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

[kwc57]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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".

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

No matter which Dem runs they will have to deal with Obama's record so I took that as a given.

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.

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]

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

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.

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!] :d

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[candycorn]

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.

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!] :d

View attachment 27588

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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!] :d

View attachment 27588

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]

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!] :d

View attachment 27588

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

View attachment $the point.bmp

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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]

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]

View attachment 27588

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

View attachment 27589

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

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

 

[Lumpy 1]

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?

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]

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]

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

View attachment 27589

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

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

Murder isn't a right asshat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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?

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 ..

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