PDA

View Full Version : Elections Why the GOP is at a distinct disadvantage in the 2016 POTUS race:


Direckshun
12-04-2012, 07:07 PM
Because of the 2014 midterms.

Extremely conservative, Tea Party-friendly groups like Club for Growth are beginning a campaign to slaughter Republicans who move to the center over the next two years: governors, Representatives, Senators. And thanks to Citizens United, they pose a greater threat within the GOP than they ever have before.

That's the truth of the matter.

The GOP just got spanked in the POTUS race, lost seats in the Senate and lost the popular vote in the House (though gerrymandering kept them in the majority (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=9105489)). They face demographics and a new generation whose views are evolving to be more center-left than they've been in decades, and the trend seems to be excellerating.

It makes total sense for the GOP to consider moderating, and for Republicans in office to consider to adapt towards the center.

But the Republican Party in 2015 is going to be as conservative as the ones in the historically shitty (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=262566) Congress we have now.

Because the Republicans who are in office now are either going to keep to the rightwing flank to protect their right flanks in their primary races, or they will have to race to the center to remain relevant, and get beat in their own primaries by groups like Club for Growth.

The one exception to this seems to be Republicans in hardcore liberal states. These are the only states capable of producing Republicans anymore that don't repel the rest of the country on sight. Romney was, at least at one point, a true moderate. Christie is clearly the frontrunner for 2016, and he's a moderate. The Republican Party has deep-blue states to thank for credible national candidates.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110648/are-republicans-already-blowing-the-next-election

Are Republicans Already Blowing the Next Election?
John B. Judis
December 3, 2012 | 12:00 am

Are Republicans already ignoring the lessons of the presidential election? Last Monday, Republican Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito announced (http://www.politico.com//news/stories/1112/84211.html) plans to run in 2014 for the West Virginia Senate seat held by Jay Rockefeller. In response, former Rep. Chris Chocola, the president of the Club for Growth, declared (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/news/pr/) the Club’s opposition to Moore’s candidacy. “Congresswoman Capito has a long record of support of bailouts, pork, and bigger government,” he said.

Chocola’s statement was overshadowed by the debate over what to do about the “fiscal cliff.” But it probably says more about the future direction of the Republican Party than House Speaker John Boehner’s daily animadversions on taxes and spending; and what it says is not very good--at least for those Republicans to want to revive their party’s fortunes after this November’s election. It also has some bearing on the fiscal-cliff negotiations.

There is no clear center of power in Republican Party (or, for that matter, the Democratic Party). Primaries are determined by a fairly narrow field of voters – only 15 percent of registered voters, for example, participated this year in Indiana’s hotly contested Republican Senate primary. Candidates depend not only on their personal and political appeal, but also on grassroots support and, of course, money.

That’s where organizations like the Club for Growth come in. Unlike the Republican National Committee or the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Club’s objective is not simply to elect Republicans, but to elect what Chocola calls “true champions of economic freedom.” To do that, the Club is willing to intervene in Republican primaries, even against incumbents. And in the wake of Citizens United, it is able to raise and spend unlimited funds to do so.

A politician’s worse fear is being “primaried.” The Club’s early support can inspire a primary challenger. Its opposition – or merely the possibility of its opposition -- can frighten an incumbent or challenger into taking a more conservative stance. When the Club announces that it is putting a vote on its annual “scorecard” of who is truly conservative, Republicans have been known (http://thehill.com/component/content/article/482-lobbyist-profiles/186609-tuesday-profile-uniquely-effective) to change their position overnight, as happened last year with a China currency bill that the Club opposed. Last August, all seven Senators that the Club had backed in 2010 followed the Club’s lead and opposed the much-needed debt ceiling agreement.

In the early 2000s, the Club largely acted alone in primaries, but recently, it has become part of an informal network of hyper-conservative PACs, political groups, talk show hosts and bloggers that have sought to oust Republicans who they believe are not true conservatives. This network includes Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, the Madison Project, various local and national Tea Party organizations, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson’s RedState.

In the beginning, this network targeted liberal Republicans like New Jersey congresswoman Marge Roukema, but it now extends to politicians like Lugar, Capito, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss and even House Speaker Boehner, who by any ordinary definition would be considered conservative. The Club and its allies see themselves as “insurgents” against a Republican “establishment” that falsely claims to be conservative. “What really matters,” Chocola says, “is finding [candidates] who are not part of the establishment.”

In reaction to the November results, the Republican intelligentsia in Washington and New York has called for the party to move to the center on immigration, social issues, and economics in order to broaden its base. Republicans, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333344/party-s-problem-ramesh-ponnuru?pg=1) in National Review, have to make themselves “the party of middle-class economic interests.” “It won’t kill the country if we raise taxes on millionaires a little bit,” Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol opined (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/11/bill_kristol_it_wont_kill_the_country_to_raise_taxes_on_millionaires/).

But the Club and its network blame the Republicans’ and Romney’s defeat on their not being conservative enough. “The first lesson” of Romney’s defeat, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation wrote (http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/categories/tea-party-nation-forum/listForCategory), “is no more moderate Republican candidates.” The reason Romney lost, RedState’s Erickson wrote (http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/12/no/), is that he “tried to blur the lines with Barack Obama.” While ignoring Richard Mourdock’s defeat in Indiana, Chocola cites the Senate victories of Ted Cruz in Texas and Jeff Flake in Arizona as evidence that when Republicans take Club positions rather than “electable” moderates, they will win.

The Club and its network have yet to unveil their overall strategy for 2014, but some of its members groups have already threatened to back primary challenges to Chambliss and South Carolinian Lindsay Graham. And the threats have had some effect. Chambliss incurred the network’s wrath last summer for attempting to work out a bipartisan compromise on the debt ceiling. After the election, he annoyed them by downplaying his commitment to the pledge, circulated by Grover Norquist, not to raise taxes. “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.” But by this week, he had tweeted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/11/26/saxby-chambliss-im-not-in-favor-of-tax-increases/) that he is “not in favor of tax increases.” Chambliss’s decision was not the result of pressure from Norquist, but of the looming threat (http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/11/26/karen-handel-vs-saxby-chambliss-its-possible/) of a primary challenge from the right.

If the Club and its network remain active for 2014 and 2016 elections, they will almost certainly make it more difficult for the Republicans to retake the Senate and to win back the Presidency. That has been true in the past. The Club and Tea Party groups successfully backed far-rightist Sharron Angle in the 2010 Republican Senate primary against an “establishment” conservative who might have beaten Harry Reid. This year, they put their money on Mourdock in Indiana. And if the Club and DeMint’s opposition to Capito is any indication, they will do similar damage to the Republican cause in 2014.

West Virginia is not Arizona. It has gone Republican in the last four presidential elections, because, as my colleague Nate Cohn has noted (http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/110549/democratic-losses-in-coal-country-put-rockefeller-in-danger), voters there see the national Democrats as hostile to coal and guns. But pro-gun, pro-coal Democratic politicians in West Virginia continue to hold most of the state offices and both Senate seats. That’s because West Virginia’s white working class voters, like those in neighboring Pennsylvania and Ohio, still see the Democrats as the party of the New Deal safety net and spending on roads and bridges and schools.

Capito, who won her seat in 2000, and is the daughter of former Governor and moderate Republican Arch Moore, understands the state’s electorate. She backed the expansion of Children’s Health Insurance Program, the extension of unemployment benefits, and infrastructure spending --votes that Chocola cites as reasons to oppose her. She is also an excellent campaigner. She could conceivably defeat Rockefeller and, if he were to retire, another Democratic opponent. But a Republican who espoused the kind of anti-government policies favored by the Club and its network and was able to defeat Capito in a sparsely attended Republican primary – 7 percent of the state’s registered voters went to the polls in the last contested Republican senate primary -- would be likely to lose to almost any competent Democrat.

Republicans who worry most about winning a Senate majority are happy with Moore’s candidacy. Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, the new chairman of the NRSC, leapt (http://www.politico.com//blogs/on-congress/2012/11/moran-defends-capito-against-attacks-shes-too-moderate-150410.html) to her defense after the Club and DeMint attacked her. But the Club and DeMint are oblivious to the peculiar mix of liberalism and conservatism that characterizes many voters in states like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. At the bottom, Chocola, DeMint, and the Tea Party activists don’t believe that Republican candidates have to move to the center on economic and social issues. They see America neatly divided between a “socialist” far left and a “conservative” far right between which the twain shall never meet. “I think the whole concept of compromise and bipartisanship is silly,” Chocola says.

Their view echoes that of leftwing Democrats (http://www.jimhightower.com/store/middle_of_the_road) of the 1980s that “there is nothing in the center of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” That piece of wisdom led to repeated Democratic defeats; and it will do likewise for the Republicans. The network’s view also makes continuing Congressional gridlock over taxes and spending likely. And that could affect more than the Republican Party. If Congress can’t avert the fiscal cliff, or continues to battle over the debt limit, that will endanger America’s fragile recovery from the Great Recession.

BigMeatballDave
12-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Because Barry will have shit SO fucked up, the people will be FORCED to vote republican.

go bowe
12-04-2012, 11:14 PM
that's what they said before the election, but it didn't seem to work very well...

Chocolate Hog
12-04-2012, 11:40 PM
Mitt Romney and John McCain were both moderates and got blown out. Don't blame that bullshit on the TEA party.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-05-2012, 07:33 AM
Mitt Romney and John McCain were both leftists and got blown out. Don't blame that bullshit on the TEA party.

fyp.

CoMoChief
12-05-2012, 07:47 AM
Ron Paul would have had a very strong backing had the GOP allowed it.

GOP wanted nothing to do with real issues because they're just as corrupt as the left.

They did whatever they could to prevent Paul from being successful in this year's campaign. He would have stomped Obama in the presidential debates..I think we all know that.

The problem w/ the GOP is that they're no longer true conservatives. They're just as far left as their opponents.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 07:54 AM
Because Barry will have shit SO ****ed up, the people will be FORCED to vote republican.

That's how we got Barry.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-05-2012, 07:56 AM
We should just vote for who will give us the coolest gifts, which prez will be the first to hand out tablets for all?

InChiefsHell
12-05-2012, 08:05 AM
Ron Paul would have had a very strong backing had the GOP allowed it.

GOP wanted nothing to do with real issues because they're just as corrupt as the left.

They did whatever they could to prevent Paul from being successful in this year's campaign. He would have stomped Obama in the presidential debates..I think we all know that.

The problem w/ the GOP is that they're no longer true conservatives. They're just as far left as their opponents.

Agreed. What used to be common sense thought has now become "Extreme".

patteeu
12-05-2012, 08:06 AM
I'm going to vote democrat in 2016. It will be their mess, they should have to clean it up.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-05-2012, 08:08 AM
I'm going to vote democrat in 2016. It will be their mess, they should have to clean it up.

Now now Pat, don't say things you know will never happen. I'm guessing this is being said just to throw it out there?

patteeu
12-05-2012, 08:11 AM
Now now Pat, don't say things you know will never happen. I'm guessing this is being said just to throw it out there?

Yes. I'm not really going to vote for a democrat. I'm not crazy.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-05-2012, 08:34 AM
Yes. I'm not really going to vote for a democrat. I'm not crazy.

Even if the new pres offers you a free Ipad and a tank of gas?

InChiefsHell
12-05-2012, 08:35 AM
Even if the new pres offers you a free Ipad and a tank of gas?

Woah woah...wait...that's different...

patteeu
12-05-2012, 08:40 AM
Even if the new pres offers you a free Ipad and a tank of gas?

Ipad 3?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-05-2012, 08:40 AM
Woah woah...wait...that's different...

It's free ya know, the govt will pay for it.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 08:45 AM
Yes. I'm not really going to vote for a democrat. I'm not crazy.

Whew!!!!

I thought I was going to have to switch to the dark side just so I can keep arguing with you.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 10:22 AM
If there at any disadvantage, it will be only half their own doing....the other half is Obama's continuing use of Alinksy tactics, which the rabble will eat up.

bevischief
12-05-2012, 10:46 AM
Even if the new pres offers you a free Ipad and a tank of gas?

For life?

petegz28
12-05-2012, 10:59 AM
JFC, the election isn't even a month old and the Left is already throwing out bash pieces for 2016??? What an insecure bunch.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 11:00 AM
JFC, the election isn't even a month old and the Left is already throwing out bash pieces for 2016??? What an insecure bunch.

That's an astute perception.

JonesCrusher
12-05-2012, 11:03 AM
JFC, the election isn't even a month old and the Left is already throwing out bash pieces for 2016??? What an insecure bunch.

Perpetual campaign mode.

chiefqueen
12-05-2012, 11:42 AM
From what I am hearing the GOP will be at a severe disadvantage from here on out as TX is expected to turn solid red to solid blue over the next 10 years due to some amnesty program immigrant TX children were given under Gov. Perry. The oldest of these children start turning 18 during these next 4 years, experts expect these kids to become politically active and be a reliable vote for the Dems.

alpha_omega
12-05-2012, 11:44 AM
Why the GOP is at a distinct disadvantage in the 2016 POTUS race:
I'll take a guess....
Because it was just proven that more than half the electorate is stupid?

patteeu
12-05-2012, 11:59 AM
JFC, the election isn't even a month old and the Left is already throwing out bash pieces for 2016??? What an insecure bunch.

I think they already feel it slipping away.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 12:07 PM
From PPP:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8059/8245197502_30dc6e4bba.jpg

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 12:08 PM
JFC, the election isn't even a month old and the Left is already throwing out bash pieces for 2016??? What an insecure bunch.

I think Hillary Clinton is going to take Chris Christie to the cleaners in the foreign policy debate.

petegz28
12-05-2012, 12:15 PM
I think Hillary Clinton is going to take Chris Christie to the cleaners in the foreign policy debate.

I think there are more important things to worry about than an election 4 years away. Just sayin'.

fan4ever
12-05-2012, 12:21 PM
I think there are more important things to worry about than an election 4 years away. Just sayin'.

Yeah, like surviving another four years with a clueless/inept/corrupt Washington.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 12:25 PM
I think there are more important things to worry about than an election 4 years away. Just sayin'.

I bet Chris Christie selects Rubio as his running mate to satisfy his base, court Latinos, and help win Florida.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-05-2012, 12:26 PM
For life?

Free upgrades!!!! I vote for it and so will you right?

patteeu
12-05-2012, 12:30 PM
I think Hillary Clinton is going to take Chris Christie to the cleaners in the foreign policy debate.

Is Chris Christie going to run in the democrat primary? That's the only chance that he and Hillary have of debating, unless you're talking about a PBS special or something like that.

Bowser
12-05-2012, 12:37 PM
Even if the new pres offers you a free Ipad and a tank of gas?

If pat had invested that $600 Dubyah gave him wisely, he'd be able to afford all of that by now.

cosmo20002
12-05-2012, 12:39 PM
Whew!!!!

I thought I was going to have to switch to the dark side just so I can keep arguing with you.

I wouldn't worry about finding things to argue about. He'll think of something. Its been pointed out many times that pat is just a RINO anyway.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 12:41 PM
Is Chris Christie going to run in the democrat primary? That's the only chance that he and Hillary have of debating, unless you're talking about a PBS special or something like that.

Christie has legs with the GOP establishment.

cosmo20002
12-05-2012, 12:41 PM
If there at any disadvantage, it will be only half their own doing....the other half is Obama's continuing use of Alinksy tactics, which the rabble will eat up.

:facepalm: Completely meaningless.

blaise
12-05-2012, 12:43 PM
In four years Hillary's face is going to look like a plastic bag filled with mashed potatoes. She's not getting elected.

blaise
12-05-2012, 12:44 PM
Insert Christie joke now.

cosmo20002
12-05-2012, 12:45 PM
I think they already feel it slipping away.

ROFL How many times did you write this or something like it in the last 4 years? I'd guess it's close to triple digits.

GoChargers
12-05-2012, 12:48 PM
The reality is that until the GOP starts to get in line with the libertarian wing of their party, they'll continue to lose elections.

It's hilarious how they expect us to still blindly vote for the "R" despite their attempts to demonize, marginalize, and disenfranchise us. Delusion reigns from the very top of the GOP. They aren't a party anymore, they're an echo chamber of stupidity and arrogance.

Meanwhile, while they run a slate of slightly dumber liberals every year, more and more people realize we're not getting an actual choice from the two-party system, hence the growing number of independent voters.

cosmo20002
12-05-2012, 12:50 PM
In four years Hillary's face is going to look like a plastic bag filled with mashed potatoes.

I think Christie carries one of those in his pocket, for emergencies.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 01:01 PM
Christie has legs with the GOP establishment.

Hillary isn't going to be the democrat nominee, if she even runs (which I doubt).

patteeu
12-05-2012, 01:02 PM
ROFL How many times did you write this or something like it in the last 4 years? I'd guess it's close to triple digits.

It depends on what you mean by "something like this".

Taco John
12-05-2012, 01:15 PM
Haha... liberal political analysis on conservative politics. It's always amusing to read leftists trying to interpret this stuff as if they've got a bead on it.

Taco John
12-05-2012, 01:17 PM
Hillary worries me. Elizabeth Warren worries me more.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 01:30 PM
The reality is that until the GOP starts to get in line with the libertarian wing of their party, they'll continue to lose elections.

It's hilarious how they expect us to still blindly vote for the "R" despite their attempts to demonize, marginalize, and disenfranchise us. Delusion reigns from the very top of the GOP. They aren't a party anymore, they're an echo chamber of stupidity and arrogance.

Meanwhile, while they run a slate of slightly dumber liberals every year, more and more people realize we're not getting an actual choice from the two-party system, hence the growing number of independent voters.

The GOOD news is...8 of the 11 Rs that Paul endorsed were elected to the House of Reps...and more have won at state levels or attained key positions within the party. It was the moderate Rs that lost their seats in the House.

Dave Lane
12-05-2012, 01:35 PM
Ron Paul would have had a very strong backing had the GOP allowed it.

GOP wanted nothing to do with real issues because they're just as corrupt as the left.

They did whatever they could to prevent Paul from being successful in this year's campaign. He would have stomped Obama in the presidential debates..I think we all know that.

The problem w/ the GOP is that they're no longer true conservatives. They're just as far left as their opponents.

You are certifiable if you believe that. RP1 would have been beaten like a red haired step child. He's so completely out of touch with mainstream America he couldn't see it with my telescope on a super clear night.

RP1 is without question the worst candidate ever offered up as a Presidential hopeful and I include Rick Santorum.

Chocolate Hog
12-05-2012, 01:44 PM
You are certifiable if you believe that. RP1 would have been beaten like a red haired step child. He's so completely out of touch with mainstream America he couldn't see it with my telescope on a super clear night.

RP1 is without question the worst candidate ever offered up as a Presidential hopeful and I include Rick Santorum.

It's hard to imagine Ron Paul being any worse than any other Republican nominated the last 20 years.

GoChargers
12-05-2012, 01:59 PM
You are certifiable if you believe that. RP1 would have been beaten like a red haired step child. He's so completely out of touch with mainstream America he couldn't see it with my telescope on a super clear night.
Patently false. Libertarian sentiment has largely been increasing in this country since 1993, especially in recent years.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/5848583238_6d4f587200.jpg

RP1 is without question the worst candidate ever offered up as a Presidential hopeful and I include Rick Santorum.
Ridiculous statement.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 02:09 PM
Hillary isn't going to be the democrat nominee, if she even runs (which I doubt).

You have had such an atrocious track record on this shit over the past year, I can barely summon the strength to care.

Hillary's running. And there's nobody in the DNC that can match her.

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 02:10 PM
Haha... liberal political analysis on conservative politics. It's always amusing to read leftists trying to interpret this stuff as if they've got a bead on it.

Did we not call Romney? Did we not call Romney's loss?

Did we not call Huntsman as the lone serious threat?

blaise
12-05-2012, 02:15 PM
Actually, I think Direckshun was saying Palin would be the candidate after Obama's first election. Or starting threads suggesting she was the frontrunner.

DementedLogic
12-05-2012, 03:56 PM
Moving even farther center-left isn't what the Republicans need. Mitt Romney couldn't beat Obama, because he is too much like Obama. Republicans are losing elections because conservatives aren't showing up to the polls. Democrats aren't smart enough to differentiate between a good Democrat and a bad Democrat, as long as there is a D, they are showing up and voting. Conservatives are more intelligent and a lot more principled. They will not hold their nose and vote R, they will just stay home.

BucEyedPea
12-05-2012, 04:01 PM
I see Dave Lane is still relying on the ole Soviet insanity allegations.

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 04:26 PM
Moving even farther center-left isn't what the Republicans need. Mitt Romney couldn't beat Obama, because he is too much like Obama. Republicans are losing elections because conservatives aren't showing up to the polls. Democrats aren't smart enough to differentiate between a good Democrat and a bad Democrat, as long as there is a D, they are showing up and voting. Conservatives are more intelligent and a lot more principled. They will not hold their nose and vote R, they will just stay home.

What principles are Republicans adhering to when they don't do their civic duty and vote? What intelligence is being shown by sticking the fingers in the ears and going nah, nah, nah about evolution?

Your name DementedLogic suits you well.

GoChargers
12-05-2012, 04:33 PM
Conservatives are more intelligent and a lot more principled. They will not hold their nose and vote R, they will just stay home.

Yeah, but the neoconservatives that the GOP panders to are and do the exact opposite.

DementedLogic
12-05-2012, 05:15 PM
What principles are Republicans adhering to when they don't do their civic duty and vote? What intelligence is being shown by sticking the fingers in the ears and going nah, nah, nah about evolution?

Your name DementedLogic suits you well.

Sometimes, not voting can be stronger than voting. Unfortunately the GOP didn't get the message of this election. The message was that conservatives will not support a left-leaning candidate. If the GOP wants to win another presidential election, they need to return to the principles that made the party great. Mittens got the ABO vote. Unfortunately for him, that is pretty much the only vote he got.

DementedLogic
12-05-2012, 05:16 PM
Yeah, but the neoconservatives that the GOP panders to are and do the exact opposite.

I agree, but neoconservatives are not conservatives. Remember, neoconservatives came from the Democratic party. Changing parties doesn't change the intelligence level or adherence to principles.

BigRedChief
12-05-2012, 05:24 PM
I think they already feel it slipping away.You are crazy. The R's are going to get run over by a demographic freight train unless they change their ways.

And don't forget unless you fix your Latino issues, Texas is going in blue in 2020. Try to win the EC without Texas.

mlyonsd
12-05-2012, 05:42 PM
You are crazy. The R's are going to get run over by a demographic freight train unless they change their ways.

And don't forget unless you fix your Latino issues, Texas is going in blue in 2020. Try to win the EC without Texas.
I'll bet you $100 towards each of our favorite charities the dems don't win the 2016 presidential election.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 05:53 PM
I'll bet you $100 towards each of our favorite charities the dems don't win the 2016 presidential election.

The Rs do have to change their ways. Start off with running a Santa Claus candidate. Offering gifts to those who sneak into our country and those who refuse to support themselves. Most important of all one who refuses to acknowledge we are broke~

GoChargers
12-05-2012, 05:59 PM
The Rs do have to change their ways. Start off with running a Santa Claus candidate. Offering gifts to those who sneak into our country and those who refuse to support themselves. Most important of all one who refuses to acknowledge we are broke~

Or they could stop obsessing over what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, drop the ignorance, and quit their militaristic shredding of our civil liberties. That would work too.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 06:04 PM
Or they could stop obsessing over what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, drop the ignorance, and quit their militaristic shredding of our civil liberties. That would work too.

If you had any clue on where I stand on your first point you would have saved yourself sometime replying. To your other points the left has no high ground on either~

BigRedChief
12-05-2012, 06:05 PM
I'll bet you $100 towards each of our favorite charities the dems don't win the 2016 presidential election.way too far out. Hell I might vote Republican if they ever get off the damn social issues and quit dictating morals, playing big brother/big government with peoples life's.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 06:09 PM
way too far out. Hell I might vote Republican if they ever get off the damn social issues and quit dictating morals, playing big brother/big government with peoples life's.

How can you type big brother big government pointing at the right while backing the left. I am serious~

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 06:09 PM
If you had any clue on where I stand on your first point you would have saved yourself sometime replying. To your other points the left has no high ground on either~

Please explain.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 06:16 PM
Please explain.

Where do you think I stand on what consenting adults do? As far as the rest, Obama did not do away with the patriot act he made it more powerful~

Taco John
12-05-2012, 06:21 PM
Did we not call Romney? Did we not call Romney's loss?

Did we not call Huntsman as the lone serious threat?

Haha! Huntsman wasn't a threat. He's a joke.

Canofbier
12-05-2012, 06:25 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Az3Ar.gif

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 06:37 PM
Where do you think I stand on what consenting adults do? As far as the rest, Obama did not do away with the patriot act he made it more powerful~

I had a pretty good idea about the first part, didn't really connect the dots on what you were talking about on the second part.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 06:42 PM
I had a pretty good idea about the first part, didn't really connect the dots on what you were talking about on the second part.

I figured that, which was why I only explained the 2nd part :D

BigRedChief
12-05-2012, 06:43 PM
How can you type big brother big government pointing at the right while backing the left. I am serious~After all the name calling and harassment that you have flipped my way, why would I ever answer a serious question from you? You apologize and stop and then we can talk.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 06:44 PM
After all the name calling and harassment that you have flipped my way, why would I ever answer a serious question from you? You apologize and stop and then we can talk.

Eat shit~

J Diddy
12-05-2012, 07:00 PM
Eat shit~

After all the name calling and harassment that you have flipped my way, why would I ever answer a serious question from you? You apologize and stop and then we can talk.

I'm sensing a kumbaya moment.

Canofbier
12-05-2012, 07:02 PM
Eat shit~

http://i.imgur.com/6R8r0.gif

whoman69
12-05-2012, 07:02 PM
Mitt Romney and John McCain were both moderates and got blown out. Don't blame that bullshit on the TEA party.

Moderates that had to send their message to the far right to appease their Republican base or get blown out even further.

RedNeckRaider
12-05-2012, 07:13 PM
I'm sensing a kumbaya moment.

LMAO

Direckshun
12-05-2012, 07:22 PM
I'll bet you $100 towards each of our favorite charities the dems don't win the 2016 presidential election.

LMAO

patteeu
12-05-2012, 10:01 PM
I agree, but neoconservatives are not conservatives. Remember, neoconservatives came from the Democratic party. Changing parties doesn't change the intelligence level or adherence to principles.

Like Ronald Reagan?

DementedLogic
12-05-2012, 10:15 PM
Like Ronald Reagan?

There is a difference between a bleeding heart changing parties because they gain a better understanding of economics and a neoconservative. Neoconservatives only give lip speak to conservatism, but default to their big government roots at every opportunity.

patteeu
12-05-2012, 10:22 PM
There is a difference between a bleeding heart changing parties because they gain a better understanding of economics and a neoconservative. Neoconservatives only give lip speak to conservatism, but default to their big government roots at every opportunity.

Did Reagan ever get around to making government smaller?

Chocolate Hog
12-05-2012, 10:42 PM
Moderates that had to send their message to the far right to appease their Republican base or get blown out even further.

ROFL Mitt Romney nor John McCain were far right on anything except war.

GoChargers
12-05-2012, 10:46 PM
Like Ronald Reagan?

Yes, Reagan turned out to be a neocon.

DementedLogic
12-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Did Reagan ever get around to making government smaller?

No, he did not. I don't know if there has been a president that made government smaller since Grover Cleveland, who is precisely the kind of president we need right now.

BucEyedPea
12-06-2012, 02:25 PM
Moderates that had to send their message to the far right to appease their Republican base or get blown out even further.

Bullshit. It was moderate Rs that lost their seats in Congress.

To others: RR had a Democratic congress who he appeased in order to get the military build-up he wanted to deal with the SU. He did deliver on that promise. Not the Dept of Ed though.

BucEyedPea
12-06-2012, 02:28 PM
Or they could stop obsessing over what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, drop the ignorance, and quit their militaristic shredding of our civil liberties. That would work too.

The bedroom issue belongs with the states. I presume we're talking national here. I agree with the police state they're helping to build.

BucEyedPea
12-06-2012, 02:29 PM
:facepalm: Completely meaningless.

In your opinion. That's exactly what Obama is doing with the budget issue.

BucEyedPea
12-06-2012, 02:31 PM
You have had such an atrocious track record on this shit over the past year, I can barely summon the strength to care.

Hillary's running. And there's nobody in the DNC that can match her.

That squaw Warren is thought to be her match and better according to some Democrats.

blaise
12-06-2012, 02:36 PM
That squaw Warren is thought to be her match and better according to some Democrats.

I hope she runs. The Republicans would actually be the favorite.

whoman69
12-06-2012, 02:41 PM
Bullshit. It was moderate Rs that lost their seats in Congress.

To others: RR had a Democratic congress who he appeased in order to get the military build-up he wanted to deal with the SU. He did deliver on that promise. Not the Dept of Ed though.

Moderates lost their seats because they can't appease the Republican base. There is a conservative litmus test needed to be elected. Republicans will not come out for moderate candidates.

DementedLogic
12-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Moderates lost their seats because they can't appease the Republican base. There is a conservative litmus test needed to be elected. Republicans will not come out for moderate candidates.

Which is exactly why the party needs to stop trotting out moderates. Moderates are what got us into this mess. You don't pile up $16 Trillion in debt by being too conservative.

penchief
12-07-2012, 08:02 PM
Which is exactly why the party needs to stop trotting out moderates. Moderates are what got us into this mess. You don't pile up $16 Trillion in debt by being too conservative.

It's not the fact that they are moderates that cost them the presidential elections. It's the fact that they have to pander to the batshit crazy right to get the republican nomination. It leaves them with a primary resume that turns off most voters except for the extremists in the republican party.

Just take a look at how the tea party candidates for the senate fared. I'm not sure a tea party presidential candidate is going to have a very broad appeal. There's a reason Romney went hard center once the debates began. He knew he was appealing to the larger electorate. If he had kept up the crazy talk necessary to win the republican primary he would have lost by even a wider margin than he did.

DementedLogic
12-07-2012, 10:15 PM
It's not the fact that they are moderates that cost them the presidential elections. It's the fact that they have to pander to the batshit crazy right to get the republican nomination. It leaves them with a primary resume that turns off most voters except for the extremists in the republican party.

Just take a look at how the tea party candidates for the senate fared. I'm not sure a tea party presidential candidate is going to have a very broad appeal. There's a reason Romney went hard center once the debates began. He knew he was appealing to the larger electorate. If he had kept up the crazy talk necessary to win the republican primary he would have lost by even a wider margin than he did.

You are referring to the social right-wingers, I'm referring to the fiscal right-wingers. Mitt Romney made no attempts to pander to fiscal conservatives, and that is what cost him the election. He shouldn't be pandering to the batshit crazy right-wingers. Those people are the ABO crowd and will vote for anyone with an R next to their name.

SNR
12-08-2012, 11:02 AM
Direckshun in 2010:

"Midterm elections don't matter"

Direckshun in 2012:

"Midterm elections matter"

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 11:48 AM
Direckshun in 2010:

"Midterm elections don't matter"

Swing and a miss.

SNR
12-08-2012, 11:50 AM
Swing and a miss.

You said 2010 was just a natural swing back in the other direction of the party who won the presidency. Nothing to write home about, and certainly nothing to look at in terms of future voters.

Essentially, you said midterm elections don't matter

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 11:55 AM
You said 2010 was just a natural swing back in the other direction of the party who won the presidency. Nothing to write home about, and certainly nothing to look at in terms of future voters.

Essentially, you said midterm elections don't matter

I think their political saliency is overrated.

They are less representative of the population's mixture of ideologies, and more representative of which base can turn out better.

Midterms are about base turnout. Presidential years are about winning over the center.

SNR
12-08-2012, 01:55 PM
I think their political saliency is overrated.

They are less representative of the population's mixture of ideologies, and more representative of which base can turn out better.

Midterms are about base turnout. Presidential years are about winning over the center.

So 2014 should be all about base turnout yes? Meaning it's irrelevant to what 2016 will bring at this point.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 01:56 PM
So 2014 should be all about base turnout yes? Meaning it's irrelevant to what 2016 will bring at this point.

I would agree on both points.

I don't know what's given you the impression that I've said otherwise, however.

ClevelandBronco
12-08-2012, 02:06 PM
The GOP is at a distinct disadvantage for the same reason that parents would be at a distinct disadvantage if families with more kids than adults were run democratically.

SNR
12-08-2012, 02:49 PM
I would agree on both points.

I don't know what's given you the impression that I've said otherwise, however.

Why the GOP is at a distinct disadvantage in the 2016 POTUS race:

Because of the 2014 midterms.

This does not match up if you agree with this statement:

So 2014 should be all about base turnout yes? Meaning it's irrelevant to what 2016 will bring at this point.

Chewbacca is a wookie from Kishik.

Direckshun
12-08-2012, 03:48 PM
This does not match up if you agree with this statement:

Ah, I gotcha. Let me clarify.

I believe that how the population votes in midterms is distinctly different and rarely indicative of how it will vote in Presidential years. I think Presidential election years are more indicative of where the country is ideologically, since that's when the most people are paying attention and the most people turn out. This is different in midterm years, where the bases are just running get out the vote operations, and base enthusiasm is really the key determiner.

That doesn't mean midterms don't matter, politically. They clearly do -- the 2014 midterms will spook enough Republicans to tack to hard right policy endorsements to protect their right flanks, which will wound the party for the Presidential election year. We just saw this happen from 2010 to 2012.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2012, 07:07 PM
If the Tea Party is running the Republican party then why did most of the members get removed from key leadership positions?

BigRedChief
12-08-2012, 07:35 PM
If the Tea Party is running the Republican party then why did most of the members get removed from key leadership positions?It was really the primaries that killed the Republicans. The lurch to the right on social issues, immigration etc to curry favor with the Tea Party primary voters set the R's back.

DementedLogic
12-08-2012, 09:58 PM
It was really the primaries that killed the Republicans. The lurch to the right on social issues, immigration etc to curry favor with the Tea Party primary voters set the R's back.

The tea party movement was a fiscal conservative movement until the social conservatives high jacked it. The tea party today is a perverted version of the original tea party movement.

mauifan
12-08-2012, 10:35 PM
I know I'm new here and I hope I'm not butting in or over stepping my bounds, but my opinion is what killed the Republicans was the Conservative mainstream message.., They spent more time deriding anybody in opposition than making a cohesive statement.., Their message was, 'If you don't agree with me you're a butthole.., If you vote for Obama you're either brainwashed or on the take.., If you're the descendant of a fence jumpim mexican you're not a true American.., If you're a union employee you're an anit-capitalist Communist".., I apologize for generalizing but I think they just pissed too many people off..,

When the RNC cannot mount and back a candidate to defeat a sitting president with the worst record of accomplishments in recent history, there was a terrible comminucation breakdown.., To me, the election was there for the taking, they just pissed too many people off in the process..,

It was the Republican's election to lose.., And they did..,

Just my opinion..,

KILLER_CLOWN
12-09-2012, 01:18 AM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7OLOsHVaDw8tIdMKzxQ8meS76lr-3JxrA1-7ILfPvJXqYq7AH

BigRedChief
12-09-2012, 06:15 AM
I know I'm new here and I hope I'm not butting in or over stepping my bounds, but my opinion is what killed the Republicans was the Conservative mainstream message.., They spent more time deriding anybody in opposition than making a cohesive statement.., Their message was, 'If you don't agree with me you're a butthole.., If you vote for Obama you're either brainwashed or on the take.., If you're the descendant of a fence jumpim mexican you're not a true American.., If you're a union employee you're an anit-capitalist Communist".., I apologize for generalizing but I think they just pissed too many people off..,

When the RNC cannot mount and back a candidate to defeat a sitting president with the worst record of accomplishments in recent history, there was a terrible comminucation breakdown.., To me, the election was there for the taking, they just pissed too many people off in the process..,

It was the Republican's election to lose.., And they did..,

Just my opinion..,Why would someone be pissed off about this post. It borderline facts.

patteeu
12-09-2012, 09:33 AM
I know I'm new here and I hope I'm not butting in or over stepping my bounds, but my opinion is what killed the Republicans was the Conservative mainstream message.., They spent more time deriding anybody in opposition than making a cohesive statement.., Their message was, 'If you don't agree with me you're a butthole.., If you vote for Obama you're either brainwashed or on the take.., If you're the descendant of a fence jumpim mexican you're not a true American.., If you're a union employee you're an anit-capitalist Communist".., I apologize for generalizing but I think they just pissed too many people off..,

When the RNC cannot mount and back a candidate to defeat a sitting president with the worst record of accomplishments in recent history, there was a terrible comminucation breakdown.., To me, the election was there for the taking, they just pissed too many people off in the process..,

It was the Republican's election to lose.., And they did..,

Just my opinion..,

I think there were just too many brainwashed buttholes, anti-capitalists and descendants of fence jumpin mexicans for decent Americans to overcome.

Direckshun
12-09-2012, 10:02 AM
I know I'm new here and I hope I'm not butting in or over stepping my bounds, but my opinion is what killed the Republicans was the Conservative mainstream message.., They spent more time deriding anybody in opposition than making a cohesive statement.., Their message was, 'If you don't agree with me you're a butthole.., If you vote for Obama you're either brainwashed or on the take.., If you're the descendant of a fence jumpim mexican you're not a true American.., If you're a union employee you're an anit-capitalist Communist".., I apologize for generalizing but I think they just pissed too many people off..,

When the RNC cannot mount and back a candidate to defeat a sitting president with the worst record of accomplishments in recent history, there was a terrible comminucation breakdown.., To me, the election was there for the taking, they just pissed too many people off in the process..,

It was the Republican's election to lose.., And they did..,

Just my opinion..,

I tend to agree.

The Republican Party around 2008 convinced itself that Barack Obama was the harbinger of all that is bad and unholy in the universe.

So, the Republican Party embraced what we should simply start calling the "Obama Litmus Test," which is: if Obama does it, it's not just bad, it's destructive to our future and anti-American.

So, when Obama embraces a bunch of centrist policies for the entirety of his first term, the Republican Party had to leap so far to the right to maintain their Obama Litmus Test Credentials, that their tent shrunk exponentially. The percentage of the population that describes themselves as Republican has reached a modern history low. The remaining Republicans came across as anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-foreigner, anti-government, anti-youth, anti-science, and in many cases, anti-reality -- I mean they honestly believed they were going to win the election.

The party has no choice but to come back to sanity.

DementedLogic
12-09-2012, 11:03 AM
I tend to agree.

The Republican Party around 2008 convinced itself that Barack Obama was the harbinger of all that is bad and unholy in the universe.

So, the Republican Party embraced what we should simply start calling the "Obama Litmus Test," which is: if Obama does it, it's not just bad, it's destructive to our future and anti-American.

So, when Obama embraces a bunch of centrist policies for the entirety of his first term, the Republican Party had to leap so far to the right to maintain their Obama Litmus Test Credentials, that their tent shrunk exponentially. The percentage of the population that describes themselves as Republican has reached a modern history low. The remaining Republicans came across as anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-foreigner, anti-government, anti-youth, anti-science, and in many cases, anti-reality -- I mean they honestly believed they were going to win the election.

The party has no choice but to come back to sanity.

No matter how many times you make the claim that "Obama embraces a bunch of centrist policies for the entirety of his first term", it isn't going to come true.

alnorth
12-09-2012, 04:28 PM
I tend to agree.

The Republican Party around 2008 convinced itself that Barack Obama was the harbinger of all that is bad and unholy in the universe.

So, the Republican Party embraced what we should simply start calling the "Obama Litmus Test," which is: if Obama does it, it's not just bad, it's destructive to our future and anti-American.

So, when Obama embraces a bunch of centrist policies for the entirety of his first term, the Republican Party had to leap so far to the right to maintain their Obama Litmus Test Credentials, that their tent shrunk exponentially. The percentage of the population that describes themselves as Republican has reached a modern history low. The remaining Republicans came across as anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-foreigner, anti-government, anti-youth, anti-science, and in many cases, anti-reality -- I mean they honestly believed they were going to win the election.

The party has no choice but to come back to sanity.

I think the GOP will need to go Mondale first. There are too many idiots who believe Romney lost because he was not conservative enough. The Dems thought they were not liberal enough and lost a couple elections before recalibrating with Clinton.

If they nominate a hard-core conservative for 2016 and then lose badly, they may wake up and go in a more Libertarian direction in 2020.

BigRedChief
12-09-2012, 08:04 PM
I think the GOP will need to go Mondale first. There are too many idiots who believe Romney lost because he was not conservative enough. The Dems thought they were not liberal enough and lost a couple elections before recalibrating with Clinton.

If they nominate a hard-core conservative for 2016 and then lose badly, they may wake up and go in a more Libertarian direction in 2020.That will be too late to wake up. They will have lost Texas. The R's can't recover from that EC lost.

Direckshun
12-09-2012, 10:33 PM
I think the GOP's only hope for the next election cycle is Governor Christie. I think Christie has legs on a national scale.

If the GOP nominates anybody else and puts them up against Hillary in 2016, they just might go Mondale.

I think Christie has the ability to win, however.

cosmo20002
12-09-2012, 10:52 PM
I know I'm new here and I hope I'm not butting in or over stepping my bounds, but my opinion is what killed the Republicans was the Conservative mainstream message.., They spent more time deriding anybody in opposition than making a cohesive statement.., Their message was, 'If you don't agree with me you're a butthole.., If you vote for Obama you're either brainwashed or on the take.., If you're the descendant of a fence jumpim mexican you're not a true American.., If you're a union employee you're an anit-capitalist Communist".., I apologize for generalizing but I think they just pissed too many people off..,

When the RNC cannot mount and back a candidate to defeat a sitting president with the worst record of accomplishments in recent history, there was a terrible comminucation breakdown.., To me, the election was there for the taking, they just pissed too many people off in the process..,

It was the Republican's election to lose.., And they did..,

Just my opinion..,

The part in bold is complete bullshit, but the rest is reasonable.

Pitt Gorilla
12-09-2012, 11:00 PM
I think the GOP's only hope for the next election cycle is Governor Christie. I think Christie has legs on a national scale.

If the GOP nominates anybody else and puts them up against Hillary in 2016, they just might go Mondale.

I think Christie has the ability to win, however.The Republicans, apparently, now hate Christie.

BigRedChief
12-09-2012, 11:02 PM
I think the GOP's only hope for the next election cycle is Governor Christie. I think Christie has legs on a national scale.

If the GOP nominates anybody else and puts them up against Hillary in 2016, they just might go Mondale.

I think Christie has the ability to win, however.Everyone is seeing a Christie Vs. Hillary 2016 election. A real possibility for sure.

But, there is almost always a surprise candidate that comes out of no where to win the nomination, especially the Democratic nomination. No one thought Obama could beat the Clinton machine in 2008. Just saying....

As for Cristie, we are assuming he is forgiven for getting Obama elected by the Iowa Caucasus's.;)

SNR
12-09-2012, 11:22 PM
The Republicans, apparently, now hate Christie.

Republicans hated John McCain. Then they put him up as the party's champion.

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 08:09 AM
The Republicans, apparently, now hate Christie.

Not really (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=267126).

patteeu
12-10-2012, 09:13 AM
Not really (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=267126).

I've got $750 casino cash that says neither Hillary nor Christie will be nominated in 2016.

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 08:57 PM
I've got $750 casino cash that says neither Hillary nor Christie will be nominated in 2016.

Based on what, do you think?

Who are you projecting, if anybody?

SNR
12-10-2012, 09:09 PM
Man, I should have set up the debate between patteeu and Direckshun. Patteeu wouldn't have skimped out for fucking Huskers tickets.

patteeu
12-10-2012, 09:24 PM
Based on what, do you think?

Who are you projecting, if anybody?

I'm not projecting anyone. I just think Hillary will be really old and democrats rarely nominate the next in line anyway.

As for Christie, I just think the odds are against him because of so many potential candidates and I think being from the Northeast, having a liberal streak, and having pulled his Sandy stunt make his nomination even less likely.

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 09:32 PM
Man, I should have set up the debate between patteeu and Direckshun. Patteeu wouldn't have skimped out for ****ing Huskers tickets.

LMAO

LETS DO THIS THING

http://blogs.ubc.ca/cners/files/2012/10/gladiator.jpg

Direckshun
12-10-2012, 09:39 PM
I'm not projecting anyone. I just think Hillary will be really old and democrats rarely nominate the next in line anyway.

As for Christie, I just think the odds are against him because of so many potential candidates and I think being from the Northeast, having a liberal streak, and having pulled his Sandy stunt make his nomination even less likely.

I think you overestimate the depth of the DNP bench. It's a pretty shallow squad we're sportin' on the blue team.

I was iffy on Hillary's chances back in 2008 because Obama declared and John Edwards was still riding a tide of intrigue. Obama and Edwards were both extremely affable candidates with extremely high profiles.

I don't see a single one that fits that definition right now. There's no heartthrob in the DNC right now that can take Hillary out.

Well, there's one: Hillary. Hillary's become the heartthrob.

She's got the DNP locked up.

My observation of the GOP are admittedly from somebody who is not their intended audience. I just think Christie is (a.) a governor, who always do better in these things, and (b.) he is incredibly charismatic, I really enjoy listening to him talk.

While I agree with you that somebody like Rubio is much closer to where the GOP's ideology is these days, I put up a poll a couple weeks ago and out of like a dozen DC conservatives on this forum (admittedly a hilariously small sample), the overwhelming support was for Christie.

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 11:29 AM
Apparently the GOP agrees with the OP.

The biggest, wealthiest GOP donors are banding together to protect the establishment GOP from another potential Tea Party wave in 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?hp&_r=1&

Top G.O.P. Donors Seek Greater Say in Senate Races
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 2, 2013

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.

The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”

The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.

The first test of the group’s effort to influence primary races could come here in Iowa, where some Republicans are already worrying about who will run for the seat being vacated by Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat. It is the first open Senate seat in Iowa since 1974, and Republicans are fearful of squandering a rare opportunity.

The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.

The project is being waged with last year’s Senate contests in mind, particularly the one in Missouri, where Representative Todd Akin’s comment that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy rippled through races across the country. In Indiana, the Republican candidate, Richard E. Mourdock, lost a race after he said that when a woman became pregnant during a rape it was “something God intended.”

As Republicans rebuild from losing the White House race and seats in the House and Senate last year, party leaders and strategists are placing a heightened focus on taking control of the Senate next year. Republicans must pick up six seats to win a majority.

Representative Steve King, a six-term Iowa Republican, could be among the earliest targets of the Conservative Victory Project. He said he had not decided whether he would run for the Senate, but the leaders of the project in Washington are not waiting to try to steer him away from the race.

The group’s plans, which were outlined for the first time last week in an interview with Mr. Law, call for hard-edge campaign tactics, including television advertising, against candidates whom party leaders see as unelectable and a drag on the efforts to win the Senate. Mr. Law cited Iowa as an example and said Republicans could no longer be squeamish about intervening in primary fights.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

Mr. King has compiled a record of incendiary statements during his time in Congress, including comparing illegal immigrants to dogs and likening Capitol Hill maintenance workers to “Stasi troops” after they were ordered to install environmentally friendly light bulbs. But he rejected the suggestion that his voting record or previous remarks would keep him from winning if he decided to run for the Senate.

“This is a decision for Iowans to make and should not be guided by some political staffers in Washington,” Mr. King said in an interview, pointing out that he won his Congressional race last year even though President Obama easily defeated Mitt Romney in Iowa. “The last election, they said I couldn’t win that, either, and the entire machine was against me.”

The Conservative Victory Project will be a super PAC operating independently of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. It will disclose the names of donors and raise money separately from American Crossroads, officials said, because some donors were uncomfortable about aggressively weighing in on Republican-vs.-Republican fights.

“It is a delicate and sensitive undertaking,” Mr. Law said. “Our approach will be to institutionalize the Buckley rule: Support the most conservative candidate who can win.”

But by imposing the rule of the conservative leader William F. Buckley, the group could run afoul of Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment” to not speak ill of a fellow Republican.

In Iowa, Cory Adams, the chairman of the Story County Republican Party, said the criticism aimed at Mr. King was unfair and misdirected. He warned of resistance from conservative activists if outside groups tried to interfere in the Senate race.

“If he wants to run for the Senate, he should be allowed to run,” Mr. Adams said of Mr. King, whose Congressional district includes Story County. “The more people get to know him, the more they will like him.”

The retirement announcements last month from Mr. Harkin and Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, have created wide-open Senate races that are expected to attract several prospective candidates. The Conservative Victory Project is working to build a consensus with other groups on candidates who have the strongest chance of winning.

Grover Norquist, who leads Americans for Tax Reform, a fiscally conservative advocacy group that plays a role in Republican primary races, said he welcomed a pragmatic sense of discipline in recruiting candidates. But he said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose, pointing to establishment Republicans in North Dakota and Montana who also lost their races last year.

“People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” Mr. Norquist said. “We’ve had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly.”

Sue Everhart, the head of the Georgia Republican Party, said she did not object to outside intervention. But because open Senate seats do not come along very often, she said,“we have six congressmen who want the job,” which could create a messy and divisive primary regardless of the efforts to control the race.

“The primary has to sort itself out in Georgia,” Ms. Everhart said. “That’s what primaries are for. But we cannot afford to take our eye off the ball. This is going to be a very important election, and it’s paramount that Georgia keeps its Senate seat in Republican hands.”

ThatRaceCardGuy
02-03-2013, 11:39 AM
I'm not projecting anyone. I just think Hillary will be really old and democrats rarely nominate the next in line anyway.

As for Christie, I just think the odds are against him because of so many potential candidates and I think being from the Northeast, having a liberal streak, and having pulled his Sandy stunt make his nomination even less likely.


I like Christie. He is one of the few from the GOP I would consider looking at. The fact that he does not cater to the conservative southern christens is a plus in my book. The guy is no nonsense, and doesn't care who he calls out for their BS. I may disagree with him on some of his economic points, but he is one of the few politicians on either side who is believable in their sincerity and honesty.

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 11:41 AM
I like Christie. He is one of the few from the GOP I would consider looking at. The fact that he does not cater to the conservative southern christens is a plus in my book. The guy is no nonsense, and doesn't care who he calls out for their BS. I may disagree with him on some of his economic points, but he is one of the few politicians on either side who is believable in their sincerity and honesty.

Thanks, mainly, to the deep blue states.

Republicans who are in office now are either going to keep to the rightwing flank to protect their right flanks in their primary races, or they will have to race to the center to remain relevant, and get beat in their own primaries by groups like Club for Growth.

The one exception to this seems to be Republicans in hardcore liberal states. These are the only states capable of producing Republicans anymore that don't repel the rest of the country on sight. Romney was, at least at one point, a true moderate. Christie is clearly the frontrunner for 2016, and he's a moderate. The Republican Party has deep-blue states to thank for credible national candidates.

Prison Bitch
02-03-2013, 11:41 AM
Christie is a fat-fck who betrayed his own party in 2012. He's dead man walking, and not viable anymore nationally with the party.

ThatRaceCardGuy
02-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Christie is a fat-fck who betrayed his own party in 2012. He's dead man walking, and not viable anymore nationally with the party.

And its statements like the one above as to why the GOP wont win back the Oval office unless it stops thinking about whats best for their party line, and starts to think about whats best for the country as a whole.

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 11:51 AM
Christie is a fat-fck who betrayed his own party in 2012. He's dead man walking, and not viable anymore nationally with the party.

Let's make this a bet, shall we?

How about: the day Christie gets the GOP nomination, I get your signature for the remainder of the 2016 POTUS election.

However, should Christie either not enter, or drop out, you get mine for the remainder of the 2016 POTUS election.

Deal?

BigRedChief
02-03-2013, 11:59 AM
Christie is a fat-fck who betrayed his own party in 2012. He's dead man walking, and not viable anymore nationally with the party.What betrayal?

ThatRaceCardGuy
02-03-2013, 12:01 PM
What betrayal?

He told off that Faux News guy...thats a no-no for any GOP person.ROFL

Bowser
02-03-2013, 01:10 PM
Christie is a fat-fck who betrayed his own party in 2012. He's dead man walking, and not viable anymore nationally with the party.

If telling some schmuck on FOX News that he didn't give a damn if Mitt Romney was coming to visit while his state was picking up the pieces from Superstorm Sandy makes him "not viable anymore nationally" with the GOP, then the GOP has WAY bigger problems then Christie himself.

RedNeckRaider
02-03-2013, 01:21 PM
Let's make this a bet, shall we?

How about: the day Christie gets the GOP nomination, I get your signature for the remainder of the 2016 POTUS election.

However, should Christie either not enter, or drop out, you get mine for the remainder of the 2016 POTUS election.

Deal?

What's with the weak bet? I thought all political bets where lifetime bans or nothing~

BigRedChief
02-03-2013, 01:48 PM
If telling some schmuck on FOX News that he didn't give a damn if Mitt Romney was coming to visit while his state was picking up the pieces from Superstorm Sandy makes him "not viable anymore nationally" with the GOP, then the GOP has WAY bigger problems then Christie himself.Prison Bitch is this true, what he said after the storm?