2016 Republican primary

[JoeB131]

Not really.

The Wingnuts will take out Jabba, and if they don't, the MSM media will.

And after he loses, the Right Wing will announce, 'Well, if only we ran a REAL conservative!"

No question the wingnuts will try, but their power within the party has diminished

Regular Republicans let them have their way in the shutdown and the wingnuts showed how irresponsible they can be

Regular Republicans will not support a candidate like Cruz or Paul.......neither will the rest of America

Democrats and independents still elect presidents; and neither will vote for the likes of Paul or Cruz.

They will vote for someone like Christie, however.

The TPM and radical right may infer from that fact what they will.

Guy this is where I have to disagree.

The GOP's two most unqualified successes were candidates who were unapologetically conserative. Reagan and Bush-43.

ROmney didn't lose because he was "too liberal" or "too conservative". Romney lost at the end of the day because he was a Weird Mormon who talked smack about working folks.

At the end of the day, 45% will always vote for the Republican and 45% will always vote for the Democrat and the 10% in the middle will vote for the guy who appeals to them on a personal level.

And the biggest problem the Democrats have is that they are about to nominate a shrill old woman who grates on people's nerves.

Could Cruz win? If the economy is still doing poor and Hillary acts like Hillary, maybe.

 

[Toro]

Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.

Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No question the wingnuts will try, but their power within the party has diminished

Regular Republicans let them have their way in the shutdown and the wingnuts showed how irresponsible they can be

Regular Republicans will not support a candidate like Cruz or Paul.......neither will the rest of America

Democrats and independents still elect presidents; and neither will vote for the likes of Paul or Cruz.

They will vote for someone like Christie, however.

The TPM and radical right may infer from that fact what they will.

Guy this is where I have to disagree.

The GOP's two most unqualified successes were candidates who were unapologetically conserative. Reagan and Bush-43.

ROmney didn't lose because he was "too liberal" or "too conservative". Romney lost at the end of the day because he was a Weird Mormon who talked smack about working folks.

At the end of the day, 45% will always vote for the Republican and 45% will always vote for the Democrat and the 10% in the middle will vote for the guy who appeals to them on a personal level.

And the biggest problem the Democrats have is that they are about to nominate a shrill old woman who grates on people's nerves.

Could Cruz win? If the economy is still doing poor and Hillary acts like Hillary, maybe.

Romney lost for a number of reasons but not because of yours. You silly goog.

Cruz could win if we were in a super Depression, Hitler like, yes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.

Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.

And the left STILL hated him...

A Republican trying to please the left is stupid - they'll hate him no matter what he does.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.

Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.

And the left STILL hated him...

A Republican trying to please the left is stupid - they'll hate him no matter what he does.

Why I hated Bush

Abandoned the war on terror to invade Iraq
Lied about WMDs
Engaged in Torture
Stood by while the economy collapsed

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stupid above.

The TeaPs and the reactionaries are far on the right horizon.

Thus, anyone who disagrees with them is a "liberal" to them. Tough that.

The reactionary far right does not win elections, it is the middle.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Rand Paul will dominate if he enters the race.

LOL!!! Libertarians don't have a shot. They just don't get that, like Marxism, it would take a basic shift in human nature in order to work. Even Republicans will see through his B.S., I'll wager.

I can certainly see through your BS. Paul is a Republican. I realize the fact that he believes strongly in personal liberty galls liberals, but they'll just have to live with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ryan's libertarianism cannot translate into economic values in a democratic constitutional republic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ryan's libertarianism cannot translate into economic values in a democratic constitutional republic.

Translation: my statist mentality preempts any understanding of free enterprise

 

[LoneLaugher]

You nutters had better come you your senses soon.

People like Huntsman, Ridge and Christie are your only hope for a WH run. A somewhat moderate Republican who can think and speak in complete thoughts and has an aversion to spouting off empty rhetoric.

 

[JoeB131]

Bush 43 ran as a compassionate conservative, ran big deficits, invaded countries, expanded government faster than Clinton did, and expanded social programs more than any President since LBJ.

Yes, he cut taxes. Yes, they cheered him at conservative events. But he wasn't much of a conservative.

Okay, I'm going to play your little game.

Not seeing how you can't be "compassionate" and "conservative". It's not an oxymoron. Frankly, I considered myself compassionate when I was conservative, I was just disgusted to see the plutocrats who really ran things weren't.

Ran big deficits. Um. Yeah. So did Reagan. For the same reason, drinking the Supply Side Koolaid that tax cuts on the wealthy will create prosperity and revenues. (It doesn't.)

Invaded Countries- that attacked us first or had been hostile to us for years. Not a liberal or conservative position. (When it comes to foreign policy, there isn't a lot of variation.)

Exanded social programs- Again, he did it the Republican way, by making the rich richer. So instead of having Medicare Part D just buy the drugs, he gave a huge giveaway to be Pharma. Just like the rich got big giveaway on the War on Terror, which was outsourced to big corporations.

The problem with Bush is he talked like a conservative, and acted like a Plutocrat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ryan's libertarianism cannot translate into economic values in a democratic constitutional republic.

Translation: my statist mentality preempts any understanding of free enterprise

Translation: Frank is still lost in McCarthyville.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You nutters had better come you your senses soon.

People like Huntsman, Ridge and Christie are your only hope for a WH run. A somewhat moderate Republican who can think and speak in complete thoughts and has an aversion to spouting off empty rhetoric.

True.

It comes down to whether republicans are more interested in responsible governance or their childish, naïve TPM fantasy.

 

[Interpol]

I suppose the main contenders at this point are:

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Scott Walker
Rick Santorum

I'm not really taking Scott Brown or Rick Perry too seriously right now, but at least Brown might be interesting when it comes to how he deals with Tea Partiers in the debates.

I think we're going to be seeing the real-world Republicans battling the fantasy/alternate universe Republicans who appear to invent their own sense of the present and of history.

I don't know if Jeb is too late. The Bush brand is still very much in the toilet. I think Christie would be interesting, but he's not a hard right guy in a party that seems to hate anyone who is not at least practically militant about being on the hard right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The GOP establishment and George Soros will support Jeb and Christie respectively. I think Palin and Dr Ben Carson will be the GOP candidates

 

[Old Rocks]

The GOP establishment and George Soros will support Jeb and Christie respectively. I think Palin and Dr Ben Carson will be the GOP candidates

Now that would be fun.

 

[rightwinger]

I suppose the main contenders at this point are:

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Scott Walker
Rick Santorum

I'm not really taking Scott Brown or Rick Perry too seriously right now, but at least Brown might be interesting when it comes to how he deals with Tea Partiers in the debates.

I think we're going to be seeing the real-world Republicans battling the fantasy/alternate universe Republicans who appear to invent their own sense of the present and of history.

I don't know if Jeb is too late. The Bush brand is still very much in the toilet. I think Christie would be interesting, but he's not a hard right guy in a party that seems to hate anyone who is not at least practically militant about being on the hard right.

I think the real world republicans need to be as militant in their position as the fantasy/alternative Republicans. Don't give an inch and insist on realistic solutions to our problems
It is the pandering to the nutjobs that is making it impossible to win

 

[JakeStarkey]

Realistic candidates: Bush, Christie, Paul, Rubio

Fringe candidates: Paul, Ryan

Flame out candidates: Cruz, Walker, Carson, Palin, Santorum, Perry

 

[rightwinger]

Realistic candidates: Bush, Christie, Paul, Rubio

Fringe candidates: Paul, Ryan

Flame out candidates: Cruz, Walker, Carson, Palin, Santorum, Perry

The realistic candidates need to order the others to get back in the clown car. Stop taking them seriously. Make it clear that there are adults in the Republican Party and that they no longer tolerate the nonsense

 

[American_Jihad]

November 18, 2015
Oops! Smarter lefties realize they have a losing hand on Syrian 'refugees'
By Thomas Lifson


Kevin Drum of Mother Jones is an old hand on the left and has seen enough politics that he realizes what a big looser of an issue the Syrian “refugee” inflow is for the Democrats and the left. He cautions his fellow progs:

Over the past 24 hours, almost half of the nation's governors — all but one of them Republicans — have said they plan to refuse to allow Syrian immigrants into their states in the wake of the Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State....That stance has been greeted with widespread ridicule and disgust by Democrats who insist that keeping people out of the U.S. is anathema to the founding principles of the country.

....Think what you will, but one thing is clear: The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner.



I pointed out this out a couple of days ago, in fact. And Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post agreed:

The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner.

The Pew Research Center did an in-depth poll looking into Americans' view on Islamic extremism in the the fall of 2014 — and its findings suggest that politicians like Cruz have virtually nothing to lose in this fight over how best to respond to ISIS's latest act of violence.

...

Blog: Oops! Smarter lefties realize they have a losing hand on Syrian 'refugees'