debt, driven primarily by absurd entitlement spending and secondarily by insane military spending.

But but but if you say you are against INSANE military spending people will accuse you of being anti american and not supporting troops!

BWillie
04-26-2011, 09:59 PM
I don't understand how some of you think the next election is going to be close. Obama is going to roll, unfortunately.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 09:59 PM
Thanks, you two. I was just thinking that I should take advice about nominating electable candidates from Ron Paul supporters.

Paul: 0
Saul: 0

This is what I find hilarious about Saul besides being unemployed and acting like he's better than everyone you think Paul is the only person I ever voted for? I voted for Bush in 2004. You voted for John McCain in 08' who lost in an electoral landslide but yup you sure do know more than everyone else.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 10:00 PM
Thanks, you two. I was just thinking that I should take advice about nominating electable candidates from Ron Paul supporters.

Paul: 0
Saul: 0

Speaking of electable, many voters still aren't keen on the Rs don't forget. One party rule again frightens some even more. So picking asshats isn't exactly electable either even if what is an asshat is a matter of opinion. I think 3rd party candidate could be very attractive in this election with the right message. So hold your horses, Mr. I-Vote-for-Only-Electable candidates and know who they are— like McCain.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:01 PM
Saul voted for John McCain in the general Buc he understands victory.

Number of Jobs:

Paul 1
Saul 0

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 10:03 PM
I'll say Mike Huckabee wins the nomination.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Christian socialist does win. I think he's a personable guy but he will NOT get my vote.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:05 PM
Saul voted for John McCain in the general Buc he understands victory.

Number of Jobs:

Paul 1
Saul 0You're on a roll, billay.

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=240876

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=240876

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 10:06 PM
Really? What are those different things?

They have been pretty quiet the last few years but I still believe the Republican Party is mostly controlled by the religious right.

Then you have the hard right Tea Party crowd who are mostly fiscal conservatives and don't really care all that much about social issues.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:07 PM
They have been pretty quiet the last few years but I still believe the Republican Party is mostly controlled by the religious right.

Then you have the hard right Tea Party crowd who are mostly fiscal conservatives and don't really care all that much about social issues.

Okay, so there's the religious right and the fiscally conservatives. Is that it?

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:08 PM
You're on a roll, billay.

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=240876

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=240876

ROFL

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 10:08 PM
Really? What are those different things?

Campaign for Liberty types who have an ideology and believe in it in an uncompromising fashion.

Palin type retards who believe every idiotic thing that goes in one ear and out the other and thinks guns and abortion are the most important thing.

And every day folks who think the government is spending too much money and isn't happy about it but doesnt think that government should be so small that it should fit in everyone's bedroom.

I know I lean left on this board...and this isn't even Republican bashing I have respect for the 1st and 3rd group in my little explanation even though I don't always agree with them. I just think that the process of making these groups happy leaves the GOP unable to take the White House. There isnt an umbrella big enough.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:11 PM
Campaign for Liberty types who have an ideology and believe in it in an uncompromising fashion.

Palin type retards who believe every idiotic thing that goes in one ear and out the other and thinks guns and abortion are the most important thing.

And every day folks who thinks the government is spending too much money and isn't happy about it but doesnt think that government should be so small that it should fit in everyone's bedroom.

I know I lean left on this board...and this isn't even Republican bashing I have respect for the 1st and 3rd group in my little explanation even though I don't always agree with them. I just think that the process of making these groups happy leaves the GOP unable to take the White House. There isnt an umbrella big enough.


C4L doesn't matter Paul only got 5% of the vote!

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 10:11 PM
Okay, so there's the religious right and the fiscally conservatives. Is that it?

No but those are the main ones IMVHO.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 10:13 PM
And every day folks who think the government is spending too much money and isn't happy about it but doesnt think that government should be so small that it should fit in everyone's bedroom.
.

That must be the Lindsey Graham\McCain wing of the party

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 10:15 PM
C4L doesn't matter Paul only got 5% of the vote!

I don't know how much you guys will move the needle. I think it will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:18 PM
I don't know how much you guys will move the needle. I think it will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

Frank Lutz said this is Paul's time and the voters are looking for someone whos straight forward thats why Trump is polling so well. My guess would be Paul's numbers improve somewhat. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get 15% in Iowa.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 10:19 PM
Yup he's gonna look great calling Obama a socialist and talking about re-pealing Obamacare. If flip-flopping is what did John Kerry in during the 04' election Mitt will suffer the same fate.

The contrast between a snobbish pussy and a guy who people could trust to lead the country who already had 4 years of POTUS experience is what did John Kerry in.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:19 PM
No but those are the main ones IMVHO.

I find this entire argument ironic, as the conservative philosophy has a much more cohesive ideology than does liberalism. The Democrats are literally a party of factions.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:22 PM
C4L doesn't matter Paul only got 5% of the vote!

Actually, he got less than a third of that. Try 1.6%, and that's from Republicans. Less than 1% of all primary votes cast in 2008 went to RP.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Frank Lutz said this is Paul's time and the voters are looking for someone whos straight forward thats why Trump is polling so well. My guess would be Paul's numbers improve somewhat. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get 15% in Iowa.

Trump is polling so well that the latest Gallup poll shows that 64% "will definitely not vote for" Trump.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 10:25 PM
Campaign for Liberty types who have an ideology and believe in it in an uncompromising fashion.

Palin type retards who believe every idiotic thing that goes in one ear and out the other and thinks guns and abortion are the most important thing.

And every day folks who think the government is spending too much money and isn't happy about it but doesnt think that government should be so small that it should fit in everyone's bedroom.

I know I lean left on this board...and this isn't even Republican bashing I have respect for the 1st and 3rd group in my little explanation even though I don't always agree with them. I just think that the process of making these groups happy leaves the GOP unable to take the White House. There isnt an umbrella big enough.

The first group is tiny if you limit it to the uncompromising faction. The second group is only a problem if Palin runs and I don't think she's going to do that. Instead, I think she'll fall in line and throw her support behind the nominee who will end up being someone like Romney or Pawlenty unless a Christie jumps into the race.

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:26 PM
Trump is polling so well that the latest Gallup poll shows that 64% "will definitely not vote for" Trump.

More proof that you're a dipshit. Trump is tied for the lead with Huckabee right now.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 10:26 PM
I find this entire argument ironic, as the conservative philosophy has a much more cohesive ideology than does liberalism. The Democrats are literally a party of factions.

No doubt the Dems have a lot of factions but when you are the party in power most of that goes away just like it did for the Republicans in 04.

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:30 PM
More proof that you're a dipshit. Trump is tied for the lead with Huckabee right nows.

If only there was a major poll released today by Gallup/USA Today on the topic. It might look something like this:

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:31 PM
If only there was a major poll released today by Gallup/USA Today on the topic. It might look something like this:

Barack Obama is in the Republican field now?

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:31 PM
April 26, 2011
In U.S., More Than 6 in 10 Would Not Vote for Trump, Palin
Trump's image more negative than it was a month ago
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than 6 in 10 registered voters nationwide say they would definitely not vote for Donald Trump or Sarah Palin for president in 2012, significantly more than say the same about possible Republican candidates Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, or about President Barack Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147272/Not-Vote-Trump-Palin.aspx

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 10:33 PM
Saul my comment was about the Republican primaries. Trump is tied with Huckabee. He's doing so well because he is talking straight forward- Frank Luntz

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 10:43 PM
The first group is tiny if you limit it to the uncompromising faction. The second group is only a problem if Palin runs and I don't think she's going to do that. Instead, I think she'll fall in line and throw her support behind the nominee who will end up being someone like Romney or Pawlenty unless a Christie jumps into the race.

Those followers live to bring down the ship when the ship isn't headed in their direction. Those people absolutely will cut off their nose to spite their face.

I don't think this fractured party as it is...is beating Obama...even as vulnerable as he is.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 10:45 PM
He certainly Trumps Palin though. Heh! Heh!

Saul Good
04-26-2011, 10:46 PM
Those followers live to bring down the ship when the ship isn't headed in their direction. Those people absolutely will cut off their nose to spite their face.

I don't think this fractured party as it is...is beating Obama...even as vulnerable as he is.

Is this like the Hillary cougars or PUMAs or whatever they were called in 2008? It just doesn't work that way in reality. People talk a good game, then they fall in line when the chips are down.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 10:47 PM
Actually, he got less than a third of that. Try 1.6%, and that's from Republicans. Less than 1% of all primary votes cast in 2008 went to RP.

That's the past. This is now. I am not saying he will win but I think he could do better. He'll still have his congressional seat where he's been valuable on his committee.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Did you know Rubio disowned the Tea Party and Christie is on the Global Warming bandwagon?
Other than that I kinda like Christie. He has balls. But Rubio is not what Rs think he is. He just has captivating rhetoric but he's a NeoCon. JMO I am flabbergasted at your other choices though. The other two on your list earlier are definite RINOs. They will not roll Obamacare back. Remember Romneycare in Mass. Might as well just re-elect Obama.

I'm just being practical. There is no Reagan or Lincoln in the Republican Party. It's a party that moved to the squishy middle for a decade and then got killed. The bench isn't good because the guys that made plans to run are all Centrist and soft, squishy middle types. I also don't like the conservatives who are in the rhetorical arena now. Palin, Bachman are lightweights intellectually IMO.

Romney is a businessman. What we are up against in President Obama is a guy who is actively hostile to the private sector and capitalism as a concept. He has grown Govt., stifled growth in the pirvate sector, added regulation and has cynically put us on the path of financial calamity.

Romney with a Conservative House and a Centrist Senate could put us back on the path to prosperity.

I'd prefer Christie's ability to absolutely pin someone in a debate. Maybe he's not pure but right now I just want to pull the proverbial jet we're all on out of the nosedive we are on. Romney, Christie and Pawlenty are the best mix of experience, ideology and have the ability to raise money and get the nomination.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Frank Lutz said this is Paul's time and the voters are looking for someone whos straight forward thats why Trump is polling so well. My guess would be Paul's numbers improve somewhat. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get 15% in Iowa.

I think Paul's followers as well as Tea Party folks get more credit then they deserve because they are the loudest. More credit then they deserve is actually not how what I am trying to say is best said.

I think their influence is over done because they are so loud. They make the most noise and the attention that comes from that makes it seem that they have more backing than they do.

Maybe this is the time for C4L will make that jump. It is possible but...I will believe it when I see it.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 10:50 PM
Is this like the Hillary cougars or PUMAs or whatever they were called in 2008? It just doesn't work that way in reality. People talk a good game, then they fall in line when the chips are down.

Wow, are you comparing the separation Hillary Clinton made with Obama within the democratic party to what is going on right now in the GOP?

C'mon now. Silliness.

dirk digler
04-26-2011, 10:52 PM
Is this like the Hillary cougars or PUMAs or whatever they were called in 2008? It just doesn't work that way in reality. People talk a good game, then they fall in line when the chips are down.

I kind of thought so too until they went after establishment Republicans in the primaries and won.

I truly believe they don't care they are going to do what they think is right. I actually admire that...

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 10:55 PM
Well, that's quite astute of them since there isn't much of a difference. That's the problem with the over 40 crowd.

Ideologically there is a huge difference. The past ten years both parties moved to the left. You call that being a Neo Con. I get that. I also understand we voted a socialist into power and that's not being left or right that's being Anti free market and goes against my view of America and our meritocracy. The concept of being of humble beginnings and climbing the economic latter is a core American Value IMO. The current Pres. isn't interested in this value in my view. That makes him a completely different breed of cat. The next Republican nominee is going to have to re-make the Republican brand and flush out the facts because Obama is going to play class warfare and throw bombs from now until Nov. 2012. We all need to unite and get rid of this guy.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 11:00 PM
I don't understand how some of you think the next election is going to be close. Obama is going to roll, unfortunately.

Not if he's exposed. The guy could be destroyed in the debates by a sharp whitted Republican.

If there's 4 dollar gas, 8 plus percent unemployment, continued food inflation, malaise et al. Then Obama is very beatable. That being said a middle of the road soft and boring Republican nominee will have a hard time winning IMO. The American people need to know EXACTLY what Obama has done wrong and what the R's are going to do to correct the country's course.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:02 PM
I'm just being practical.
It's only practical if you need an R at the end of the person's name. It is not practical if they aren't going to roll back the size of govt. The end is the means.

There is no Reagan or Lincoln in the Republican Party.
I'm glad there's no Lincoln—he detroyed the union philosophically.
Reagan didn't cut govt either. I'm not dissing him I love the guy but he didn't.

It's a party that moved to the squishy middle for a decade and then got killed. The bench isn't good because the guys that made plans to run are all Centrist and soft, squishy middle types. I also don't like the conservatives who are in the rhetorical arena now. Palin, Bachman are lightweights intellectually IMO.
Romney is the squishy middle too. You don't know much about him. You need to look into him more. I don't want Palin either.

Romney is a businessman.
Yes but what kind? There are plenty of businessmen that love big govt. Romney is one of them.
I am from Mass and liberals like my mom loved Romney. I don't care if he's a businessman I care about his policies regarding govt. He is not what you think. He LIKES Obamacare. Instead of raising taxes he just called them fees and raised those.

What we are up against in President Obama is a guy who is actively hostile to the private sector and capitalism as a concept. He has grown Govt., stifled growth in the pirvate sector, added regulation and has cynically put us on the path of financial calamity.
Yes this is all true. But if there is not much difference from him in Romney. It's all superficial.

Romney with a Conservative House and a Centrist Senate could put us back on the path to prosperity.
Nope. That's not what the Rs track is in history. When the Rs have their man in the WH they go along to get along. That's what happened under Bush and Romney is another Bush. Although, I don't believe he's as much as a warmonger as Bush.

I'd prefer Christie's ability to absolutely pin someone in a debate. Maybe he's not pure but right now I just want to pull the proverbial jet we're all on out of the nosedive we are on. Romney, Christie and Pawlenty are the best mix of experience, ideology and have the ability to raise money and get the nomination.
I would take Christie over Romney any day.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:05 PM
Ideologically there is a huge difference.
Ideologically at the level of thought only. In practice not much. There are at the grassroots level only.

The past ten years both parties moved to the left. You call that being a Neo Con. I get that.
No I don't consider just moving left to be a NeoCon as there are RINOs that are not NeoCons. It's FP that shapes the NC more....using certain arguments.

The next Republican nominee is going to have to re-make the Republican brand and flush out the facts because Obama is going to play class warfare and throw bombs from now until Nov. 2012. We all need to unite and get rid of this guy.

Based on the Republicans actual track and history they will not remake the Republican brand except at the level of rhetoric. It is that bad.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 11:12 PM
Ideologically at the level of thought only. In practice not much. There are at the grassroots level only.


No I don't consider just moving left to be a NeoCon as there are RINOs that are not NeoCons. It's FP that shapes the NC more....using certain arguments.



Based on the Republicans actual track and history they will not remake the Republican brand except at the level of rhetoric. It is that bad.

Listen, I agree with many of your points. But what are you saying? Why even try? Do you really want to Vote for Ron Paul and only Ron Paul? Are there no other candidates you'd consider?

Also, you can't compare Obama to ANY of the Republicans. IMO Obama is a command and control planned economy guy at heart. He's the nightmare to the American dream. NO one on the Republican side, warts and all, have these views of America.

Christie is the best guy for the job. I suspect he will announce (if he runs) after Labor Day to keep a low profile. If a bozo candidate like Trump can get high ratings because of his bomb throwing a more polished and potent speaker like Christie will light up the scoreboard IMO.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:15 PM
Listen, I agree with many of your points. But what are you saying? Why even try? Do you really want to Vote for Ron Paul and only Ron Paul? Are there no other candidates you'd consider?
I didn't say I was votin' for him this time. I will decide when I see the line up. I'm just bringing up some points about some of the names you mentioned.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 11:16 PM
I didn't say I was votin' for him this time. I will decide when I see the line up. I'm just bringing up some points about some of the names you mentioned.

Fair enough. We haven't debated for awhile I was just assuming. Glad your open minded.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:17 PM
Fair enough. We haven't debated for awhile I was just assuming. Glad your open minded.

I agree that even the bad Rs look better next to Obama. But it's gotta be someone who will deal with Obamacare. Romney definitely won't...and I doubt Rubio as well. But as a VP it won't matter. The Rs need him in the senate anyway.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 11:21 PM
I just have no confidence at all that Obama will lose. I do agree that the GOP's best chance is "nominate either Romney or Pawlenty as a boring credible plan B, then pray for a miracle", but they would still need that incredible huge disaster to happen that is blamed by the public on Obama.

When you have an open presidential election, the winner is the prohibitive favorite to go all 8 years. The opposition party should still put up a credible alternative to keep themselves relevant, in the conversation, and ready to pounce if a miracle happens 4 years in, but Bush has already proven that a crappy incumbent can still win.

Romney has extremely serious problems within the party. (and he's Mormon) He may lose the primary due to Romneycare, and even if he manages to eke out the establishment victory, Obama will be ready to ask him why Obamacare is a bad thing. Pawlenty is an ideologically better candidate with the added advantage of not being crazy, but he's about as exciting and well-known as 4-day old lime jell-o. Ron Paul will never win the primary. The Huckaboom is the worst of all worlds: a religious nutbag who is weak on crime and not great on financial issues. (incidentally, I believe Huckabee is an unqualified moron, square in Palin territory. I will not vote for him under any circumstances) Everyone else is either a complete unknown or perceived to be insane (often rightfully so).

We are gonna have a replay of 2004 where a president who is not really all that popular wins by default because the other side fails to put up a dynamic exciting candidate.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 11:25 PM
I just have no confidence at all that Obama will lose. I do agree that the GOP's best chance is "nominate either Romney or Pawlenty as a boring credible plan B, then pray for a miracle", but they would still need that incredible huge disaster to happen that is blamed by the public on Obama.

When you have an open presidential election, the winner is the prohibitive favorite to go all 8 years. The opposition party should still put up a credible alternative to keep themselves relevant, in the conversation, and ready to pounce if a miracle happens 4 years in, but Bush has already proven that a crappy incumbent can still win.

Romney has extremely serious problems within the party. (and he's Mormon) He may lose the primary due to Romneycare, and even if he manages to eke out the establishment victory, Obama will be ready to ask him why Obamacare is a bad thing. Pawlenty is an ideologically better candidate with the added advantage of not being crazy, but he's about as exciting and well-known as 4-day old lime jell-o. Ron Paul will never win the primary. The Huckaboom is the worst of all worlds: a religious nutbag who is weak on crime and not great on financial issues. (incidentally, I believe Huckabee is an unqualified moron, square in Palin territory. I will not vote for him under any circumstances) Everyone else is either a complete unknown or perceived to be insane (often rightfully so).

We are gonna have a replay of 2004 where a president who is not really all that popular wins by default because the other side fails to put up a dynamic exciting candidate.

Christie changing his mind and running fills the vacuum. If Donald Trump can draw double digit interest Christie could dominate.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 11:31 PM
Christie changing his mind and running fills the vacuum. If Donald Trump can draw double digit interest Christie could dominate.

we're getting very close to Fred Thompson territory, as in "well gee Christie, woulda been nice if you jumped in half a year ago, but you are way too late now, and not relevant."

Iowans and New Hampshire die-hard primary and caucus voters are spoiled and expect to meet candidates a couple times or more well before the election. A ton of money has to be raised. Jump in too late, you have no shot at finishing in the top-2 or 3 in the early primary states, then you have the Guiliani stink of the loser on you and you are toast.

Chris Christie is not even close to jumping in, and he'd have to do an abrupt 180 and start campaigning and fundraising hard-core within the next month. Anyone who isn't in, even if its "everyone knows you are in but the paperwork isn't filed yet", by the end of June is pretty much out.

|Zach|
04-26-2011, 11:31 PM
I just have no confidence at all that Obama will lose. I do agree that the GOP's best chance is "nominate either Romney or Pawlenty as a boring credible plan B, then pray for a miracle", but they would still need that incredible huge disaster to happen that is blamed by the public on Obama.

When you have an open presidential election, the winner is the prohibitive favorite to go all 8 years. The opposition party should still put up a credible alternative to keep themselves relevant, in the conversation, and ready to pounce if a miracle happens 4 years in, but Bush has already proven that a crappy incumbent can still win.

Romney has extremely serious problems within the party. (and he's Mormon) He may lose the primary due to Romneycare, and even if he manages to eke out the establishment victory, Obama will be ready to ask him why Obamacare is a bad thing. Pawlenty is an ideologically better candidate with the added advantage of not being crazy, but he's about as exciting and well-known as 4-day old lime jell-o. Ron Paul will never win the primary. The Huckaboom is the worst of all worlds: a religious nutbag who is weak on crime and not great on financial issues. (incidentally, I believe Huckabee is an unqualified moron, square in Palin territory. I will not vote for him under any circumstances) Everyone else is either a complete unknown or perceived to be insane (often rightfully so).

We are gonna have a replay of 2004 where a president who is not really all that popular wins by default because the other side fails to put up a dynamic exciting candidate.

Agree with all of this.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:33 PM
Mike Huckabee leads in South Carolina polls


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53691.html

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 11:35 PM
we're getting very close to Fred Thompson territory, as in "well gee Christie, woulda been nice if you jumped in half a year ago, but you are way too late now, and not relevant."

Iowans and New Hampshire die-hard primary and caucus voters are spoiled and expect to meet candidates a couple times or more well before the election. A ton of money has to be raised. Jump in too late, you have no shot at finishing in the top-2 or 3 in the early primary states, then you have the Guiliani stink of the loser on you and you are toast.

Chris Christie is not even close to jumping in, and he'd have to do an abrupt 180 and start campaigning and fundraising hard-core within the next month. Anyone who isn't in by the end of June is pretty much out.

I think with an open field like there is this year then lying low and getting the back channels working while bozos like Trump take the arrows is an advantage.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 11:37 PM
Mike Huckabee leads in South Carolina polls


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53691.html

Huckabee could easily win the nomination. If he does, the election is over, he can't beat Obama short of a dead hooker in the oval office.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:42 PM
Ron Paul says Obama can't win youth vote. At the Conservative Political Action Conference,
"College Republicans turned out in droves at the conference, and Paul won the straw poll."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20057611-503544.html

"I think that Obama will not be able to hang on to that enthusiasm of the young people because of what's happened in the last couple years," Paul said in Des Moines, Iowa, after his exploratory committee was announced.

"I believe there are literally millions of more people now concerned about the very things I talked about four years ago," he said, such as "the excessive spending, the entitlement system, the foreign policy, as well as the monetary system."

"If you want to curtail spending... you can't do it without addressing the inflationary system," continued Paul, who chairs a House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. "Congress does not have to act responsibly... they've resorted to printing out money."

Obama just may not win the youth vote again. Or the Indie vote. In fact a poll this past summer showed Ron Paul was in a dead heat with Obama among the Indies.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:43 PM
Huckabee could easily win the nomination. If he does, the election is over, he can't beat Obama short of a dead hooker in the oval office.

I think he can win it. I don't know about easily though. We'll see. I'm not big on predicting these things.

ChiefaRoo
04-26-2011, 11:45 PM
I think he can win it. I don't know about easily though. We'll see. I'm not big on predicting these things.

There is no way Huckabee can win the Presidency. He'd lose to Obama but before we get into all that I believe he's happy with his show, making money and being well liked by his demographic. Bottom line is he's comfortable. He's not a serious candidate IMO.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2011, 11:46 PM
There is no way Huckabee can win the Presidency.
I was commenting on al saying he could win the "nomination."

Chocolate Hog
04-26-2011, 11:53 PM
Christie won't run but I think his good friend Guiliani might give it another run.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 11:55 PM
Ron Paul says Obama can't win youth vote. At the Conservative Political Action Conference,
"College Republicans turned out in droves at the conference, and Paul won the straw poll."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20057611-503544.html



Obama just may not win the youth vote again. Or the Indie vote. In fact a poll this past summer showed Ron Paul was in a dead heat with Obama among the Indies.

Anyone who ever counts on the elusive "youth vote" is in serious trouble. The youth don't vote.

alnorth
04-26-2011, 11:56 PM
Christie won't run but I think his good friend Guiliani might give it another run.

Sure, what the hell. May as well toss in another guy who has no chance.

ChiefaRoo
04-27-2011, 12:00 AM
I think he can win it. I don't know about easily though. We'll see. I'm not big on predicting these things.

Why are you so hard on Marco Rubio Pea? He seems like a good fellow. I'm not a pure tea party guy myself. The tea party started a new way of thinking and for that I'm grateful. Myself, I'm a conservative. Not a Neo Con nation builder and unfair labor exporting guy that guts our middle class. I want to live in a free country, I want to make money based on my own risk/reward calculations and I want to see America prosper and feel good about itself because the rising tide of prosperity will raise all boats. Workers, Owners, Entrepreneurs, kids, old people et al do best when our economy is humming and the private sector is growing and the Govt. is a step behind supporting the private sector and isn't sucking all the oxygen out of the economy.

Chocolate Hog
04-27-2011, 12:12 AM
Sure, what the hell. May as well toss in another guy who has no chance.

I never said he has a chance but what i'm saying is I've read that he's strongly considering because the field is so weak. He and Christie are good friends. Theres no way both run.

BucEyedPea
04-27-2011, 07:51 AM
Anyone who ever counts on the elusive "youth vote" is in serious trouble. The youth don't vote.
They did in the last election. Besides that being a sweeping generality.

BucEyedPea
04-27-2011, 07:54 AM
Why are you so hard on Marco Rubio Pea? He seems like a good fellow. I'm not a pure tea party guy myself. The tea party started a new way of thinking and for that I'm grateful. Myself, I'm a conservative. Not a Neo Con nation builder and unfair labor exporting guy that guts our middle class. I want to live in a free country, I want to make money based on my own risk/reward calculations and I want to see America prosper and feel good about itself because the rising tide of prosperity will raise all boats. Workers, Owners, Entrepreneurs, kids, old people et al do best when our economy is humming and the private sector is growing and the Govt. is a step behind supporting the private sector and isn't sucking all the oxygen out of the economy.

I'm a conservative too. Everything you listed are TP stands. I voted for Rubio here only as a lesser of two evils and a counterweight to Obama. Rubio didn't disown the TP when he ran. He did it after he won.

Saul Good
04-27-2011, 08:56 AM
I just have no confidence at all that Obama will lose. I do agree that the GOP's best chance is "nominate either Romney or Pawlenty as a boring credible plan B, then pray for a miracle", but they would still need that incredible huge disaster to happen that is blamed by the public on Obama.

When you have an open presidential election, the winner is the prohibitive favorite to go all 8 years. The opposition party should still put up a credible alternative to keep themselves relevant, in the conversation, and ready to pounce if a miracle happens 4 years in, but Bush has already proven that a crappy incumbent can still win.

Romney has extremely serious problems within the party. (and he's Mormon) He may lose the primary due to Romneycare, and even if he manages to eke out the establishment victory, Obama will be ready to ask him why Obamacare is a bad thing. Pawlenty is an ideologically better candidate with the added advantage of not being crazy, but he's about as exciting and well-known as 4-day old lime jell-o. Ron Paul will never win the primary. The Huckaboom is the worst of all worlds: a religious nutbag who is weak on crime and not great on financial issues. (incidentally, I believe Huckabee is an unqualified moron, square in Palin territory. I will not vote for him under any circumstances) Everyone else is either a complete unknown or perceived to be insane (often rightfully so).

We are gonna have a replay of 2004 where a president who is not really all that popular wins by default because the other side fails to put up a dynamic exciting candidate.

In 2004, gas was around $2 per gallon, and unemployment was in the fours, and Bush still nearly lost. Since then, gas prices have doubled, unemployment has doubled, and we've started a third war.

Obama tapped into the youthful exuberance of a country that wanted to make history, and those (now not so) young voters realize that they were sold a bill of goods. This election is there for the taking.

patteeu
04-27-2011, 09:05 AM
Ideologically there is a huge difference. The past ten years both parties moved to the left. You call that being a Neo Con. I get that. I also understand we voted a socialist into power and that's not being left or right that's being Anti free market and goes against my view of America and our meritocracy. The concept of being of humble beginnings and climbing the economic latter is a core American Value IMO. The current Pres. isn't interested in this value in my view. That makes him a completely different breed of cat. The next Republican nominee is going to have to re-make the Republican brand and flush out the facts because Obama is going to play class warfare and throw bombs from now until Nov. 2012. We all need to unite and get rid of this guy.

I don't think the party has really moved left in any significant way. Reagan was unusually conservative (at least rhetorically) for a Republican. The GOP nominees for POTUS since Reagan have been GHWBush, Bob Dole, GWBush, and John McCain. None of those guys were good conservatives. In fact, GWBush and McCain probably have more conservative sympathies than the elder Bush or Bob Dole did. Reagan created a conservative faction within the party, but I don't think that faction has ever had control of the party and I don't think that faction is any smaller today or 5 years ago than it was at the end of Reagan's presidency.

And I say this even though I'd like the Republican party to be more conservative. I just think the good old days weren't really that good, from a conservative pov. (I spent the 1990s voting 3rd party as a protest against the lack of conservativism in GOP candidates. That was back when a protest vote wasn't putting the country at risk like it does today).

patteeu
04-27-2011, 09:20 AM
Huckabee could easily win the nomination. If he does, the election is over, he can't beat Obama short of a dead hooker in the oval office.

Why do you think that Huckabee can't win? I don't like the guy either and he'd be at the bottom of my preference list as far as Republicans go, but I don't see why he couldn't do well in the general election if he's able to keep his social conservatism tame enough to avoid driving moderates away.

ChiefaRoo
04-27-2011, 10:14 AM
I don't think the party has really moved left in any significant way. Reagan was unusually conservative (at least rhetorically) for a Republican. The GOP nominees for POTUS since Reagan have been GHWBush, Bob Dole, GWBush, and John McCain. None of those guys were good conservatives. In fact, GWBush and McCain probably have more conservative sympathies than the elder Bush or Bob Dole did. Reagan created a conservative faction within the party, but I don't think that faction has ever had control of the party and I don't think that faction is any smaller today or 5 years ago than it was at the end of Reagan's presidency.

And I say this even though I'd like the Republican party to be more conservative. I just think the good old days weren't really that good, from a conservative pov. (I spent the 1990s voting 3rd party as a protest against the lack of conservativism in GOP candidates. That was back when a protest vote wasn't putting the country at risk like it does today).

I think the GOP has moved back into the more middle of the road Jerry Ford mode in the early 2000's. They got comfortable spending money in a deficit and they concentrated on getting themselves elected. It all crashed down and into the vacuum came Pelosi and Reid who themselves have hijacked the Dem party and moved it way left.

We can talk about the Bush's ad nauseum. I voted for Perot in '92 as a protest too. We can't afford that anymore as you said.

Reagan may have been special leader that we won't see again. That's ok, the Republic will survive. I believe the party needs to be much more fiscally conservative (As I suspect most people want now..even Dems). I don't have a problem with pragmatic social conservatism either. I like the idea of R's arguing for keeping Christmas in the Public square. I don't want "Holiday Trees" I want Christians to feel comfortable celebrating the Holidays without stigma. That being said I don't want the Bible thumpers trying to tell us about End times in the Middle East and trying to overturn the settled law of the land as it relates to First Trimester abortion. Late term, fight it all the way. If you've ever looked at your unborn kids ultra-sound you know there's a little life in there that is viable at or around 24 weeks.

Front and center in all our consciousness should be spending reform at the Fed level. That's going to require a whole new administration and a disciplined and principled approach to our countrys fiscal problems.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:35 AM
I definitely believe there will be some kind of 3rd party candidate this year that will siphon off votes from the right, probably a tea party candidate.

The Tea Party has rightly spent its energy trying to change the Republican party from within.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:39 AM
But but but if you say you are against INSANE military spending people will accuse you of being anti american and not supporting troops!

I do support them. I'd have them all back within our borders ASAP.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:40 AM
I don't understand how some of you think the next election is going to be close. Obama is going to roll, unfortunately.

I think it will probably be a function of the economy. If it's picked up he'll win. If it's still where it is now or if it goes up but dips again he'll lose.

I question if there are enough people in the US who even look at what politicians say anymore to matter.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Those followers live to bring down the ship when the ship isn't headed in their direction. Those people absolutely will cut off their nose to spite their face.

I don't think this fractured party as it is...is beating Obama...even as vulnerable as he is.

The Republicans do have a huge problem with getting people from the middle and not pissing off their single issue voters. The problem is that their single issue voters are about issues that restrict people's freedoms.

Now, the Democrats are walking a fine line that could drop them in the same boat. The Green movement could be their abortion movement. Tell me what light bulb I can or can't have, what car I can or can't drive, what temperature I have to keep my house at, etc etc.

They both tell me how it's better for me and society as a whole, but they're both telling me what to do. And they can both take a long walk off a short pier.

Simplex3
04-27-2011, 10:51 AM
He may lose the primary due to Romneycare, and even if he manages to eke out the establishment victory, Obama will be ready to ask him why Obamacare is a bad thing.

He can win that if he points out how Romneycare was and still is an abysmal failure that only floats because the feds fund it, then asks who's going to fund the federal version.