texas-senator-ted-cruz-announce-presidential-run-report

[Boss]

More from the tolerant on the left.

Snip:
MSNBC: Race Hustler Jamilah Lemieux Says Country Music Is About “Killing Muslims”…

Jamilah Lemieux is by every definition a straight up racist, but the fact that she’s black and racist against white people means MSNBC will still have her on regularly despite saying stuff like this.

Via Mediaite:

After a guest made a disparaging comment about country music, MSNBC host Ari Melber apologized on-air Wednesday afternoon and informed his audience that the network does not condone such remarks.



all of it here. these people are sick with hate
MSNBC Race Hustler Jamilah Lemieux Says Country Music Is About Killing Muslims Weasel Zippers
Ebony Sr. Editor: Ted Cruz Likes Country Music Because He Wants to Kill Some Muslims (VIDEO)


Ebony Sr. Editor Ted Cruz Likes Country Music Because He Wants to Kill Some Muslims VIDEO The Gateway Pundit

Oh we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. I've argued for 10 years that this is how you have to defeat liberals. The mealy-mouthing around trying to address their memes and be more liked by them is a failure of mass proportions. Put someone out there who doesn't play to their memes, shoots straight and holds strong to his principles and values, and watch the lefties implode! They can't help it! They go from being credible proponents for progress to being total loony-tunes morons and bigots before our very eyes.

 

[Pogo]

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

It hasn't happened yet.

If you are talking about the 2014, history tell us that the 6th year of a two term President is bad electorally for his party. Reagan lost just as many seats as Obama did.

Your ignorance is profound son.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

 

[Pogo]

If we do not maintaining our outreach to women and minorities, the Senate elections are set for a land slide back to the Dems. That will happen if we have any of the Angle, O'donnell, Mourdock, Miller stupidities next year. of the 33 elections, 19 GOP and 1 Dem are up for grab. If the Dems get six of those 20 seats, they have the Senate.

"We?" ...As if you speak for Republicans? lol

When you use terms like "outreach to women and minorities" it makes me think you want social justice and believe the government is there to implement it. As a conservative, I disagree with that viewpoint. I think government shouldn't cater to special interests and seek social change. At least not at the national level, I suppose a case may be made for this sort of thing at the state level, providing that's what the people voted for. The Federal government has limited powers and shouldn't be exploited for social reform, and I stand firmly opposed to that on every level.

What I think you're going to find with Cruz is that he is far more "libertarian" than you think. The left has portrayed him as "far right extreme" because... well, that's what the left always does to those who threaten them. They got rid of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller because they were too "far right" for the party.

I don't know... Politicians saying stupid shit? Ya think? Duh, man! We already know that the left-wing liberal media is going to certainly find plenty of gaffes, statements, things taken the wrong way by people who are perhaps not as accustomed to having every word parsed... count on it! That's going to happen, dude.

What you need to decide is, are you going to let shit like that influence how you vote? If so, why not just put a brass ring through your nose so the liberals can lead you around easier? We're facing a pretty fucking important election in 2016. If something doesn't change the Liberal regime which has taken over, our country is GONE! One way or the other, it's OVER for us as a nation. Can you not see that?

Speaking of "Stupid Shit" --- nobody 'got rid of' Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. They retired. The latter lost a primary and ran as an independent. That's the electoral process. The former is and always has been a dedicated Conservative and a dedicated Democrat. For that matter nobody "got rid of" Ben Nelson or Olympia Snowe either.

You gotta tear yourself away from this myth that a political party represents an ideology. Political parties exist for one purpose, and it is not to represent an ideology. It is to acquire power. If the avenue to do that is to tell you " the sky is blue" while telling me " the sky is green", then that's what it will be happy to do.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do conservatives live in their own little world and believe that political realities do not apply to them?

The political reality is that staunch conservatism will help you win red states. Republicans already win red states.

If you want to be President, you need to win two out of three battleground states. To do that, you need to steal the moderates away from the Democrats

Holding firm to your conservative values will not do that

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because Republicans took back seats in Red States in the Senate and won seats filibustered to favor Republicans in the House

In the General Election, the entire state will vote and whoever wins gets all electoral votes

Red States will still be red and blue states will still be blue, but there are more electoral votes in the blue states

EARTH TO RW: The "Blue" states are already purple. (red violet)

They haven't been in the last six election cycles

It is the purple states that have been showing themselves blue

 

[Pogo]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

Holy shit dood -- overthink much?

Think back to what the economy was doing in November 2008. McCain was representing the Status Quo. Given that landscape, a penguin could have won against him.

His picking Palin was basically to put it charitably, "if I'm going down anyway we might as well make it interesting" and more realistically, a thumb in the nose of his own party putting him up as a sacrificial lamb in a year he could not win --- especially after the Bush dirty tricks of 2000, which I'm sure he hasn't forgotten.

 

[Pogo]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

Yeah...that's it. Well, actually, Romney did just about everything he could to lose the election tactically. He got more votes than McCain and could have won the election but he...

• Went to Poland in the middle of the campaign....a bizarre move.
• Lost control of his convention and had an actor debate an empty chair...another bizarre move.
• Allowed his wife to make a goofy speech about how they had to sell stock to get by...a luxury nearly 1/2 of all Americans do not have...
• Let Obama and the Democrats define him from toe to tip with tax returns that he chose not to respond to.
• Totally embodied the 1% from show horses, to car elevators,to "I like to fire people"
• Gave a disastrous 47% speech
• Got no help from his running mate

I certainly hope the GOP pulls out Uncle Fester and tries to dress him up as a contender. They'll probably get someone from the mainstream and it'll end up being a close contest once more.

I still say "Jeep moving to China" is where he ran off the road. He'll never live that one down. Lost him both Ohio and his birth state of Michigan -- where Jeep was adding jobs, not subtracting them.

Then there was trying to pin gas prices on the POTUS, demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of how gas prices work while simultaeously purporting to be "successful businessman". "Successful" maybe, if the goal is acquisition of personal wealth. Honest -- not so much.

 

[candycorn]

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

Well, I was speaking of the strict two-party system. Your list is much more complete. Nicely done.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

Well, I was speaking of the strict two-party system. Your list is much more complete. Nicely done.

I thought that was Projectionist's point. But thanks, it was fun.

I don't see the pattern he imagined at all, but what I do see is a history (140 years) of complete domination by R and D. And any time somebody tries to challenge with a 3rd party (a) they're drowned out by the R/D machine, and (b) they usually did so because they came from either the R or the D camp and were unsatisfied with where it was going, so it became in effect an alternate-R or alternate-D.

When you have two parties that become the two-headed combined institution of everything political -- as if R or D is all there can possibly be -- it's inevitable that the two heads of the institution will cooperate to keep it that way, one foiling off the other, and merge into a single lumbering wart on the political landscape, ensuring that meaningful evolution never happens.

 

[Boss]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

Holy shit dood -- overthink much?

Think back to what the economy was doing in November 2008. McCain was representing the Status Quo. Given that landscape, a penguin could have won against him.

His picking Palin was basically to put it charitably, "if I'm going down anyway we might as well make it interesting" and more realistically, a thumb in the nose of his own party putting him up as a sacrificial lamb in a year he could not win --- especially after the Bush dirty tricks of 2000, which I'm sure he hasn't forgotten.

The economy has nothing to with Conservative turnout. People are Conservative whether the economy is good or bad. You mention "status quo" and I won't argue with that, it's the biggest problem with the establishment moderate GOP wing... they are uninspiring, they stand for nothing.

Your take on McCain and Palin is borderline delusional. First of all, the polls all indicated it was a close race and McCain certainly had a chance to win. I don't buy that he knew it was over and just nominated Palin because of rebellious millennial angst and boredom. If McCain were some pimple-faced 30-yer-old living in his mother's basement, perhaps that's a plausible story? BUT... Even IF you are correct... WHY would he give a shit what she said? Why not just turn her loose and let her speak from the heart? You know, actually make it interesting?

No... He knew what every political advisor was telling him was true, that his candidacy was not being well received by true conservatives. He nominated Palin to pull these people in, but his error was made in controlling what she could say. He simply morphed her into his own mouthpiece and Conservatives stayed home.

 

[Pogo]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

Holy shit dood -- overthink much?

Think back to what the economy was doing in November 2008. McCain was representing the Status Quo. Given that landscape, a penguin could have won against him.

His picking Palin was basically to put it charitably, "if I'm going down anyway we might as well make it interesting" and more realistically, a thumb in the nose of his own party putting him up as a sacrificial lamb in a year he could not win --- especially after the Bush dirty tricks of 2000, which I'm sure he hasn't forgotten.

The economy has nothing to with Conservative turnout. People are Conservative whether the economy is good or bad. You mention "status quo" and I won't argue with that, it's the biggest problem with the establishment moderate GOP wing... they are uninspiring, they stand for nothing.

The economy has to do with how the election goes. Fuck up the economy, or simply be the one in office when it collapses, you might as well draft a concession speech. Ask Herbert Hoover. That's what "status quo" meant there --- the Bush WH was associated with economic collapse. Nobody's gonna vote for economic collapse. Wasn't popular in 1932 ... still isn't.

Your take on McCain and Palin is borderline delusional. First of all, the polls all indicated it was a close race and McCain certainly had a chance to win. I don't buy that he knew it was over and just nominated Palin because of rebellious millennial angst and boredom. If McCain were some pimple-faced 30-yer-old living in his mother's basement, perhaps that's a plausible story? BUT... Even IF you are correct... WHY would he give a shit what she said? Why not just turn her loose and let her speak from the heart? You know, actually make it interesting?

Have you forgotten already?? "He's a maverick!"

No, I don't remember any polls that gave McCain a shot. Go look up what Dubya's approval numbers were.

McCain's biggest detriment wasn't Sarah Palin. It was this:

--- which is all the more bizarre since the guy he's hugging is the same guy who ran racist push-polls in South Carolina about McCain's adopted child in order to step on top of him and knock him out of the 2000 nomination. Which to me says McCain has the same problem as Clinton -- no spine. Even for a politician.

HERE is the uphill battle McCain was facing.

​

Dude, that's like 1920 when Wilson was so despised that Harding hardly had to campaign at all.

No... He knew what every political advisor was telling him was true, that his candidacy was not being well received by true conservatives. He nominated Palin to pull these people in, but his error was made in controlling what she could say. He simply morphed her into his own mouthpiece and Conservatives stayed home.

If what we saw was "controlling what she could say" I'd hate to see what wasn't...

As I recall he even tried to play-dumb along with her on the "lipstick on a pig" gaffe. That went well, didn't it?

 

[Antares]

There is another collapse coming.

 

[rightwinger]

Elections is indeed representative of the Nation as a whole, this is why republicans have in fact done poorly in the last two General Elections.

The reason Republicans have done badly in the last two elections is because they keep nominating people who are unelectable. They stand for nothing. They have become the party of capitulation and surrender. Democrat Light. If people only have a choice between a Liberal and a closet Liberal, they'll vote for the Liberal every time... they know what they are getting.

McCain literally squandered his entire campaign trying to capitulate and compromise with liberal democrats and make himself appear moderate. He did everything he could to distance himself from social conservatives and when his polling data showed he was in serious trouble with real conservatives he ran up to Alaska and grabbed Sarah Palin to shore up the base... but then he stuck a gag in her mouth and wouldn't let her have an open mic.... Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won.

Mitt Romney spent his entire campaign apologizing for conservatism and explaining how he wasn't such a bad guy. He had no leverage to campaign against Obamacare, the primary issue in the election... he was neutered on that completely, couldn't say a damn word about it because he endorsed socialized medicine in his state. So for the second election in a row, Conservatives stayed at home and Obama won again.

And IF the GOP goes and nominates yet another mush-mouth "moderate" who stands for NOTHING... they will lose again!

Holy shit dood -- overthink much?

Think back to what the economy was doing in November 2008. McCain was representing the Status Quo. Given that landscape, a penguin could have won against him.

His picking Palin was basically to put it charitably, "if I'm going down anyway we might as well make it interesting" and more realistically, a thumb in the nose of his own party putting him up as a sacrificial lamb in a year he could not win --- especially after the Bush dirty tricks of 2000, which I'm sure he hasn't forgotten.

The economy has nothing to with Conservative turnout. People are Conservative whether the economy is good or bad. You mention "status quo" and I won't argue with that, it's the biggest problem with the establishment moderate GOP wing... they are uninspiring, they stand for nothing.

Your take on McCain and Palin is borderline delusional. First of all, the polls all indicated it was a close race and McCain certainly had a chance to win. I don't buy that he knew it was over and just nominated Palin because of rebellious millennial angst and boredom. If McCain were some pimple-faced 30-yer-old living in his mother's basement, perhaps that's a plausible story? BUT... Even IF you are correct... WHY would he give a shit what she said? Why not just turn her loose and let her speak from the heart? You know, actually make it interesting?

No... He knew what every political advisor was telling him was true, that his candidacy was not being well received by true conservatives. He nominated Palin to pull these people in, but his error was made in controlling what she could say. He simply morphed her into his own mouthpiece and Conservatives stayed home.

McCain never had a chance to win

Once he selected Palin, it became impossible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we do not maintaining our outreach to women and minorities, the Senate elections are set for a land slide back to the Dems. That will happen if we have any of the Angle, O'donnell, Mourdock, Miller stupidities next year. of the 33 elections, 19 GOP and 1 Dem are up for grab. If the Dems get six of those 20 seats, they have the Senate.

l

These foowing words are of a person who wants the GOP defeated and that have nothing to do with the above, "When you use terms like "outreach to women and minorities" it makes me think you want social justice and believe the government is there to implement it. As a conservative, I disagree with that viewpoint. I think government shouldn't cater to special interests and seek social change. At least not at the national level, I suppose a case may be made for this sort of thing at the state level, providing that's what the people voted for. The Federal government has limited powers and shouldn't be exploited for social reform, and I stand firmly opposed to that on every level."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course another collapse is coming.

 

[Boss]

Neither of the Bush presidents were ever fiscal Conservatives. W labeled his brand "Compassionate Conservative" which simply meant... kind of like a liberal but not as bad! He had a HUGE amount of support from social conservatives and still does. But his continued decline in the polls has more to do with his policies which simply moved further and further away from Conservative. He ended up setting the record as the most liberal spender of all time before Obummer blew that out of the ocean.

McCain and other Establishment Fat Cats have taken off down this dead-end road of constantly capitulating to the opposition and preaching moderation. IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED!

The ONLY hope for the GOP is to return to it's core Conservative base and stand for something! If you have no vision and no passion for what you believe in, you're not going to inspire anyone to vote for you. Establishment moderates are the kiss of death for the GOP.

My personal Top 3 are:
1. Cruz
2. Scott Walker
3. Ben Carson

Carson is a longshot because he just doesn't have political experience and I think that would kill him much like it killed Herman Cain. I like what he has to say and his passionate conservative views... He'd make a great VP candidate!

I still like Scott Walker, and if not Cruz, he's my go-to guy. I prefer him over several others... Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry... But I can tell you straight up... I will not vote for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or Chrispy Kreme!
...Not gunna happen, wuldn't be prudent at this juncture!

 

[Pogo]

Neither of the Bush presidents were ever fiscal Conservatives. W labeled his brand "Compassionate Conservative" which simply meant... kind of like a liberal but not as bad! He had a HUGE amount of support from social conservatives and still does. But his continued decline in the polls has more to do with his policies which simply moved further and further away from Conservative. He ended up setting the record as the most liberal spender of all time before Obummer blew that out of the ocean.

McCain and other Establishment Fat Cats have taken off down this dead-end road of constantly capitulating to the opposition and preaching moderation. IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED!

The ONLY hope for the GOP is to return to it's core Conservative base and stand for something! If you have no vision and no passion for what you believe in, you're not going to inspire anyone to vote for you. Establishment moderates are the kiss of death for the GOP.

My personal Top 3 are:
1. Cruz
2. Scott Walker
3. Ben Carson

Carson is a longshot because he just doesn't have political experience and I think that would kill him much like it killed Herman Cain. I like what he has to say and his passionate conservative views... He'd make a great VP candidate!

I still like Scott Walker, and if not Cruz, he's my go-to guy. I prefer him over several others... Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry... But I can tell you straight up... I will not vote for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or Chrispy Kreme!
...Not gunna happen, wuldn't be prudent at this juncture!

I remember that line.

On your note about "political experience" btw -- Ted Cruz has a total of two years.

I just find that amusing after all the moaning and groaning about O'bama's "inexperience" (he had 12).

 

[Boss]

Neither of the Bush presidents were ever fiscal Conservatives. W labeled his brand "Compassionate Conservative" which simply meant... kind of like a liberal but not as bad! He had a HUGE amount of support from social conservatives and still does. But his continued decline in the polls has more to do with his policies which simply moved further and further away from Conservative. He ended up setting the record as the most liberal spender of all time before Obummer blew that out of the ocean.

McCain and other Establishment Fat Cats have taken off down this dead-end road of constantly capitulating to the opposition and preaching moderation. IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED!

The ONLY hope for the GOP is to return to it's core Conservative base and stand for something! If you have no vision and no passion for what you believe in, you're not going to inspire anyone to vote for you. Establishment moderates are the kiss of death for the GOP.

My personal Top 3 are:
1. Cruz
2. Scott Walker
3. Ben Carson

Carson is a longshot because he just doesn't have political experience and I think that would kill him much like it killed Herman Cain. I like what he has to say and his passionate conservative views... He'd make a great VP candidate!

I still like Scott Walker, and if not Cruz, he's my go-to guy. I prefer him over several others... Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry... But I can tell you straight up... I will not vote for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or Chrispy Kreme!
...Not gunna happen, wuldn't be prudent at this juncture!

I remember that line.

On your note about "political experience" btw -- Ted Cruz has a total of two years.

I just find that amusing after all the moaning and groaning about O'bama's "inexperience" (he had 12).

But you see, I don't mind the not having much political experience. Carson has NONE. He is still my #3 guy! Cruz has enough to know what he is getting into and what to expect. He doesn't have so much that he has become part of the problem.

 

[Pogo]

Neither of the Bush presidents were ever fiscal Conservatives. W labeled his brand "Compassionate Conservative" which simply meant... kind of like a liberal but not as bad! He had a HUGE amount of support from social conservatives and still does. But his continued decline in the polls has more to do with his policies which simply moved further and further away from Conservative. He ended up setting the record as the most liberal spender of all time before Obummer blew that out of the ocean.

McCain and other Establishment Fat Cats have taken off down this dead-end road of constantly capitulating to the opposition and preaching moderation. IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED!

The ONLY hope for the GOP is to return to it's core Conservative base and stand for something! If you have no vision and no passion for what you believe in, you're not going to inspire anyone to vote for you. Establishment moderates are the kiss of death for the GOP.

My personal Top 3 are:
1. Cruz
2. Scott Walker
3. Ben Carson

Carson is a longshot because he just doesn't have political experience and I think that would kill him much like it killed Herman Cain. I like what he has to say and his passionate conservative views... He'd make a great VP candidate!

I still like Scott Walker, and if not Cruz, he's my go-to guy. I prefer him over several others... Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry... But I can tell you straight up... I will not vote for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or Chrispy Kreme!
...Not gunna happen, wuldn't be prudent at this juncture!

I remember that line.

On your note about "political experience" btw -- Ted Cruz has a total of two years.

I just find that amusing after all the moaning and groaning about O'bama's "inexperience" (he had 12).

But you see, I don't mind the not having much political experience. Carson has NONE. He is still my #3 guy! Cruz has enough to know what he is getting into and what to expect. He doesn't have so much that he has become part of the problem.

Oh yeah I get that completely.
Just an observation on certain posters here. Same thing applied to the 2012 election (Romney: 4 years)

 

[Boss]

Romney's problem is/was he's not a Conservative. He's a real nice guy. I liked him on a personal level, he seemed to be very well-intentioned and would have made a much better president that what we got... but he as no Conservative.

He did try very hard to appear Conservative, he knew that was essential to any hopes of winning, but he couldn't pull it off. The man simply doesn't get Conservative philosophy and doesn't understand how to passionately articulate it.

 

[Pogo]

Romney's problem is/was he's not a Conservative. He's a real nice guy. I liked him on a personal level, he seemed to be very well-intentioned and would have made a much better president that what we got... but he as no Conservative.

He did try very hard to appear Conservative, he knew that was essential to any hopes of winning, but he couldn't pull it off. The man simply doesn't get Conservative philosophy and doesn't understand how to passionately articulate it.

That makes a degree of sense. But diga me this -- if Romney's no Conservative, and Conservative is what you want -- then why do you say he would have made a much better POTUS?