# What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?



## BDBoop (Sep 13, 2013)

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast



> Conservative Republicans uphold their conservative principles as a shiny badge of honor never to be tarnished. I, too, am a conservative Republican. However, I think like Ronald Reagan, who when trying to get legislation passed in 1983 said the following:
> 
> &#8220;I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you&#8217;re not going to always get everything you want.&#8221;
> 
> ...



This is an excellent article. There are some hard home-truths that need to be faced and dealt with before Republicans can even think about taking back the White House. I am hoping that since there is a veritable shit-ton of Republicans who want their party back, they will find a way to make it happen. Because this "I'm more conservative!" "No, I'M more conservative!" game is doing nothing to win moderates, and you need the moderates. You cannot win without them.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 13, 2013)

Rush(I'm not a drug addict) Limbaugh.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 13, 2013)

Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.  

The democrat brand is just starting its disintegration.  Give it awhile.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 13, 2013)

It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 13, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.
> 
> The *democrat* brand is just starting its disintegration.  Give it awhile.


and tonight's secret word is........ democratic. Let's see if our contestants can get it right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 13, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem for those republicans who want their party back is theyre on the back of a tiger; the fear of being primaried is just too great. 

However crazy or irresponsible a given republican incumbent might be, theres someone back home even more crazy and more irresponsible ready to take the incumbents place.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 13, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.



Ahh, bring back those golden moral moments in time in the US when:

1. men could and should beat their wives, children, dogs and their meat with immunity.

2. men could kill an animal for food, kill an Indian, kill a black man, kill a slant eye and kill each other with impunity.

3. men could rape a woman, rape a slave and  rape a sheep all with nonliabilty.

4. men could be the only voters, invade and loot, drink and do drugs from the pharmacy and preach from the pulpit with privilege


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 13, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.
> ...



It's alright, you don't have to live in the here and now...you're a Democrat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 13, 2013)

We in the GOP will change by reaching out to women, Hispanics and other minorities, and put away the social traditionalist agenda.

Simply this: there are far more votes to court successfully than what we lose with pissy older white far right conservatives.

Get over it, guys: it is happening now, and you will love Christie, regardless of what you think now.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 13, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> We in the GOP will change by reaching out to women, Hispanics and other minorities, and put away the social traditionalist agenda.
> 
> Simply this: there are far more votes to court successfully than what we lose with pissy older white far right conservatives.
> 
> Get over it, guys: it is happening now, and you will love Christie, regardless of what you think now.



I figure the country has to completely fail before it's renewed and rebalanced, soooo why not.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 13, 2013)

There is more to the world than gays fucking one another.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 13, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.



If what you said were true...I'd be voting Republican. 

......not because of liberl policies and legislation.....

.......we are not being swallowed by debt.....

......our standing in the world is better now than 5 years ago......

.........nobody is being made a slave to entitlements.....

........American morality is just fine......

.....Democrats are no more interested in winning elections than Republicans.....

Nope. Nothing you said was true. Way to go!


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 13, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.
> ...



Reality alludes You...enjoy...


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 13, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Liberal democrat at that!


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 13, 2013)

this countries government is corrupt and they all want to invade our privacy, but that started many years ago.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 13, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.
> ...



And -- In spite of the hard work of the Rs, there has been positive job growth and lessening of the debt. 

The Rs govern with tantrums and blackmail. They continue to pretend they can repeal/defund the ACA and waste money with phony votes. Every day, more lies fro the right and people know that. 

But, its true that some people get their information from fox and if they don't look at anything else, its possible they could believe the daily lies. There are also people who hate that black commie kenyan muslin so much, they'll happily vote against what's best for their own children an grand children. Unbelievable I know, but read the posts here and the same ones who despise Obama for being a "commie" just love Putin the commie. They really are THAT dumb. 

But, hopefully, there are still not enough of these fools to win 270 electoral votes.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 13, 2013)

It's three years to the next election.  Where are Americans looking for help?  Edward Snowden to call the government to account and President Putin to bring it to heel.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 13, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know what will happen in 2016, but if the election was held today the GOP could nominate Palin and win in a landslide.


----------



## 007 (Sep 13, 2013)

See my sig.​


----------



## Picaro (Sep 13, 2013)

I despise both 'parties', both of them need to collapse, but currently it looks like Cruz or Jindal would top the list; not that the RNC cares much what the rank and file thinks any more than the DNC cares about its own rank and file.

It will pretty much have to be a southerner or westerner. I don't think the Republican leadership actually wants the White House, for the same reasons nobody really wants to be a mafia godfather any more. The coming mid-terms result will be mildly interesting, as they will probably guide the 2016 elections.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 13, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.
> ...



True. 

To believe otherwise is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 13, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.
> ...



What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 13, 2013)

Interestingly, for the rightwing jabbering, not one of them could name a Republican that has any chance of winning.


----------



## Zona (Sep 13, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personally, I think McCain and Palin will do fine in 2016.


----------



## Zona (Sep 13, 2013)

Seriously, they put those two clowns as actually candidates  a few years back..  

Wow.


----------



## Zona (Sep 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...



Oh dear god be serious.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 14, 2013)

Zona said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



He is serious. 

This QW is an interesting character. He's educated......and he's got some depth of thought going on. But.....he has some glitch when it comes to grasping the way that politicians are perceived by others.

Who is the smartest person you know....personally or otherwise....who expresses a desire to have Sarah Palin lead this nation? In my case, it might be QW. Because I cannot think of another educated person who does. 

The dude really thinks Palin is a viable choice....AND....he thinks that there are enough nutjobs out there to actually nominate her. It mystifies.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 14, 2013)

I'm thinking America will be ready for a serious, prudent and forthright President, a leader.

 Gov. Jed Bush, Senator John Thune, Gov. Bob McDonnell are interesting.

The Republican Party has a wealth of talent. The  Rino upper crust chooses ...  unwisely.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> [
> 
> This is an excellent article. There are some hard home-truths that need to be faced and dealt with before Republicans can even think about taking back the White House. I am hoping that since there is a veritable shit-ton of Republicans who want their party back, they will find a way to make it happen. Because this "I'm more conservative!" "No, I'M more conservative!" game is doing nothing to win moderates, and you need the moderates. You cannot win without them.



You see, I don't necessarily buy that.  

If anything, the GOP has played the "Well, we need to nominate a moderate" game and lost every time they've tried it.  Romney, McCain, Dole.  

The only successful candidates the GOP has had since I've been voting have been when they ran unapologetic conservatives- Reagan and Dubya Bush.  

I do think the GOP needs to push hard for either eliminating the EC or making the EC Proportional in swing states. 

But what they really, really need to do is the following. 

1) Regain the mantle of competency.  Show they can get things done. This means ending the kneejerk oppossition to everything Obama is for. 

As an aside, they also have a lot of governors- Walker, Christie, Pence, Kasich - who can run and say, "See, I turned things around in my state and can do so for the whole country."  

2) Get right with Working Folks. -  Can't emphasize this enough.  In the middle of the worst recession in 80 years, you don't nominate some idiot who says, "I like to be able to fire people!" The image the GOP is on the side of the rich hurts them more than their conservatism. 

3) Standing up to the Crazy- There are a lot of crazy voices in the GOP right now, from Talk Radio to fringe characters in congress like Rand Paul.  You really can stand up to these people without losing your conservative street cred.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> I'm thinking America will be ready for a serious, prudent and forthright President, a leader.
> 
> Gov. Jed Bush, Senator John Thune, Gov. Bob McDonnell are interesting.
> 
> The Republican Party has a wealth of talent. The  Rino upper crust chooses ...  unwisely.



Jeb is toast because his name is Bush.  That brand name has been ruined. 

McDonnell is so emersed in his current scandals that he's taking down Cuccinelli with him.  

John Thune- Does the GOP really need to nominate another Senator? That never works out well for them.  When Congress has single digit approval ratings, you don't go to Congress for your nominee.  

I did read a very interesting profile on IN Governor Pence, who might be a strong candidate.  

Scott Walker would also be a strong candidate. 

Chris Christie might be a strong candidate, but he ruined his street cred with Republicans by embracing Obama.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 14, 2013)

I don't think any Republican is interested in advice from mindless, welfare-loving liberals like the ones on this forum.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> I don't think any Republican is interested in advice from mindless, welfare-loving liberals like the ones on this forum.



They should be. 

From 1980 to 2008, I voted pretty reliably Republican.  

Then my Romney-Loving boss showed me the true meaning of Christmas, and I've been voting for Democrats every since.  

They really should look how they went from winning 49-state victories to not even being able to clear 200 Electoral votes.  How and when did they start losing middle America.  

A guy like Obama never would have gotten my vote 20 years ago.  Last year, he did.  Yeah, part of that is because I really hate Mormons, but to a larger degree, they've lost middle America.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 14, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think any Republican is interested in advice from mindless, welfare-loving liberals like the ones on this forum.
> ...


If you voted for Reagan, then Obama, you obviously don't know wtf you're talking about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> [
> If you voted for Reagan, then Obama, you obviously don't know wtf you're talking about.



No, the real problem is, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcomed in today's Republican Party. 

The REAL Ronald Reagan- 

Appointed moderates to 2 of his 3 SCOTUS nominations. 
Gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. 
Raised taxes after cutting them. (Hense, why Bush gave his "Read my lips" pledge.) 
Expanded government 
Failed to disband any of the agencies he promised to disband. 

In short, the Real Ronald Reagan would be the RINO Ronald Reagan. 

So you whacks make up a mythical Ronald Reagan.  The one who won the Cold War. (Although that didn't end until Bush-41).


----------



## S.J. (Sep 14, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


He appointed S.C. justices based on qualifications, not litmus tests like Democrats do.  He followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.

Gave amnesty, yes, with an agreement to strengthen the borders, which Democrats have undermined ever since.

Reluctantly agreed to let Congress raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco (sin taxes), not income as part of a deal to cut spending 2 to 1.  The Democrats raised the taxes, then refused to honor their commitment to cut spending (like they always do).  Reagan's biggest mistake as President was believing Democrats were honorable people and would keep their word about anything.

You're right about government expanding under Reagan (as it has with ALL presidents).

It was Reagan's policies that brought down the Soviet Empire, even Bush 41 acknowledges that.  As I said, you don't know wtf you're talking about.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 14, 2013)

Democrats are pure scum.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 14, 2013)

Zona said:


> Personally, I think McCain and Palin will do fine in 2016.



McCain actually made a pretty respectable showing, considering he had little support from the RNC establishment, was hated by the MSM, and had relatively little money, pocket change, really. Don't know how he would fare now, though.

Palin? .... nah; she's a PR disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Toro (Sep 14, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.



It's a good thing Republicans don't believe that winning elections is all that truly matters.

And they keep showing it by getting stomped on during Presidential elections.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 14, 2013)

McCain was promoted by the media for the purpose of having someone easy to defeat.  He was too stupid to know he was being set up.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 14, 2013)

Due to changing demographics and Red State/Blue State alignments there is no way for a Republican candidate to get 270 electoral votes


----------



## Toro (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> [Reagan] followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.



Iran-Contra Affair

Reagan administration scandals

Conservatives are engaging in mythology and confirmation bias.


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 14, 2013)

.

Smart thread, it's all about EV's.   Someone in the party had better be thinking about a couple of things:

First, it would be foolish for people in the party to think that they're going to win in a walk because of what they perceive to be the Democrats' failures and/or weaknesses.  The GOP's reputation right now is not exactly sterling, either.  The stench of Palin and friends isn't gone from the noses of moderates and independents.  And let's not pretend the electorate doesn't see all the party sniping and in-fighting.

Second, while I agree that moderates/independents are important, how is the party going to get its whole base out when it's essentially two parties right now?  Would the libertarians get out and vote for Christie?  Would the mainstream Republicans get out and vote for Paul?  That's a reasonable couple of questions, and they'd better think that through before they start measuring the Oval Office for drapes.

The party had better decide what the hell it is before it starts assuming anything.  

.


----------



## Toro (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> I don't think any Republican is interested in advice from mindless, welfare-loving liberals like the ones on this forum.



The OP is a Republican.


----------



## Toro (Sep 14, 2013)

Here's what the Republican OP writes.  It's called "math."



> For instance, let&#8217;s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it&#8217;s coveted &#8220;battleground&#8221; status as polls begin to show its &#8220;blue&#8221; reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.
> 
> Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29&#8212;both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 14, 2013)

Toro said:


> Here's what the Republican OP writes.  It's called "math."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, as someone who loves a good spreadsheet, it's tough to argue much with this data.  Not quite sold on PA though.

I'm lousy at predicting political stuff, but it seems to me that the GOP needs the person who has the best chance of breaking into the "terminally blue" states, and Christie's the only guy right how who could possibly do that.  Could a red-meat Republican?  I don't see how.

.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 14, 2013)

Toro said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > [Reagan] followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.
> ...


No laws were violated in Iran/Contra.  The Boland Amendment prohibited the CIA from funding the Contras, not the NSA.  The Democrats couldn't beat Reagan at the ballot box so they engaged in many witch hunts, this being one of them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> [
> He appointed S.C. justices based on qualifications, not litmus tests like Democrats do.  He followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand..



Constitution doesn't say anything about "qualifications", and frankly, Sandra Day O'Conner was purely an "Affirmative Action" appointment.  She also had a vagina, which is why you guys didn't get _Roe v. Wade _overturned.  Kennedy was appointed because the knuckle-dragging idiot that Reagan tried to appoint- Robert Batshit Crazy Bork - was rejected by even Republicans as being too nuts. 



S.J. said:


> [Gave amnesty, yes, with an agreement to strengthen the borders, which Democrats have undermined ever since..



You can't strengthen the borders enough to keep people out as long as there is something they want on the other side.  What Reagan did that was really stupid was making verifying citizenship the job of the businesses, which is like having the foxes watch the henhouse. 



S.J. said:


> [Reluctantly agreed to let Congress raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco (sin taxes), not income as part of a deal to cut spending 2 to 1.  The Democrats raised the taxes, then refused to honor their commitment to cut spending (like they always do).  Reagan's biggest mistake as President was believing Democrats were honorable people and would keep their word about anything..



No, a lot of government programs were slashed under Reagan.  What didn't happen was the "We are going to grow our way out of deficits" shit you Supply SIders always spew and never happens.    Then the S&L's collapsed, and they had to raise taxes to save them. 



S.J. said:


> [You're right about government expanding under Reagan (as it has with ALL presidents)..



But you have to ask is, WHY.  Why do we never shrink government, even when the GOP controls all the levers?  (doubt SJ will hit enlightenment on this one.) 



S.J. said:


> [It was Reagan's policies that brought down the Soviet Empire, even Bush 41 acknowledges that.  As I said, you don't know wtf you're talking about.



Reagan had nothing to do with bringing down the USSR.  In fact, the CIA was still publishing factbooks calling the USSR a threat all the way to 1991, when those "Kremlin Power Games" started getting serious.  

The USSR fell because 150 Million Russians could no longer control 300 million Not Russians. The same reason ALL empires fall, eventually.  People no longer see a benefit in them, either the rulers or the ruled.  

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as Ringo Starr had to do with the success of the Beatles.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 14, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


How much time did you spend on that post, dude?  I would go through it and address each one of your ridiculous claims but frankly, I see no point in spending that much time arguing with an idiot.  I'll just let you bask in your blissful ignorance.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 14, 2013)

Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 14, 2013)

How can Republicans get to 270 electoral votes?

1  Change how electoral college votes are allocated in blue states and keep red states winner take all

2. Obstruct voting in blue districts. Strict voter ID, limit the number of polling places and polling hours

3 Defend Citizen United.


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 14, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.




This reminds me of all those posts predicting an easy Romney victory in 2012.

The problem is, the election doesn't go to the person *you think should win* based on your clear political biases.  It goes to the person with the most electoral votes.

I kept saying that in 2012, too.

.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 14, 2013)

The next presidential election will be all about the democrats.  How much is obama despised?  How much the publuc wants to punish the democrats for it?  

There are three more years for obama to fuck up.  Another one or two major ones like Syria and nothing will be able to save them.   What are the odds that obama will get through the next three years smoothly?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The next presidential election will be all about the democrats.  How much is obama despised?  How much the publuc wants to punish the democrats for it?
> 
> There are three more years for obama to fuck up.  Another one or two major ones like Syria and nothing will be able to save them.   What are the odds that obama will get through the next three years smoothly?



That is what you ran on in 2012.  Didn't work then won't work in 2016


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 14, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.
> ...



Brilliant! 100% accurate.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 14, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.



Anybody? 

You should run that person.  Might have a fighting chance. Or..if it does not matter, run Mitt....or McCain....or Cain.....or Perry...or Santorum....or Trump...or Bachmann....or Perry....or Palin.....or Jindal.....or Jeb.....or Gingrich....or ?..

Anybody! Yeah!


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 14, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The next presidential election will be all about the democrats.  How much is obama despised?  How much the publuc wants to punish the democrats for it?
> ...


In 2012 obama could still claim he was ending wars.  The media was entirely in his lap.   The media is starting to break ranks and no one knows what is going to happen in the middle east in three years.

In 2012 no one knew how bad obamacare would really be.  

See how the mid terms go.  See if obama gets pantsed.


----------



## Toro (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...





> fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.



Fail.

You are engaging in confirmation bias.



> Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.



Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Smart thread, it's all about EV's.   Someone in the party had better be thinking about a couple of things:
> 
> ...



I don't know whether libertarians would vote for Christie, but there numbers are small so that is less important whether the mainstream Republicans would vote for Paul.  I think so, unless he does some really dumb things.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Yup, laws were broken by fraudulent intent in the NSA to circumvent Boland.

Iran-Contra was an impeachable offense that Reagan dodged.

The hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs that left the military soon after were motivated by RR's willingness to give munitions to folks who would shoot them back at our troops.

The results: Iran still hates our guts, and Daniel Ortega is Nicaragua's leader even today long after RR shuffled off this mortal coil.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 14, 2013)

Listen up far right reactionaries!

Obama is not running again, OK?  Check your hate at the door.  He kicked your asses, OK?

Christie can beat Hillary, not one of the far right reactionaries or libertarian.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 14, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> We in the GOP will change by reaching out to women, Hispanics and other minorities, and put away the social traditionalist agenda.
> 
> Simply this: there are far more votes to court successfully than what we lose with pissy older white far right conservatives.
> 
> Get over it, guys: it is happening now, and you will love Christie, regardless of what you think now.



The republican party won't find itself emblazoned upon my voter registration card until they publicly acknowledge that George Bush Sr was right when he said that Trickle-down Economics is Voodoo Economics, and change their fucking message.

Until that happens, it matters not whose name is on the ballot or what demographics are solicited, more than half of us know it's a scam.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



God I love this

Republicans trying the same "Obama fail" strategy that nobody outside of FoxNation believed


----------



## rdean (Sep 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.
> 
> The democrat brand is just starting its disintegration.  Give it awhile.



Saved the auto industry.

Took out Bin Laden

Brought us back from the GOP recession.

Got millions more Americans health care.

Moved Student loans away from the banks

Moved us out of two wars.

Equal pay for women.

I think we need more "fuck ups" like that.


----------



## rdean (Sep 14, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I have to tell you something.  A friend of mine who moved to Arizona about 8 years ago was visiting.  Him and his wife left just today to go back.  He was saying so many of the right wing talking points I see all the time on the USMB I finally asked him, "What do you watch in Arizona?  Fox news?"  And he said, Fox is the most popular station in Arizona.  Everyone watches it.  

This is hilarious.  I asked him if he ever uses Google and he said he uses it when he wants to prove to his wife that she is wrong about something, but when he's wrong, he doesn't tell her.

My friend and his wife are in an interracial marriage with him being black.  I showed him Fox suing for the right to lie.   The study that said people who watch Fox know less than people who don't watch news.  I showed him a bunch of their lies.  Including these famous pictures:











Questioning the integrity of scientists.






Fox showed the picture on the top instead of the picture on the bottom:










My friend says he has a few people to educate when he gets back to Arizona.  I told him to be careful.  He said only the week before coming up here, him and his wife were chased from an RV showroom.  He said the overt hostility made them leave even though no one actually said anything threatening.


----------



## Zona (Sep 14, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> I'm thinking America will be ready for a serious, prudent and forthright President, a leader.
> 
> Gov. Jed Bush, Senator John Thune, Gov. Bob McDonnell are interesting.
> 
> The Republican Party has a wealth of talent. The  Rino upper crust chooses ...  unwisely.



On what planet would running another Bush as a presidential candidate a good idea?


----------



## Zona (Sep 14, 2013)

rdean said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I am a black guy who lives in Arizona and I know what your friend is talking about.  Go to a gun shop here.  Same situation as he had in the RV place.  Same crap.

This is an old white hard right leaning state.  It really is.  This is why Ol Sheriff Joe keeps getting re elected, time and time again.


----------



## Zona (Sep 14, 2013)

rdean said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.
> ...



bush was better.  He got Bin laden right?  He went after him right after 9/11.  Right?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 14, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree.

In our system and our electorate; a great many voters vote against the opposite party's candidate as much as they vote for theirs.  

Getting to 270 is not that hard in a two person track meet; you only have to run faster than one other gal/guy.  

You put an R next to Fred Flintstone's name, he gets 35% of the vote on the strength of that alone.  You put a D next to Barney's name, he gets 35% from the other side.  

What Republican can actually beat a Democrat?  Several.  Jeb Bush comes to mind.  Chris Christie is another.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.
> 
> The democrat brand is just starting its disintegration.  Give it awhile.



You didn't read the article, did you.



> If you want to explore this new reality, check out 270towin.com. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate&#8217;s path to 270.
> 
> For instance, let&#8217;s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it&#8217;s coveted &#8220;battleground&#8221; status as polls begin to show its &#8220;blue&#8221; reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.
> 
> ...



So tell me: What is the 270 path that you've found, keeping in mind that we're already 91%  of the way there as Democrats.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 14, 2013)

This is 2013


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Reality doesn't have a voice - but it apparently eludes you. Enjoy.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Interestingly, for the rightwing jabbering, not one of them could name a Republican that has any chance of winning.



And I can make this thread even more interesting.

Name and produce ten pieces of legislature that was introduced and backed by Republicans where the American people would benefit by the passing thereof, with no included effort to benefit corporations,  over the past five years.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> I'm thinking America will be ready for a serious, prudent and forthright President, a leader.
> 
> Gov. Jed Bush, Senator John Thune, Gov. Bob McDonnell are interesting.
> 
> The Republican Party has a wealth of talent. The  Rino upper crust chooses ...  unwisely.



Oh, I'm sorry. Well - two out of three ain't bad.

Gov. Robert McDonnell shouldn?t stick Va. taxpayers with his legal bills in gifts case - Washington Post



> It wasnt enough for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell to embarrass the state, weaken the Republican Party and cripple his political career by accepting largesse from businessman Jonnie Williams Sr.
> 
> Now, he and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli have managed to stick state taxpayers with part of the legal bills for trying to fix the problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 14, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> We in the GOP will change by reaching out to women, Hispanics and other minorities, and put away the social traditionalist agenda.
> 
> Simply this: there are far more votes to court successfully than what we lose with pissy older white far right conservatives.
> 
> Get over it, guys: it is happening now, and you will love Christie, regardless of what you think now.



Its not so much a matter of reaching out, but one of just stopping the ignorance and hate. 

Once republicans stop opposing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to marry, opposing a womans right to privacy with regard to contraception, and opposing the due process rights of immigrants, those voters will consider voting for republicans again.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



6 Shocking Ways Conservatives Helped Cause the Economic Destruction of America | Alternet

Ronald Reagan's Legacy | Op-Eds & Columns



> His death has unleashed a torrent of commentary on the significance of this revolution, and so it is important to set the record straight. His economic policies were mostly a failure. Partly this was because he had promised something arithmetically impossible: to increase military spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget. He kept the first two promises, delivering the largest peacetime military build-up in American history, and cutting taxes massively, mostly for upper-income households.
> 
> But budget deficits soared to record heights. The national debt doubled, as a percentage of the economy, before Mr. Reagan's successors were able to bring it under control. This "military Keynesianism" did pull the economy out of the 1982 recession, but the 1980s still chalked up the slowest growth of any decade in the post-World War II era. And income was redistributed to the wealthy as never before: during the 1980s, most of the country's income gains went to the top 1 or 2 percent of households.
> 
> ...


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 14, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We in the GOP will change by reaching out to women, Hispanics and other minorities, and put away the social traditionalist agenda.
> ...



"Consider," yes. Much, much damage has been done, and nobody with a brain in their head is going to vote for a return to the 1950's (and probably earlier).


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 14, 2013)

Zona said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking America will be ready for a serious, prudent and forthright President, a leader.
> ...



After Obama, even a fat, ugly, skank, like Hillary looks good to Democrats..

 Obama has successfully made Bush look golden in comparison.

Obama's an embarrassment to all Americans.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.
> ...



No question, you'll need to break the firewall in the upper midwest to win if you are in the GOP.  PA, WI, MI all have GOP governors so its possible.  The real difficulty for the GOP is going to be running a candidate in the General that has to sound crazy enough to win the GOP ghettos in the south during the primary while still appealing to the much less insane midwest conservatives.  Not an easy thing to do.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

Zona said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking America will be ready for a serious, prudent and forthright President, a leader.
> ...



Good idea?  Maybe not but if Bush really is up to running, hes a formidable opponent.  The nation could do much worse than Jeb Bush.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> [quo
> How much time did you spend on that post, dude?  I would go through it and address each one of your ridiculous claims but frankly, I see no point in spending that much time arguing with an idiot.  I'll just let you bask in your blissful ignorance.



Your abject surrender is duly noted.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > [quo
> ...


Not hardly.  History speaks for itself and it shows you to be an idiot.  You're simply not worth the effort.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I think if you went into any major history department at any major university and blurted out "Reagan won the Cold War", you'd get laughed out of the room.  if you had a kind-hearted professor, he might explain to you EXACTLY what I did- that the USSR collapsed due to internal pressures that had nothing to with Reagan.  More likely, they'd treat you like some high-grade retard who believes in Talking Snakes.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I think if you went into any major history department at any major university and blurted out "Reagan won the Cold War", you'd get laughed out of the room.


Gee, ya think?  LOL  Seeing as how they're all liberals, I would be shocked if they didn't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think if you went into any major history department at any major university and blurted out "Reagan won the Cold War", you'd get laughed out of the room.
> ...



Yes, reality has a liberal bias.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


No, liberals just like to rewrite history.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Guy, I lived through that time period.  Frankly, most of the academic world saw that the USSR had the same problem the British Empire had- that the Russians were tired of having an empire and the ruled people were tired of being ruled.  

It was not because Reagan gave a pretty speech in Berlin.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 15, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We in the GOP will change by reaching out to women, Hispanics and other minorities, and put away the social traditionalist agenda.
> ...



Don't forget economic policy.  

As long as Trickle-down reigns supreme as the republican economic model, there's no fucking way I'll ever vote republican again - no matter what they say about the fairness issues that you list above.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 15, 2013)

candycorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Which is why a sane, serious GOP presidential candidate needs to have the courage to remain sensible and pragmatic in the Southern primaries, although hell lose most of those primaries, it will allow him to be perceived as sane and pragmatic during the General Election, and attract the democratic and independent votes hell need to win.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 15, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



It turns out that successful Gerrymandering has its costs down the road, eh?

Some districts got Gerrymandered so red that *only* an extremist has a chance of winning.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 15, 2013)

S.J. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, reality has a liberal bias.
> ...



The victors usually do.


----------



## Toro (Sep 15, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> This is 2013



And in one of the primary debates, it took Newt Gingrich exactly one second into his opening speech to say "Ronald Reagan."  I timed it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Or is a FoxNews viewer


----------



## Toro (Sep 15, 2013)

candycorn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The most likely states would probably be MN and WI.  However, if you look at his list above, and you see the swing states Obama won - CO FL IA OH NM NV VA - the Republicans have to win all of them while the Democrats would only need to win FL.

If you look at some of the other blue states Republicans have thought they could win, the last time these states went red were 

MI - 1988
MN - 1972
PA - 1988
WI - 1984

So there'd have to be a pretty seismic shift for those states to be put into play.  Running Ted Cruz against Hillary Clinton certainly won't do it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

Toro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Florida is looking decidedly blue. The state that put Bush in the White House looks like will not be voting Republican for a while. The Hispanic vote will be critical and Republicans are doing what they can to piss them off


----------



## Sallow (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Can he win?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 15, 2013)

In 2016 it will be a mistake to rely on results from past elections.  Wisconsin might not be so blue after the unions are thrown out.   Colorado might not be so blue with democrat senators replace by republicans.

At this point in 2013, predictions of the next election in 2016, being like the last election in 2012 is premature.  In 2012 there was still hope that democrat policies would be successful.   In 2013 the results of those policies are starting to come in and a revolt is brewing across the country.   Too many people have lost their jobs.  Too many people have become part time employees.  Too many people have lost their health care.  Too many people are horrified or disappointed in obama's complete mishandling of Syria.   Many more are chafing after the scandals that didn't exist in 2012.   Too many people are disgusted with being told how wonderful the economy is when they can plainly see it's not.  

It's not over yet.  We have three more years before democrats can beg forgiveness and try to shift the conversation to gay rights and abortion.   How long can democrats ride the gay rights and abortion horse when everything else is falling apart around the nation?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> In 2016 it will be a mistake to rely on results from past elections.  Wisconsin might not be so blue after the unions are thrown out.   Colorado might not be so blue with democrat senators replace by republicans.
> 
> At this point in 2013, predictions of the next election in 2016, being like the last election in 2012 is premature.  In 2012 there was still hope that democrat policies would be successful.   In 2013 the results of those policies are starting to come in and a revolt is brewing across the country.   Too many people have lost their jobs.  Too many people have become part time employees.  Too many people have lost their health care.  Too many people are horrified or disappointed in obama's complete mishandling of Syria.   Many more are chafing after the scandals that didn't exist in 2012.   Too many people are disgusted with being told how wonderful the economy is when they can plainly see it's not.
> 
> It's not over yet.  We have three more years before democrats can beg forgiveness and try to shift the conversation to gay rights and abortion.   How long can democrats ride the gay rights and abortion horse when everything else is falling apart around the nation?



You know, sooner or later Republicans will have to give up their "We hope Democratic policies fail" and replace it with concrete initiatives where Republicans are actually helping average Americans


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 15, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> In 2016 it will be a mistake to rely on results from past elections.  Wisconsin might not be so blue after the unions are thrown out.   Colorado might not be so blue with democrat senators replace by republicans.
> 
> At this point in 2013, predictions of the next election in 2016, being like the last election in 2012 is premature.  In 2012 there was still hope that democrat policies would be successful.   In 2013 the results of those policies are starting to come in and a revolt is brewing across the country.   Too many people have lost their jobs.  Too many people have become part time employees.  Too many people have lost their health care.  Too many people are horrified or disappointed in obama's complete mishandling of Syria.   Many more are chafing after the scandals that didn't exist in 2012.   Too many people are disgusted with being told how wonderful the economy is when they can plainly see it's not.
> 
> It's not over yet.  We have three more years before democrats can beg forgiveness and try to shift the conversation to gay rights and abortion.   How long can democrats ride the gay rights and abortion horse when everything else is falling apart around the nation?



Do you discuss politics IRL with people? Or, is the Internet your only form of expression?


----------



## Toro (Sep 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That assumption is a mistake. FL is a purple state.  FL was a very winnable state in 12 for the GOP. The state Democrats are in a shambles with Republicans dominating all statewide political institutions.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

Toro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Florida was purple and is on the verge of moving into the blue column in Presidential Elections

Republicans only hope is to run Bush or Rubio


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 15, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Interestingly, for the rightwing jabbering, not one of them could name a Republican that has any chance of winning.




was Ham Sandwich mentioned already?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

L.K.Eder said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, for the rightwing jabbering, not one of them could name a Republican that has any chance of winning.
> ...



Putin seems to be their leading contender


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 15, 2013)

Toro said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



MN won't be flipping any time soon. Wisconsin already done flipped right the fuck out. I hope what they're going through will help them make better decisions next election.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 15, 2013)

Sallow said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...



Daniel Craig will play him in the movie, I just know it!


----------



## Toro (Sep 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's wishful thinking.  The in-the-know Democrats I know here don't think that.  Florida is a Republican state by virtually all metrics.  19 of Florida's 25 Congresspersons are Republican.  One Senator is a Republican.  The Florida House and Senate are Republican with veto-proof majorities.  All the cabinet members are Republicans.  The governor is Republican.  And his most serious challenger in 2014 is an ex-Republican.

Had the Presidential election been held in 2010, the Republicans would have won here by at least 10 points, probably more.  They may have lost otherwise, but the reason why Obama's margin of victory in Florida was as big as it was was because the Republicans were beaten badly on the ground.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Ahh, the Jon Huntsmann approach.  You'll need to have a lot of charisma so the true believers don't lose faith during the dark days.  Half of the primaries at the outset are in the south, (SC, FL).  That is a lot of news cycles where the spotlight will be on whomever is leading/winning in those contests.  

Answer for that is Chris Christie.  

The problem he has is that he won't win in Iowa..no way no how.  New Hampshire will be a dog fight and he probably should start campaigning there tomorrow.  

So now you're looking at Jeb Bush or Rubio.  Not sure about Rubio who seems to be fading.  Bush is formidable if he wants it.  

Against the backdrop of all this are the Democrats.  Think of 1992; you had the senior statesmen Bush 41 against the young dynamic Clinton who not only looked competent but...*HE LOOKED READY*.  You could well have that same dynamic take place in 2016 except the Democrats seem ready to run Biden who will be 73 or Hillary Clinton who will be 68 or so.  

Does *"LOOK READY"* apply to any of the GOP  current leaders outside of Bush and Christie?  Cruz? Please.  Paul? Puhleeze.  Rubio? Seems to be regressing.  Santorum?  Too crazy but can rehab.  Scott Walker?  Hmmm?  Nikki Haley?  Hmmm.  Rob Portman?  Probably too vanilla.  

I think the Dems should look outside of Biden/Clinton.  The question is who.  I don't know the answer but there are some governors who look like they are interested.  But it's setting up well for a GOP victory in 2016 if they can get out of their own way.  History shows they have trouble doing that.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


That is a fantastic point.  If there is a government shutdown next month, the GOP will get blamed and these blood red districts are sowing the seeds of that shutdown.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



If Jeb or Rubio get the nom...I think the GOP has a good chance of taking Florida.  Very good in fact.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

Sallow said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...



Nice.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I thought that was Daniel Craig...it isn't? Really?


----------



## S.J. (Sep 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Guy, I lived through that time period too.  Reagan engaged them in the arms race and bankrupted them.  The Soviet Union didn't fall, it was pushed.  Your hatred for Reagan won't let you admit that, which is why arguing with you is pointless, and the fact that voted for both Reagan AND Obama proves you don't have any credibility or even a basic understanding of politics or governing.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



  Does he have a long-form birth certificate issued by Alaska?  Hawaii has already done enough.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


With Steve Urkle shooting hoops as Obama


----------



## Toro (Sep 15, 2013)

candycorn said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



That's absolutely true.  In all those red districts configured with a 55-45 advantage, a Democrat wave could exacerbate a victory that would appear more crushing than it really would be.  That's the danger.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> In 2016 it will be a mistake to rely on results from past elections.  Wisconsin might not be so blue after the unions are thrown out.   Colorado might not be so blue with democrat senators replace by republicans.
> 
> At this point in 2013, predictions of the next election in 2016, being like the last election in 2012 is premature.  In 2012 there was still hope that democrat policies would be successful.   In 2013 the results of those policies are starting to come in and a revolt is brewing across the country.   Too many people have lost their jobs.  Too many people have become part time employees.  Too many people have lost their health care.  Too many people are horrified or disappointed in obama's complete mishandling of Syria.   Many more are chafing after the scandals that didn't exist in 2012.   Too many people are disgusted with being told how wonderful the economy is when they can plainly see it's not.
> 
> It's not over yet.  We have three more years before democrats can beg forgiveness and try to shift the conversation to gay rights and abortion.   How long can democrats ride the gay rights and abortion horse when everything else is falling apart around the nation?



You have it backwards here, Katzndogz, as you do on almost everything.

If the GOP rides "gay rights and abortion" any more it will further alienate a growing national majority.  We cannot afford that.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Sep 15, 2013)

Moderates are a myth.  No one votes for them.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Putin can see Alaska from his house


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Moderates are a myth.  No one votes for them.



I do


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No republican will ever hold the WH again.

In 2008 a complete fool was elected.  A man with no leadership skills or experience.  And he did not do a damn thing that truly needed to be done.
In 2012 the dnc amazed me to no end.  Their ability to lie, make utterly useless subjects head lines news, and completly bury just how poorly obama had done, set the bar so high, that no moral person or people could ever stoop as low as they did.

No person, of any moral value will ever win the WH


----------



## alan1 (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?


Well, we damn sure know that liberal leaning republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney couldn't pull 270 electoral votes.  Being "liberal light" doesn't earn votes from conservatives.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?
> ...



Presidents are elected by electoral votes

Which additional electoral votes would a conservative have won?  Name the state


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...



I suspect you are out of step with 99% of the human race, so please, please give us your reasoning.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?
> ...



None of the 3d party votes together could elect Romney, so your premise is bogus.

The correct answer is that Romney did not pull enough of the moderates to win.

Got it now?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can't everybody?
​


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, for the rightwing jabbering, not one of them could name a Republican that has any chance of winning.
> ...



Zero
Zip
Nada
Nothing

The treasonous Rs have happily wasted more than $50 million on their admittedly phony votes against ObamaCare but they won't spend a cent to create jobs, fix falling down infrastructure, education or any other thing that could actually benefit the people fo the US.

Except for radical teepotter types, people don't want to support their permanent state of vacation.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Reminds me - that ditzy broad from Alaska might be running for senator. 

And, she's already being sued!

Let the games begin.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 15, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



These,
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...1KbHI4APUnoHICQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ&dur=586


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan

Try again


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Anyone on this Board who has lived in Alaska for at least one election cycle will agree with me: Sarah is a viable candidate for any office in Alaska.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?
> ...





rightwinger said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I already pointed that out.  Try to keep up.
Care to address the map I linked to that answered your question?  Of course you don't, you prefer dishonesty.  Carry on.


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 15, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem is that since the mid 60's, the GOP has been giving half loaf after half loaf with a few full loafs tossed in like, ACA. A GOP President and Congress in 2016 is absolutely necessary to undo the damage.

Compromise with Democrats is like arguing with a would be murderer who wants to shoot you in the head and agreeing that he should stab you in the heart instead.
I agree that we need a candidate that is seen as more centrist than Cruz, but we also can't go with another lib in sheep's clothing like we have in the last 2 cycles.
Charisma will be important. You want someone who comes off like a guy you would like to hang out with for a beer.

Aside from his stance on immigration I think Marco Rubio best fits the bill so far.


----------



## Zona (Sep 15, 2013)

Go Palin!!!


----------



## candycorn (Sep 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?
> ...



It's not liberal leaning republicans.  It's the candidate.

In 2008, the GOP wasn't going to win.  We had basically 8 years of war, an economy that needed a $700B bailout right before the election, a white house that basically looked at everything as a 50.1% proposition.  

In 2012 after the occupy movement, the GOP nominated not only someone who was a member of the 1% (Obama is too) but someone who looked, smelled, sounded like, oozed, and left a vapor trail of the 0.001% of the wealthiest people in the country.  That was the subjective; the objectives were the 47% video...a showhorse in the Olympics, a car elevator for his house he was building, tax records that showed he paid less than I do as a % of income taxes, a guy who lives off his dividend income...  There couldn't have been a worse candidate to nominate and, congratulations Republicans...you found him.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 15, 2013)

I wonder how much time passed between "yes" and "awwww shit!" For Paul Ryan last year?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 15, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Correct. 

There are enough weak (Reagan) democrats and independents who will vote for a given republican presidential candidate provided they dont perceive such a candidate as extreme on the social issues. 

That republican candidate needs to:

Respect a womans right to privacy and reproductive choice

Acknowledge the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law

And acknowledge the due process rights of immigrants and seek immigration reform

By taking the above positions, a GOP presidential candidate will in no way be in conflict with traditional republican and conservative values, as opposition to the above is the recent aberration by the social right.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Democrats like their women cheated on, bitchy and used up...ie. Hello Hillary...


----------



## S.J. (Sep 15, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


In other words, they should all jump on your liberal bandwagon and become Democrats.  Thanks for the advice.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 15, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...



Which only proves that they are more concerned with their own grip on power than the country's best interests.

Say, whatever happened to the scumbagger promise to serve a term then go home, because they aren't lifelong politicians, blah, blah, blah?


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 15, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


ODS clouds their thought process.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 15, 2013)

The thing is, the wingnuts can't turn on a dime.  This is going to take at least another election cycle.

Democrats will be only too happy to highlight wingnut flip-flops that are only designed to get moderate votes.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 16, 2013)

Obama won about 7% more of the popular vote than Romney, who only won about 1% more than McCain, with a larger campaign chest than McCain and more support from the RNC. 7% is hardly a 'landslide mandate', but more a measure of polarization, and will probably hold in that range for at least another couple of campaign cycles. This is an example of how skewed electoral college votes are and how it doesn't come close to reflecting the actual vote.

On the other hand, Obama couldn't win the rank and file vote in his own party's primary against Hillary, and his nomination required the 'Super Delegate' vote to put him over. He doesn't represent the majority of Democrats.

Republicans have a credibility problem; they never actually go through with any of their platforms, and hardly inspire many independents to go out and vote for them; this sinks them more than anything, since the emphasis in modern politics is negative campaigning, which is designed to keep the other guy's base from going to the polls, not draw in and inspire new voters and higher turnouts for their side. This is basic politics 101, and is a result of neither 'party' having much of a record of following through on their claims. This is of course just fine with the financial interests sucking the country dry; they abhor  democracies in general and the less participation the better, and it also makes both 'parties' a lot easier to control and relatively cheaper to own. 

Reagan didn't 'bankrupt the Soviet Union'; Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon's policies did, in 1973, and they never recovered. The Reagan Myth is as ridiculous as the Kennedy Myth. People need to move on, and at least invent some new myths, if only for entertainment purposes.

Anybody who is seriously concerned about politics and government will just avoid voting for either of these 'parties', regardless of their lean and biases; neither of them have a leadership that gives a crap about this country or its future, they all represent foreign interests.

As for Palin, a Democratic Party that has people Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson sharing the stage in its primaries has no room to be laughing at Republicans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 16, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Broken, like every other promise.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 16, 2013)

Picaro said:


> Obama won about 7% more of the popular vote than Romney, who only won about 1% more than McCain, with a larger campaign chest than McCain and more support from the RNC. 7% is hardly a 'landslide mandate', but more a measure of polarization, and will probably hold in that range for at least another couple of campaign cycles. This is an example of how skewed electoral college votes are and how it doesn't come close to reflecting the actual vote.
> 
> On the other hand, Obama couldn't win the rank and file vote in his own party's primary against Hillary, and his nomination required the 'Super Delegate' vote to put him over. He doesn't represent the majority of Democrats.
> 
> ...



Great Post, I read it all, most wouldn't...just sayin...


----------



## S.J. (Sep 16, 2013)

Picaro said:


> Reagan didn't 'bankrupt the Soviet Union'; Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon's policies did, in 1973, and they never recovered. The Reagan Myth is as ridiculous as the Kennedy Myth. People need to move on, and at least invent some new myths, if only for entertainment purposes.


Your ignorance is astounding.  The Soviet Union made the most advances during the Johnson and Nixon administrations with their non-verifiable arms control treaties, which made it possible for the Soviets to gain military parity with us.  You either weren't around then or you weren't paying attention.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Today?  Almost anyone.  After three more years of obama world class fuck ups?  Any republican would.
> 
> The democrat brand is just starting its disintegration.  Give it awhile.



Hmmmm..........................  Seems I heard this song and dance before 6Nov12. Bet it plays the same after Nov16.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2013)

Picaro said:


> Obama won about 7% more of the popular vote than Romney, who only won about 1% more than McCain, with a larger campaign chest than McCain and more support from the RNC. 7% is hardly a 'landslide mandate', but more a measure of polarization, and will probably hold in that range for at least another couple of campaign cycles. This is an example of how skewed electoral college votes are and how it doesn't come close to reflecting the actual vote.


That was a good analysis.  It reminds me of the arguments I hear about how batting average and RBI's are no longer a measure of how good or poorly a softball player is performing.  

As far as it goes, you're right.  The other side of the coin is that given the polarization, when you win 9 of the 11 states that were seriously up for grabs, you can call that a convincing victory.  Like if Cal State plays Arizona 11 times and 'Zona beats them 9 out of 11 times, that's convincing; even if the margins of the individual games was 1 or 2 runs.  



Picaro said:


> On the other hand, Obama couldn't win the rank and file vote in his own party's primary against Hillary, and his nomination required the 'Super Delegate' vote to put him over. He doesn't represent the majority of Democrats.


Wrong.

He wasn't the first choice of a lot of Democrats.  



Picaro said:


> Republicans have a credibility problem; they never actually go through with any of their platforms, and hardly inspire many independents to go out and vote for them; this sinks them more than anything, since the emphasis in modern politics is negative campaigning, which is designed to keep the other guy's base from going to the polls, not draw in and inspire new voters and higher turnouts for their side. This is basic politics 101, and is a result of neither 'party' having much of a record of following through on their claims. This is of course just fine with the financial interests sucking the country dry; they abhor  democracies in general and the less participation the better, and it also makes both 'parties' a lot easier to control and relatively cheaper to own.


Agree except I'd add in likability.  Conservatives are simply not very nice people by and large.  Trayvon Martin gets shot and you'd think that George Zimmerman had captured James Dillinger from the reaction here.  

You're sort of leaving the reservation in the 2nd part.



Picaro said:


> Reagan didn't 'bankrupt the Soviet Union'; Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon's policies did, in 1973, and they never recovered. The Reagan Myth is as ridiculous as the Kennedy Myth. People need to move on, and at least invent some new myths, if only for entertainment purposes.


Look behind you...there are rails.



Picaro said:


> Anybody who is seriously concerned about politics and government will just avoid voting for either of these 'parties', regardless of their lean and biases; neither of them have a leadership that gives a crap about this country or its future, they all represent foreign interests.
> 
> As for Palin, a Democratic Party that has people Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson sharing the stage in its primaries has no room to be laughing at Republicans.



There are whackjob Democrats as well.  They usually aren't hand picked by the nominee to be Veep  however.  I'm not a Democrat but how could any sober observer view Palin and not laugh at her?  

The two-party system is about one thing first and foremost; maintaining the two-party system. There are differences but they pale in comparison to the similarities.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 16, 2013)

I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.

America has become 'Obamanation'.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

theHawk said:


> I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> 
> America has become 'Obamanation'.



Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2013)

theHawk said:


> I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> 
> America has become 'Obamanation'.



Great! Another one with this clear, concise, incredibly simple point if view!

It seems that you are conceding the demise of the GOP. If what you say is true....then there is no way the GOP can ever win again.  

Do you really think there are more smart, educated, hardworking people in this country who voted for Romney over Obama? Really? After thinking about it...do you really believe that?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> ...



I thoroughly enjoy how Republicans have embraced the "People vote for Democrats because Democrats give them "free stuff"

They don't mention that what they call "free stuff" are programs meant to help the poor and middle class in this country. Social Security, Low cost education, affordable healthcare, a social safety net.....all programs Republicans oppose

All this so that Republicans can protect the lowest tax rates in history for the wealthiest Americans in history


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2013)

theHawk said:


> I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> 
> America has become 'Obamanation'.



If people are dependent on government, it is because the hard-working crowd got cheated by big corporations too many times.  

So you guys really don't have anyone to blame but yourselves. 

You put the interests of the wealthy above the interests of those who do the actual work, every time, and you wonder why they turned on you? 

Really?  

Maybe you can start by not nominating people who say stuff like "I like to fire people".  That would probably be a big help.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > In 2016 it will be a mistake to rely on results from past elections.  Wisconsin might not be so blue after the unions are thrown out.   Colorado might not be so blue with democrat senators replace by republicans.
> ...



People who are unemployed, out of their homes, live in the shadow of a rising tide of crime don't care about gay rights or abortion.  Most people don't care about gay rights.   Even when they don't oppose gay rights, it's because they don't care about the subject enough to oppose them.   Abortion is turning anyway with more people today considering themselves pro life than any time since  Roe was decided.  With everything else falling apart, obama intent on punishing the country with WWIII, gay rights and abortion will seem like some very small issues.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Gays are maybe 3% of the population. Not much to worry about. But gays have families, they have friends, they have coworkers who see Republicans as petty and cruel about gays. Young people support gay rights. They look at current GOP policy and rhetoric and ask....Is that the party I want to belong to?

Abortion is similar in that it is a powerful issue among young women. Not just abortion but reproductive rights, reducing or banning insurance for healthcare, closing womens clinics, calling women sluts. Makes young women ask.......Why would I want to belong to the GOP?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



How vital an interest can it be when if the issues are narrowed down to just these issues, they lose?

Put the weight of what democrats have done on one side, and gay rights and abortion on the other and you might see something very different than what you think you would.  After all, in every state but two, that has put same sex marriage on the ballot, it has lost.  It has lost in bright blue California TWICE!  It would lose today.   More people care that this is the last season of Breaking Bad than feel an interest in gay rights or abortion.

Democrats are on a mission of making life as miserable as possible for ordinary Americans.  If they expect that gay rights and abortion are the two issues to hang their hats on and all else will be forgiven, they may be crushingly disappointed.  

Belong to the GOP?  Who said that?  Washing democrats out of the political process doesn't automatically mean "belonging" to the GOP.  It just means if you have a nail in your foot, you are more interested in removing the nail than in choosing what kind of shoes you will wear.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yes Republicans ....cling to that
You can put gay marriage on ballots and find enough people to vote it down. But that tide is turning and recent ballots have accepted gay marriage

But the very fact that Republicans put Constitutional restrictions on marriage up to a vote reveals them for what they are....Out of touch with current American voting trends

Young people wilol not vote Republican because of their pettyness towards gays, young women will not vote Republican because of their restrictions on womens health and reproductive rights, Hispanics will not vote Republican because of open hostility towards immigrants

Your party is not inclusive, your party is looked at as petty and cruel....you are losing the future voters


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 16, 2013)

theHawk said:


> I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> 
> America has become 'Obamanation'.



This free stuff talk helped sink Romney.   Most everybody is working, not sitting home watching t.v. Even some working people are having a hard time making it without some assistance which your side calls "free stuff'.    Basic humanity has been banned from today's republican party.   Even Mitt  Romney had to leave his humane side behind to try to get support from you reptilian republicans. By the way, repubs never never ever whine about the "free stuff' that corporate america gets.  Why is that?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ohhhh so IMPOSING gay mafia demands on an unwilling public is a sure winner!   When these minor and very unimportant issues are weighed against a depressed economy, democrat support for international terrorism and a tsunami of crime, where do you think the peripheral issues will end up.   They are petty issues, when there isn't anything else to worry about, they might gain an importance they don't deserve.  When there are other issues to worry about, guess where they end up?

That's why which republican will be the next president is pretty much an unknown.  If you are right, it will be more of a libertarian like Rand Paul.


----------



## Toro (Sep 16, 2013)

Zero. 

The amount of credibility of any conservative predicting the outcome of the 2016 election who also predicted that Romney would stomp Obama.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


In 1965, Ronald Reagan said that Medicare would turn the country Communist.

What a dope!


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Rand Paul is one of the reasons the Republicans can't win

If you want to only look at important issues like the depressed economy, international terrorism and a tsunami of crime....What have Republicans done in the last five years?


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 16, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> ...




And most of the defenders of the obscenely wealthy are far from it.  They'll support cutting programs that help their neighbors, then defend solid gold bathroom fixtures for hedge fund managers.

They are just useful idiots.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The GOP has shown an awesome ability to anger as many different voting blocks as possible all at the same time; have they not.  

You made some great points...highlighted above.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I am Republican mainstream and you are not: simple enough.

You are going to change or simply vote and we ignore you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You are turned backwards.  People have far more hope today than in the final months of Bush's last term.  If you demonize abortion and gay civil rights, more people will turn their back on your candidates.  WWIII is not around the corner, except in your head.

You need to grip reality, friend.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2013)

RW, when he writes, "Young people will not vote Republican because of their pettyness towards gays, young women will not vote Republican because of their restrictions on womens health and reproductive rights, Hispanics will not vote Republican because of open hostility towards immigrants", is 100% right.

The GOP cannot win nationally until it reaches out honestly and sincerely to the needs of women, minorities, and immigrants.  Their needs must be met more than those of the Katzndogz.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 16, 2013)

Chris Christie is the only Republican with the slightest chance of reaching 270 EV.

And every wingnut here will be defending him on this board and voting for him.

And every one of them will take the [MENTION=23991]daveman[/MENTION] route:

"Well, he's better than the alternative"


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

candycorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




Jindal winced as he called them the party of stupid. Nutcases from the extreme right spout crazy, offensive thoughts and the mainstream of the party does nothing. Yet if a member of the party supports expanding healthcare, admits to global warming or supports reasonable gun restrictions....he is driven from the party


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Whatever they could to stop or slow down the democrat destruction.   They are still trying to stop obamacare.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Thats the best you have to run on?

No accomplishments in the last five years. Economy struggling, high unemployment, People still without adequate healthcare

And Republicans still brag that they did nothing to help their country?


----------



## oldfart (Sep 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Yes Republicans ....cling to that.  You can put gay marriage on ballots and find enough people to vote it down. But that tide is turning and recent ballots have accepted gay marriage.
> 
> But the very fact that Republicans put Constitutional restrictions on marriage up to a vote reveals them for what they are....Out of touch with current American voting trends
> 
> ...



The frightening thing for Republican strategists is that there is a good body of research indicating that party and ideological identities once formed are persistent.  So if you can catch a young voter early, say for two presidential elections, they are likely to vote for that party in most elections for the rest of their voting lives.  

This implies that turning off a particular segment of young voters now, say young women, will have lasting effects in that cohort for the next 50+ years.  This is true even if the party reverses its position in the future; the damage is already done.  You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.  It also may have a cascade effect, in that the cohort may me dissuaded from supporting the party on other issues in the future because of the "taint" the party has received from the original issue.  Hispanics turned off by anti-immigrant rhetoric might not be as likely to embrace a future GOP position that otherwise might be attractive; say support for minority small business.  

Veering ever to the right might play to the base today; but if that base is heavily weighted toward older voters and younger voters do not respond well, that base in the future is likely to be much smaller.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 16, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.



Or that their failures somehow help them in 2016.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



No, you're a Tory Loyalist.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 16, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.
> ...



They make medications for this type of delusional thinking.  Seek help.  Now.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2013)

What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...

Voters are not always rational actors. 

What happens is that for many who don't delve deep into issues or do not have a strong feeling either way about issues; they vote for who they like; who they more identify with, who looks like them, who shares their faith, philosophy, upbringing, heritage, etc...    

Who wins is also a function of who the competition is.  Romney won the primary, I feel, because who else was going to get your support?  A guy who thinks the earth is 2012 years old (Santorum) despite science or Gingrich who was nuttier than a fruitcake.  

This is why the Dems had better be REALLY careful about giving Hillary the ball.  She is not that likable.  I think the Dems are in for a rude awakening in 2016 if they nominate her.  Of course it's a matter of degrees; you put Cruz up against Hillary, I like that battle from Hillary's standpoint.  The same with Rand Paul.  You put Christie up against her...there is a campaign I'd like to see.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 16, 2013)

candycorn said:


> What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...
> 
> Voters are not always rational actors.
> 
> ...



There is a fair amount of truth in some of what you say.  For instances, those who don't delve deep into issues fall for code words like reproductive rights.  Virtually no one is against contraception and sees it as a responsible act.  If they had any idea that what it really means is murdering an unborn baby out of convenience, they would be appalled.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am Republican mainstream and you are not: simple enough.


Yeah, right.  And I'm a liberal Democrat.  Get a new line, nobody buys that bullshit.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 16, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



the 2012 election should have been about UE, debt, spending and the deadish economy.

It was about anything else.

So many blatant lies were told, over the top ones, time was wasted on meaningless crap.


----------



## 007 (Sep 16, 2013)

I was literally SHOCKED this weekend when I had a few beers with the most staunch of my democrat friends that's a twice obama voter. He had NOTHING good to say about obama, NOTHING. He said he now believed he was duped. I hated to rub it in but did some, asking why in the world did he think a little junior senator with zero experience at anything other than community organizing and had never had a job in his life, how possibly that person was ready to take over the most powerful nation on earth. He had no answer. I asked if he would vote for another democrat in 2016 and he said, "not unless it was someone that promised to address the out of control spending and UE problem in America," and when I asked who that might be among the dems he said, "I don't know." I asked him if he'd vote for a republican like Rand Paul who leans libertarian which is for less spending, less government, more freedoms and following the constitution and he said, "yes." That's when I about fell out of my chair. THAT, my friends, is how SICK of the LEFTIST BULL SHIT old school, JFK democrats are. I think the 2010 "shellacking" leftards got at the ballet box is going to look like a huge victory compared to the the ASS KICKING they have coming in 2014, and we'll also see a republican president. This country is getting FED UP with LIBERALS and them JAMMING their leftist bull shit agenda down the throats of Americans against their will.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



I am startled, and, yes, I agree.


----------



## daveman (Sep 16, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Chris Christie is the only Republican with the slightest chance of reaching 270 EV.
> 
> And every wingnut here will be defending him on this board and voting for him.
> 
> ...


A potted plant would be better than the alternative.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 16, 2013)

007 said:


> I was literally SHOCKED this weekend when I had a few beers with the most staunch of my democrat friends that's a twice obama voter. He had NOTHING good to say about obama, NOTHING. He said he now believed he was duped. I hated to rub it in but did some, asking why in the world did he think a little junior senator with zero experience at anything other than community organizing and had never had a job in his life, how possibly that person was ready to take over the most powerful nation on earth. He had no answer. I asked if he would vote for another democrat in 2016 and he said, "not unless it was someone that promised to address the out of control spending and UE problem in America," and when I asked who that might be among the dems he said, "I don't know." I asked him if he'd vote for a republican like Rand Paul who leans libertarian which is for less spending, less government, more freedoms and following the constitution and he said, "yes." That's when I about fell out of my chair. THAT, my friends, is how SICK of the LEFTIST BULL SHIT old school, JFK democrats are. I think the 2010 "shellacking" leftards got at the ballet box is going to look like a huge victory compared to the the ASS KICKING they have coming in 2014, and we'll also see a republican president. This country is getting FED UP with LIBERALS and them JAMMING their leftist bull shit agenda down the throats of Americans against their will.



That does it! The DNC is toast! Your staunch Democrat friend is going to vote for Rand Paul....who will not win the GOP nomination. This shit is over. 

And.......ballet is a form of dance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 16, 2013)

candycorn said:


> What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...
> 
> Voters are not always rational actors.
> 
> ...



Christie vs Hilary in 2016 will be one of the first real choices in a long time. Yes, they both have negatives and positives. But overall I would be undecided until I saw all of the debates and I checked off my scorecard. Right now I couldn't call it between those two.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 16, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...
> ...



Contraception is the prevention of conception therefore no "unborn baby" is being "murdered".


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 16, 2013)

Toro said:


> Zero.
> 
> The amount of credibility of any conservative predicting the outcome of the 2016 election who also predicted that Romney would stomp Obama.



Says one of the "MOderates" who insisted that Conservatives should shut up and eat it when served Romney against their better judgement. 

I do love how fast you guys are running away from the Weird Mormon Robot now that he's lost.  Like you had nothing to do with it at all.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 16, 2013)

007 said:


> I was literally SHOCKED this weekend when I had a few beers with the most staunch of my democrat friends that's a twice obama voter. He had NOTHING good to say about obama, NOTHING. He said he now believed he was duped. I hated to rub it in but did some, asking why in the world did he think a little junior senator with zero experience at anything other than community organizing and had never had a job in his life, how possibly that person was ready to take over the most powerful nation on earth. He had no answer. I asked if he would vote for another democrat in 2016 and he said, "not unless it was someone that promised to address the out of control spending and UE problem in America," and when I asked who that might be among the dems he said, "I don't know." I asked him if he'd vote for a republican like Rand Paul who leans libertarian which is for less spending, less government, more freedoms and following the constitution and he said, "yes." That's when I about fell out of my chair. THAT, my friends, is how SICK of the LEFTIST BULL SHIT old school, JFK democrats are. I think the 2010 "shellacking" leftards got at the ballet box is going to look like a huge victory compared to the the ASS KICKING they have coming in 2014, and we'll also see a republican president. This country is getting FED UP with LIBERALS and them JAMMING their leftist bull shit agenda down the throats of Americans against their will.



Same thing happened to me last weekend. I had dinner with an old conservative friend of mine. And I mean CONSERVATIVE. Voted Reagan and both Bushes hates gays, Mexicans and Jews. Despises educated people and loves to foul the environment. His TV only gets FoxNews
I asked him what he thinks of Obama and he said he is the best president of all time. He cares about America, has saved our economy and restored America. I asked him why he didn't vote for Obama and he shed a tear as he admitted he gets all his news from Rush Libaugh and Fox and really didnt know what he was doing


----------



## AceRothstein (Sep 16, 2013)

You have to take election predictions from most of the right on this board with a grain of salt as most were predicting a Romney landslide. There were a few living in the real world who knew what was going to happen but a solid majority couldn't leave the CEC.


----------



## Toro (Sep 16, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Zero.
> ...



Living in a Fog of Hate impairs your judgement.  It's how you can lie to yourself about past events to enhance your self-esteem.

Sad, really.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 16, 2013)

daveman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Christie is the only Republican with the slightest chance of reaching 270 EV.
> ...


Says Christie Hater/Christie Voter daveman!  


You never disappoint.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 16, 2013)

Not unless the GOP changes.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...
> ...


I meant to say that she's got a likability problem.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...
> ...



Well, Governor Romney wanted to eliminate Title X funding which was and is the primary vehicle by which low-income women have access to contraception.  

Why?  Because PP was a recipient of Title X funding.  Sort of like choosing to defund the military because there is some corruption in the process.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 16, 2013)

AceRothstein said:


> You have to take election predictions from most of the right on this board with a grain of salt as most were predicting a Romney landslide. There were a few living in the real world who knew what was going to happen but a solid majority couldn't leave the CEC.



We're all salt-slingers in 2013.  I don't know what is going to happen in 2016 anymore than I know who is going to win the world cup next year.  

You can say a few things are certain but largely you're looking at a two person race and all you have to do to win is beat the other gal/guy.  If I were the Dems, I'd get Zuckerberg, Soros, the Hollywood Elite to donate max amounts.  Combine that and every other stray nickel they can come up with and give it to Ted Cruz or Rand Paul to gain the GOP nomination.  If either of those men get the GOP nomination; the dems hold the white house.  That is just about the only thing I'm certain of; that and if somehow Sarah Palin were to get the nomination. the Dems may carry all 57 states.  

LOL. 

"Bingo"...still laughing at that one.


----------



## S.J. (Sep 16, 2013)

The difference between Hillary and Christie is about 100 pounds.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2013)

alan1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


 Impressive.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 16, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...


The trouble with taking responsibility for millions of immigrants in the trillions we're paying for all of them to have what we have right this very minute.

That's why Marco's "conservatism" is diametric to a balanced budget or even making an attempt to reduce the $17 trillion National debt.

The truth is in the math, and it isn't anywhere else.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I have to agree with Becki on the math here. Rubio doesn't strike me as having what it takes to balance the budget given what we currently know of his positions. Cruz is closer on the budget but a little too strident. Ryan is the one who is coming up with the budget numbers but he lacks the charisma. Which leaves Paul as the frontrunner. Perhaps if he formed a far right coalition with Ryan in charge of the Treasury and Cruz and Rubio as either VP or Secretary of State or Defense that might work. That said I still prefer Christie but I am assuming for the purposes of this discussion that he is eliminated as being the "lib in sheep's clothing" as Ernie put it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Just to recap, the economy was actually recovering in 2012 and UE was on the way down. The Republicans had reached a deal to shelf the spending issue until after the election so that was off the table too. As far as the debt was concerned that was low on the voters priority list because the economic outlook was more of a priority for themselves.

So what was "anything else"? Mostly it came down to what can we fling at Obama and hope that it will stick? There was no cohesive vision for an alternative and brighter future and messaging matters. What compounded the failure of the messaging were the dissonant soundbites that came across as being anti-women. Call it whatever you like but it all amounted to noise that failed to get through to the voters.

But ultimately what tilted the election decidedly in Obama's favor was the reaction to Hurricane Sandy. He looked and acted presidential and Romney's absence was notable. He should have been there too. It was a big mistake on his part to not make every effort to be seen to care about the plight of those who were impacted. At this point the words were all spoken and everyone had heard all there was to say. There was a golden opportunity for action and Romney simply didn't do whatever it took to exploit it in my opinion.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> ...



I am conceeding the demise of the USA.  Its overrun by the uneducated.  Decades of liberalism has finally paid off for you progressives.  17 Trillion in debt, the average IQ of the high school graduate lower than ever....the list goes on of great 'accomplishements' of government dependant liberals.

I implore you to visit great Obama strongholds like Detroit, go mingle with the people there, and come back and argue that they are more educated and hard working than "Romney voters".


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 17, 2013)

theHawk said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You have a very weak argument. Want to try again?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



She has a legacy problem too. Her hubby was impeached. You just know that is going to be thrown out there. Then there was Hilarycare and Whitewater. Yes, old issues but they will be milked for everything that they are worth. But it will be the Benghazi drumbeat that will be the loudest. They will use that to claim that she lacks the judgement to keep Americans safe. So yes, she has negatives that will need to be addressed.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt any Republican can win 2016.  Way too many people dependant on the government now.  The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.
> ...



What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats?  Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



What's the matter?  Don't want to vouch for the intelligence of the average urban Obama voter?  Can't say I blame you.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 17, 2013)

theHawk said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



What percentage of the electorate is an average urban Obama voter?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2013)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Not at all.  

fact was, pre-primary, Romney's support was never more than 20%.  

Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum all had their moment as the "Not Romney" in the polls, and the GOP Establishment went out of their way to destroy them.  .

So they painted a child-killer as an innocent victim and we heard about the "Ni**erhead" resort. 

We heard about the women who accused Herman Cain of groping them. 

We heard about all the dirt on Gingrich one more time, and how Bob Dole blamed hims for his own pathetic 1996 run. (Although it's taken on a new dignity compared to Romney.) 

Now, me, I'm tired of the conservative movement and its lies and self-delusion and pandering to the wealthy, but frankly, any conservative should look at you funny if you say, "Hey, let's vote for another guy you hate because the guy you like will lose." 

Been there, done that with Romney and McCain.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 17, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



The Solyndra loan was approved under Bush, and it was calculated that some of the companies subsidized under that program would fail.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Benghazi and Whitewater won't be factors.  

Obama's record will.  And she won't be able to get away from it unlike a DEM not in Obama's cabinet.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



A tax code that favors dividend income over labor income for starters.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Any ticket topped by Cruz, Paul, or Palin = Dem victory.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Here's an example of Obama bailing out his wealthy donor friends:

_



			Why did the administration go to such lengths to help these private investors recoup their loses first? Administration officials have argued it was necessary to attract private capital to support the company. But they may have had another motivation. Argonaut is the investment vehicle The George Kaiser Family Foundation. Through it GKFF owned a 35% stake in Solyndra. Despite being called a foundation,* GKFF is not a nonprofit in the conventional understanding of the term, but an exotic variation that allows the wealthy to park their assets tax-free*. The foundations namesake is a *major fundraiser of President Obamas*. He was often a guest in the White House and even discussed Solyndra with officials there
		
Click to expand...

_
Report: Energy Department scrambled to justify letting Solyndra?s private backers recoup losses before taxpayers | WashingtonExaminer.com

But hey, keep on ignoring the truth and blame Buuuuuuuuuuusssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Take it up with Obama.   He and the Dems had every chance to change the tax code, they chose not to.  I suppose you still call the current tax code the "Bush Tax Cuts".


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Probably but I don't see Palin in the running at this stage!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No matter which Dem runs they will have to deal with Obama's record so I took that as a given. But they are 2nd hand hits so to speak. Hilary was SoS when Benghazi happened so it will be seen as a "legitimate" issue to throw at her. If she is smart she will make a public statement early on and answer all of the media questions, perhaps even a Foxnews interview too on the topic. It will defuse it and then she can ignore it as having being dealt with instead of allowing it hang over her head throughout the election.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I think the electorate is able to understand that the attack at Benghazi was not something that Hillary could have prevented. She responded to it well. There is no need for her to make any kind of statement. 

It is a manufactured scandal.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Free handouts for the wealthy?

How about record low taxes?  Easing and nonenforcement of environmental and labor laws? Breaking of unions? Unlimited oil drilling rights?  No requirement to provide your employees healthcare?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



They are all "manufactured scandals" but unless they are dealt with they keep cropping back up time and time again. Obama dealt with the Rev Wright issue as soon as it came up and it dropped off the radar. Romney ignored his tax returns issue and it haunted him throughout the election. The relevance of the "scandal" is not necessarily germane but how you deal with it has implications for the campaigns themselves. Handled improperly and it will never go away, handled right and it becomes a non-issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 17, 2013)

Christie will attack Obama's record and generally ignore HRC other than where she defends it.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 17, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Record low taxes? You mean the same tax rate that Obama and the Dem Congress renewed?  Erasing and non-enforcement of environmental and labor laws?  Have proof of that?  Exactly what laws were erased?

As for Obamacare, its causing more companies to fire people or reduce them to part-timers.  What a wonderful accomplishment...

But hey, the few people that still have a job are now mandated to get healthcare, even though most of them already had it to begin with.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Christie will attack Obama's record and generally ignore HRC other than where she defends it.



Sounds like a good strategy to me because Christie has a tendency to become rude when he is talking to people. As long as he remains on policy rather than people he is on solid ground.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2013)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Nobody is forced to lay off employees. Companies are doing that on their own because they don't care about their employees well being


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Hello Captain Obvious!  You might want to take another bite at my post and chew on it a little bit.  Here, let me distill it for you.  Reproductive rights is code for abortion.  Discussions about contraception distract people fro mthe real intent of the "reproductive rights" crowd which is abortion.  I'll say it again......virtually NO ONE is against contraception.  Abortion is a different matter and actually has NOTHING to do with reproductive rights.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

candycorn said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Access to contraception?  Every person has access to the ultimate contraception.....abstinence.  Beyond that, the pill is cheaper than many food items and you can still buy a rubber in the truckstop men's room.  Hell, they pass them out on school campuses for free.  There isn't an access problem.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You can depend on seeing two different videos used against her.  The first will be from her previous run at the WH of the "who do you want taking the call at 3 AM" and the other will be her, "at this point Senator, what difference does it make".  The second video answers the first video.  That is all that is needed to sink her.  I don't know why she would even think about running........but then I didn't think Weiner would run either.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Reproductive rights fall under the 4th Amendment right to privacy. If you want to interfere with what transpires between a patient and their doctor you are going to need a court warrant showing probable cause of something illegal. Good luck trying to obtain a million+ warrants each and every year to invade the privacy of the largest voting bloc in the nation.

Since you haven't made your case that abortion "has NOTHING to do with reproductive rights" you will need to do that first before you can expect any kind of response. Oh wait, was I being "Captain Obvious" again? Tut tut! [Smacks self on the hand!]


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 17, 2013)

Chances of winning change. The ecoonomy, the debates many things can change. Nevertheless, I like a lot of who I think will run.

Cruz - An articulate, smart, ideological, businessman who excelled at IV League colleges. I love this guy and think he would be a great president.

Rubio - I love this guy. A smart everyday Joe who sticks to his principals. The immigration thing was a bust, but he tried to get something done on a must do topic. He tried to get something done in a bipartisan way, but he was duped by libs only concerned with creating new liberal voters.

Rand Paul - Sometimes he goes onto the crazy train, but I love this guy. He is principaled and down to earth (unlike his wacky father). Like his wacky father, I believe Rand would cut spending, taxes, and lengthy business killing regulations. I think he would be a great economic President. I think he would have a tough time winning, but I would GLADLY vote for my favorite senator.

Paul Ryan - He had partnered with Scott Walker to COMPLETELY turn around WI. WI was a joke. A liberal basketcase of high taxation, high unemployment and the HIGHEST budget deficit per capita. It now has one of the best teacher to student ratios, a budget surplus, a check on taxes, a growing economy and a a great future. He was a big part of that. He's an idea guy and his ideas a GREAT. I would support him.

Mayor Giuliani -  He is a guy that turned around the largest city in America during his time in office. Bloomberg brought it back a bunch, but Giuliani saved NY from going the route of Chicago or Detroit. He is my kind of Republican, a strong fiscal conservative, but moderate on social issues!

Herman Cain - The economic genius that supports many of the things I do: the Fair Tax (or 9-9-9, it was brilliant and people shamed him for a great idea - fuck you bachman), Chilean social security system, the death of mega-bills etc. He would be my first choice, but he won't run again.

Alan West - If only he didn't getting gerrymerryed out of a district, he would have been a great candidate.

Chris Christy - The fat man takes a lot of slack for going against his party, but he has some appeal. First, people forget that he took on the Unions head on and unlike many, HE WON. That is a tough task in red states, in blue states that's nearly impossible. He lowered taxes, cut spending and balance a budget. He is socially liberal, but I am socially moderate, so that is OK with me. In reality, the pundits don't want to face it, but he would have the best chance of winning in 2016. People say well Romney was MA governor and that didn't help him. Romney was a one term governor. Can't remember if he lost or choose not to run, but you choose not to run again if you know you will lose. Turning a large state like NJ would be HUGE. He would is set to win by a double digit margin in NJ. He will still be a popular sitting governor in 2016, NJ could go his way. Could his moderate stance win him more? I think he would have a shot in WI, MI, PA and the all important OH. Conservatives don't want to admit it, but he has the BEST chance of any to win in 2016.



My choices of favorite to worst:
Cain
Cruz
Paul
Giuliani
Rubio
Ryan
West
Christy


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Palin will never run for office again.  She's making way too much money off of the mouth breathers.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Well, it's one thing if you're in the house (White House) while decisions are made or in the administration; but it's quite another when you can say you were at the governor's mansion in Maryland or maybe Trenton.  You can credibly argue that you'd do things differently from a distance; you're not credible in saying you'd do things differently when your boss was the decision maker.



Derideo_Te said:


> But they are 2nd hand hits so to speak. Hilary was SoS when Benghazi happened so it will be seen as a "legitimate" issue to throw at her. If she is smart she will make a public statement early on and answer all of the media questions, perhaps even a Foxnews interview too on the topic. It will defuse it and then she can ignore it as having being dealt with instead of allowing it hang over her head throughout the election.



She would be an idiot if she did that.  The "angry little man" approach the GOP has taken over the last 6 years has backfired on them at every turn.  If Hillary is smart she'll keep handing them shovels as long as they decide to keep digging the hole/grave.  At that point, the issue would be 5 years old; you're thinking it's magically going to start getting taction?  

Besides; the GOP needn't go there with Hillary; she's got a likability problem already.  Why throw the mud when you're opponent is muddy as hell already? 

It's kinda like the Obama thing.  He doesn't seem to realize the power of his office.  The mouthbreathers here all insist he's ottocratic and beligerent, divisive and smells funny.  If you're going to be mischaracterized as a bully, why not act like a bully?  If you're opponent has a likability issue, why go on the personal attack?


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

derideo_te said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 17, 2013)

"Reproductive rights is code for abortion" is code that a woman's right does not depend on what kwc57 thinks.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 17, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



You're showing a glaring ignorance of the Roe decision.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting to your failure to substantiate your allegation. Shall we get back on topic or do want to have another try first?


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > derideo_te said:
> ...



View attachment $the point.bmp

You know you're in trouble when you have JakeFakey backing you up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 17, 2013)

You know you are in trouble when Jake has destroyed your silly arguments.

Reproductive rights is code for a woman's right to decide her future, and that kcw57 can whine about it and nothing more.


----------



## Polk (Sep 17, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.



Weird to claim "the middle class shrinks" due to "liberal policies and legislation", consider the only time middle class incomes were rising over the last 40 years were during the Carter and Clinton administrations.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...*that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.*



Correct me if I have misunderstood anything, Lumpy, but are you suggesting that the "dimwitted Democrats" should throw an election away just to give the far right a chance to "fix" all of those things that you believe are wrong?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Your concession that reproductive rights do include abortion has been duly noted. That was easy!


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that as the middle class shrinks because of liberal policies and legislation, the country is being swallowed by debt, the U. S. standing in the world diminishes, more Americans are being made slaves to government entitlements and American morality fades to black...*that dimwitted Democrats believe winning elections is all that truly matters.*
> ...



Yes...psssst. (just be honest, throwing isn't necessary.)


Btw..you're not in the "dimwitted" category...you're in the "kind and understanding" category ..


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> You know you are in trouble when Jake has destroyed your silly arguments.
> 
> Reproductive rights is code for a woman's right to decide her future, and that kcw57 can whine about it and nothing more.



Being able to prevent a pregnancy and decide your future is reproductive rights you dumbass.  Murdering an unborn child out of convenience is not.  Liberals like to lump murder in with readily avaialbe and cheap rubbers and birth control pills as reproductive rights.  Apples and oranges.  Calling murder a reproductive right doesn't change the fact that it is murder......it just makes it sound more acceptable when you use a noble sounding code word.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 17, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Murder isn't a right asshat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 17, 2013)

One, reproductive rights are women's rights, always, and the social traditionalists are wrong to define it any other way.

Two, "murder" is a legal term, not an opinion term defined by the far right.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



 FYI I am a lot dimmer in real life. I just play the "kind and understanding" smartass on tv...er, in this forum.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 17, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Murder isn't a right asshat.



Reproductive rights are not "murder".


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 17, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wyoming Senator John Barasso could win the White House if his conservatism were key to putting back America's credit rating to #1 again.

He would also help the nation care for itself by implementing a merciful and workable Health Care program that addresses medical issues from the giver's and the receiver's mutual doctor-client relationship.

He's one of the best Orthopedic Surgeons and great human beings who ever lived.

He has all of the conservatism savvy to do what needs to be done and all of the people savvy to do that in a way people know is best for the nation.

That's just my humble opinion, but it is true. There are true patriots and men of conscience in the United States Senate who know what people need and who know what business needs and can benefit America through his great gifts of healing.

This world has gotten into the rut of worshipping name recognition and polls. As Martin Luther King Junior said, we should look on each other through the content of character, and not on the superficial trappings that surround people if it obfuscates what's inside.

Also, we the people need to clean up our act. We need to pray for leaders, not condemn them for being human. Don't tell me I'm the only one who had teachers lead a student body in prayer the year John Kennedy was assassinated. We actually prayed for the next leader who we weren't too sure about. We asked God to help us get through that terrible, sad hour of grieving for the First Family's loss.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 18, 2013)

With Hillary melting down the democrats may be wondering where they can gat votes.  One of her top advisors, an official with tye Clinton foundation was just arrested in Cairo as a terrorist due to muslim brotherhood ties.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Murder isn't a right asshat.
> ...



They are when liberals use the term "reproductive right" as code for abortion.  Use google, it's your friend.  You guys include abortion (murder) as part of reproductive "rights".  Murder isn't a right asshat.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 18, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, reproductive rights are women's rights, always, and the social traditionalists are wrong to define it any other way.
> 
> Two, "murder" is a legal term, not an opinion term defined by the far right.



Cutting a baby out of the womb and running scissors into it's brain stem so it will die is murder dumbshit.  Who has the "right" to do that?


----------



## Beachboy (Sep 18, 2013)

I think Chris Christie is their best bet.  The name "Bush" still has stink on it.  Christie verses Hillary Clinton would be ideal because their differences would be severe, yet both have high trust ratings among the American people.  And, this March, 2013 poll agrees with me.  Poll: Hillary would be tops in 2016; Christie strongest Republican - CBS News


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 18, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> I think Chris Christie is their best bet.  The name "Bush" still has stink on it.  Christie verses Hillary Clinton would be ideal because their differences would be severe, yet both have high trust ratings among the American people.  And, this March, 2013 poll agrees with me.  Poll: Hillary would be tops in 2016; Christie strongest Republican - CBS News



I am just going to throw this out there, because why the hell not.  

I remember in 2008, when pundits and reporters and folks on message boards were just salivating at the thought of a Hillary vs. Rudy throw down.  A regular New Yawk back ally brawl, they thought to themselves. 

And then the voters nominated the much more Sedate Obama and McCain.  Who managed to have a reasonably civil debate, really.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 18, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > What you have to recall about Presidential elections is this; it's not Consumer Reports.  People should rate candidates with a scorecard and make the sober decision based on what their values are in my view.  If candidate A supports reproductive rights and candidate B supports overturning reproductive rights, I am likely to support candidate A because that is very important to me.  If the 2nd Amendment is important to you you'd vote for the candidate who most supports it.  Etc...
> ...



There are no code words. 

Reproductive rights in the context of the 4th Amendments right to privacy, the 5th Amendments Liberty Clause, and the 14th Amendments guarantee of substantive due process refers to both contraception and abortion prior to viability; indeed, to refer to abortion as murder prior to viability is either ignorant idiocy or willful partisan demagoguery.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Sep 18, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Kindly refrain from indulging in vulgarities. They don't help your cause.

You are conflating a medical procedure with a legal term without any medical or legal basis for doing so. Unless you can provide a sound medical and/or legal basis for your allegation you are merely using inflammatory emotive rhetoric in order to sway public opinion rather than rational terminology.


----------



## Polk (Sep 18, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> I think Chris Christie is their best bet.  The name "Bush" still has stink on it.  Christie verses Hillary Clinton would be ideal because their differences would be severe, yet both have high trust ratings among the American people.  And, this March, 2013 poll agrees with me.  Poll: Hillary would be tops in 2016; Christie strongest Republican - CBS News



I don't think the differences are that "severe", but I agree with you that Christie is probably the strongest potential nominee for the Republicans.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 19, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Wyoming Senator John Barasso could win the White House if his conservatism were key to putting back America's credit rating to #1 again.


 
Will the oil and coal companies let him run? He will have to ask them for permission, given that they own him.

And your gushing about him sounds a lot like all the gushing about Sarah Palin prior to 2008. But at least he can lock up those Wyoming votes. Oh wait, they're already locked up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 19, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > One, reproductive rights are women's rights, always, and the social traditionalists are wrong to define it any other way.
> ...



Stay on topic and away from personality, hmmm?

Your opinion is your opinion, it is now law.  "Murder" is a legal term, bub.


----------



## Yurt (Sep 19, 2013)

too early to tell

christie is too heavy to win, romney won't run again...hopefully there will be a great independent third party similar to perot who will run


----------



## Yurt (Sep 19, 2013)

women's reproductive rights are a legal term just like murder fake jakey

moron


----------



## Intense (Sep 19, 2013)

Biography - About - United States Senator John Thune

A bit too Statist, but I do respect Him.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2013)

Yurt said:


> too early to tell
> 
> christie is too heavy to win, romney won't run again...hopefully there will be a great independent third party similar to perot who will run



Christie is slimming down

He will be lean and mean by sixteen


----------



## National Socialist (Sep 22, 2013)

Compromise, hell! ... If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time? 
 -Senator Jesse Helms


----------



## National Socialist (Sep 22, 2013)

It is the weak man who urges compromise -- never the strong man. 
Elbert Hubbard


----------



## Nyvin (Sep 23, 2013)

Google: 16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016 - The Daily Beast

This piece by a "conservative" writer sums it up pretty well.  

But overall Hillary isn't even the main problem for the GOP...the electoral college is.    Already in 2012 the dems start with an advantage of 246 "blue state" votes to 191 "red state" votes.   And every single swing state other then Missouri is trending leftward too.   From Nevada, to Virginia, and most importantly Florida....the minorities and young votes just keep getting pumped in year after year.

By 2016 I'm fully convinced Nevada, Colorado, and maybe even Virginia will become solid blue.  North Carolina looks to become more competitive as well.


----------



## Samson (Sep 23, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
> ...



Good thing you're worrying  'bout it three years in advance....


----------



## Samson (Sep 23, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > too early to tell
> ...



Especially true now that the boardwalk's The Funnel Cake stand caught fire on The Jersey Shore.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 23, 2013)

Ohhhh so IMPOSING social traditionalist mafia demands on an unwilling majority is a sure winner!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 23, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ohhhh so IMPOSING social traditionalist mafia demands on an unwilling majority is a sure winner!



Social Traditionalists aren't the problem. 

If the GOP nominated a good Christian guy who was down with working folks and understood their plight, they'd probably win easily. 

Someone like Mike Huckabee, before he made the Establishment shit its pants. 

I'm an atheist, and even I realize that this is a mostly Christian country with mostly christian values.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 23, 2013)

Chris Christie would make a terrific candidate for the democrat party but unfortunately there is no room in the democrat party for an honest liberal so he had to run as a republican.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 23, 2013)

Chris Chris.....wait....he hugged the President.  Then the answer is *NONE!*


----------

