“What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?”

[LoneLaugher]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[JoeB131]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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"

A potted plant would be better than the alternative.

Says Christie Hater/Christie Voter daveman!


You never disappoint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not unless the GOP changes.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

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

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

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]

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.]

The difference between Hillary and Christie is about 100 pounds.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

Presidents are elected by electoral votes

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

These,
Google Image Result for http://i.imgur.com/2jl8kcV.png

Impressive.

 

[freedombecki]

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:

“I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want.”

Sadly, I also agree with former senator and 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, who appeared this past May on Fox News Sunday to discuss the growing conservative tilt among Republican primary and base voters when he stated that “Reagan wouldn't have made it” in today’s Republican Party.

That might actually be true, for at my conservative event, as I listened to speeches from a host of elected leaders, only one mentioned the “C word”: compromise. Instead of “compromise,” all I heard was “we must battle and fight to uphold the principles of conservatism.”

Now, I also believe in fighting for conservative principles, but realizing that conservatives are an ever shrinking minority within the electorate, it is imperative that Republicans nominate a presidential candidate (and other leaders) who can attract moderate voters by stating that he or she, like Reagan, are willing to accept a “half loaf instead of a whole” in order to solve the difficult issues facing our nation.

Otherwise, the GOP will remain locked out of the White House and leave our nation stuck in neutral with a gridlocked government. There is danger ahead for conservatives when core conservative principles are used as roadblocks to any progress.

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.

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.

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]

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



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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

I am startled, and, yes, I agree.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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".

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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.

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

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.