Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by Dot Com, Nov 13, 2012.
QUite the contrary, RCP had two columns that are now claiming Romney lost because he wasn't a "real conservative" like Reagan.
Forgetting the real reagan would be a "RINO" today.
Oh thats right. They have to mention Reagan's name as many times as possible in a conversation. They would've barred Ronnie from the convention too, yep.
The inability to learn is the root cause of unteachability.
This is why the party of white men will never rise to the prominence it used to enjoy
The GOP elders will learn from this. If the pattern holds, Santorum should get the nomination in 2016. The pattern WILL NOT HOLD and the GOP will not lose in the same way in 2016. Whomever the DNC nominates, they will not pull the numbers across the board that Obama pulled and Obama fatigue will be on the ballot.
Issues become more or less a toss-up depending on whom the candidates are.
I'm not worried about Santorum, Rubio or Ryan. Christie is problematic from a demographic and electoral math standpoint. He can go into poor neighborhoods and talk to people. Rubio, Santorum and Ryan cannot do that without looking like they are overtly pandering. Electorally New Jersey and Philly become a bit of a horse race.
Again, issue-wise, it's a toss up until you know the names on the ballot.
The problem from a candidate standpoint is with the Democrats actually. They need to understand that Obama has personal coat-tails that the nominee in 2016 may not have. Biden certainly will not have them. Hillary would in one way but you have to remember, she didn't come off with much likability in 08-hence Obama winning.
The normal path to the White House is through a governorship. Obama is sort of a category killer in that respect but if you look at most of the recent Presidents, they took the Gubernatorial path (W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter. Only Bush Sr. and Obama broke the trend. Bush Sr. had to serve 40 years in Washington pretty much and Obama had a dynamic personality, the FBP thing working, and no incumbent to run against.
So if the Dems are going to hold, they need to field a candidate that can win obviously. Who is out there?
Biden will have run 3 times in 2016. I doubt he's doing much to inspire confidence in people.
Hillary had the likability factor
O'Malley from the Maryland State House. Unknown, small state that the Dems will win electorally anyway.
Cuomo from Albany. Known, large state that the Dems will win anyway. Has federal level experience
Mike Beebee from Little Rock. Unknown, small state but a red state. He got 64% of the vote in Arkansas. Could be a sleeper candidate. He'll be 70 in 2016 however.
Schweitzer from Montana. Unknown Small Red State--two term governor of a Red state. Could break the GOP fortress blockade. Prolific tax cutter could be "priced to sell" in 2016. He'll be 61 in 2016.
Other than governors...
Schumer comes to mind. Maybe too much of a lightning rod for the right
Maria Cantwell from Washington. Low profile but not the lightning rod. I think the Party will want Clinton more than Obama in 2016 from a policy standpoint. Cantwell is a liberal in every way possible it seems.
Bill Nelson? If he was younger; it would be awesome. Floridian who just won his 2nd Senatorial term. He'll be 74 in 2016.
The GOP nominees are more well known because they were all looked at last year when they were sorting themselves out.
So, that's your excuse, huh?
61 million welfare receivers will always be needing help.
How funny when Democrats LOSE they never have to learn or be TAUGHT anything..
I guess because their shit doesn't stink or something
Separate names with a comma.