Republicans Brace For 2016 Free-for-all

[Statistikhengst]

(Photo Montage source: AP)

Republicans brace for 2016 free-for-all - Maggie Haberman and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

The above link is a pretty good write-up about a possibly very crowded GOP field in 2016.

I've read the article twice, but will quote very little of it. Rather, I let you all quote what you think is worth discussing and let's have at it.

Here's one quote that could be a good start, I think:

The sprawling, kaleidoscope-like field that’s forming is already prompting Republican presidential hopefuls to knock their likely rivals privately and, at times, publicly. The fact that several candidates’ prospects hinge in part on whether others run only exacerbates that dynamic. Ultimately, the large pack won’t be whittled for many months: Republicans have no idea who will end up running, and insiders don’t expect the field will gel significantly until at least the spring of next year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal take is that a crowded field CAN be a positive thing and historically, the opposition party generally has a large field (at least at the onset) during a re-election year or an open election year.

See:

Republicans 1940 (10 candidates, 6 ballots), 1944 (6 major candidates, including Douglas McArthur), 1948 (3-ballot convention)
Democrats 1960 (4 major candidates, 9 on the ballot, 1st ballot win for Kennedy)
Democrats 1968 (4 major candidates, overshadowed by RFK's assassination)
Democrats 1972
Democrats and Republicans 1976 (the GOP, less so)
Democrats 1984
Democrats 1988
Democrats 1992
Republicans 1996
Republicans 2000 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Democrats 2004 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Republicans 2012 (the largest GOP field in quite a while)

It's my contention that it's not the size of the field, but the chaos that can happen at the Convention, that is the deciding factor.

The 1964 RNC and the 1972 DNC will both probably go down in history as the most disastrous conventions in modern times for their respective parties. In 1972, McGovern was not officially nominated until 2 or 3 in the morning, long after Americans went to bed. In 1976, in a procedural move, then-candidate Ronald Reagan forced a floor-vote on a rules change to decide whether incumbent President Gerald Ford should be forced to announce his running-mate before the actual balloting for the presidential nominee to begin, a vote that took quite a while and gave the convention the "feel" of a second-ballot nomination. Reagan has already selected northern liberal Republican Schweiker (R-PA) to be his running make, in the hopes of picking up the last remaining undecided delegates. This, similarly to 1976, caused the ballot for the presidential nominee to go late into the night, although not as late as in 1972 for the Democrats.

Knowing what a media event such conventions are, they are highly scripted these days and the slightest error can cause hardship for that party, especially in a potentially close election.

So, my view is that a large GOP field is healthy for that party's electorate. Let the GOP voters see who is interesting in the run and then let them make up their minds.

The downside, of course, is financial. Large fields of candidates means more people vying for $$ to run campaigns and a general election warchest that is not yet filled.


So, what say you?

 

[The Rabbi]

You have zero credibility. You are an ass-clown. An article speculating about events 2 years in the future is as worthless as anything you've ever posted.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You have zero credibility. You are an ass-clown. An article speculating about events 2 years in the future is as worthless as anything you've ever posted.

That article was published in Politico, a strongly right-leaning site. Even the title is from Politico. But your vicious vitriol is noted. Oh, and this thread is in zone 2.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

You have zero credibility. You are an ass-clown. An article speculating about events 2 years in the future is as worthless as anything you've ever posted.

That article was published in Politico, a strongly right-leaning site. Even the title is from Politico. But your vicious vitriol is noted. Oh, and this thread is in zone 2.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You're an assclown. That was proven in the last thread. The article was worthless, I dont care where it appeared.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rabbi,

Are you even capable of focusing on the content of an OP?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Wildman]

HAAAAA ! looks like the libercommie got his ass kicked.

why do the libercommies always telling us who our best chances for a Republican nominee is or should be for president ?

 

[NLT]

You have zero credibility. You are an ass-clown. An article speculating about events 2 years in the future is as worthless as anything you've ever posted.

Your just figuring this out?

 

[Statistikhengst]

HAAAAA ! looks like the libercommie got his ass kicked.

why do the libercommies always telling us who our best chances for a Republican nominee is or should be for president ?

Well, I don't know what a "libercommie" is, but if you are referring to me, you are wrong. Very wrong.

Is there not even one single right-winger in USMB who can concentrate himself longer than 3 seconds and read for content?

Sad.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[bodecea]

(Photo Montage source: AP)

Republicans brace for 2016 free-for-all - Maggie Haberman and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

The above link is a pretty good write-up about a possibly very crowded GOP field in 2016.

I've read the article twice, but will quote very little of it. Rather, I let you all quote what you think is worth discussing and let's have at it.

Here's one quote that could be a good start, I think:

The sprawling, kaleidoscope-like field that’s forming is already prompting Republican presidential hopefuls to knock their likely rivals privately and, at times, publicly. The fact that several candidates’ prospects hinge in part on whether others run only exacerbates that dynamic. Ultimately, the large pack won’t be whittled for many months: Republicans have no idea who will end up running, and insiders don’t expect the field will gel significantly until at least the spring of next year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal take is that a crowded field CAN be a positive thing and historically, the opposition party generally has a large field (at least at the onset) during a re-election year or an open election year.

See:

Republicans 1940 (10 candidates, 6 ballots), 1944 (6 major candidates, including Douglas McArthur), 1948 (3-ballot convention)
Democrats 1960 (4 major candidates, 9 on the ballot, 1st ballot win for Kennedy)
Democrats 1968 (4 major candidates, overshadowed by RFK's assassination)
Democrats 1972
Democrats and Republicans 1976 (the GOP, less so)
Democrats 1984
Democrats 1988
Democrats 1992
Republicans 1996
Republicans 2000 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Democrats 2004 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Republicans 2012 (the largest GOP field in quite a while)

It's my contention that it's not the size of the field, but the chaos that can happen at the Convention, that is the deciding factor.

The 1964 RNC and the 1972 DNC will both probably go down in history as the most disastrous conventions in modern times for their respective parties. In 1972, McGovern was not officially nominated until 2 or 3 in the morning, long after Americans went to bed. In 1976, in a procedural move, then-candidate Ronald Reagan forced a floor-vote on a rules change to decide whether incumbent President Gerald Ford should be forced to announce his running-mate before the actual balloting for the presidential nominee to begin, a vote that took quite a while and gave the convention the "feel" of a second-ballot nomination. Reagan has already selected northern liberal Republican Schweiker (R-PA) to be his running make, in the hopes of picking up the last remaining undecided delegates. This, similarly to 1976, caused the ballot for the presidential nominee to go late into the night, although not as late as in 1972 for the Democrats.

Knowing what a media event such conventions are, they are highly scripted these days and the slightest error can cause hardship for that party, especially in a potentially close election.

So, my view is that a large GOP field is healthy for that party's electorate. Let the GOP voters see who is interesting in the run and then let them make up their minds.

The downside, of course, is financial. Large fields of candidates means more people vying for $$ to run campaigns and a general election warchest that is not yet filled.


So, what say you?

No women?

 

[NLT]

(Photo Montage source: AP)

Republicans brace for 2016 free-for-all - Maggie Haberman and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

The above link is a pretty good write-up about a possibly very crowded GOP field in 2016.

I've read the article twice, but will quote very little of it. Rather, I let you all quote what you think is worth discussing and let's have at it.

Here's one quote that could be a good start, I think:

The sprawling, kaleidoscope-like field that’s forming is already prompting Republican presidential hopefuls to knock their likely rivals privately and, at times, publicly. The fact that several candidates’ prospects hinge in part on whether others run only exacerbates that dynamic. Ultimately, the large pack won’t be whittled for many months: Republicans have no idea who will end up running, and insiders don’t expect the field will gel significantly until at least the spring of next year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal take is that a crowded field CAN be a positive thing and historically, the opposition party generally has a large field (at least at the onset) during a re-election year or an open election year.

See:

Republicans 1940 (10 candidates, 6 ballots), 1944 (6 major candidates, including Douglas McArthur), 1948 (3-ballot convention)
Democrats 1960 (4 major candidates, 9 on the ballot, 1st ballot win for Kennedy)
Democrats 1968 (4 major candidates, overshadowed by RFK's assassination)
Democrats 1972
Democrats and Republicans 1976 (the GOP, less so)
Democrats 1984
Democrats 1988
Democrats 1992
Republicans 1996
Republicans 2000 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Democrats 2004 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Republicans 2012 (the largest GOP field in quite a while)

It's my contention that it's not the size of the field, but the chaos that can happen at the Convention, that is the deciding factor.

The 1964 RNC and the 1972 DNC will both probably go down in history as the most disastrous conventions in modern times for their respective parties. In 1972, McGovern was not officially nominated until 2 or 3 in the morning, long after Americans went to bed. In 1976, in a procedural move, then-candidate Ronald Reagan forced a floor-vote on a rules change to decide whether incumbent President Gerald Ford should be forced to announce his running-mate before the actual balloting for the presidential nominee to begin, a vote that took quite a while and gave the convention the "feel" of a second-ballot nomination. Reagan has already selected northern liberal Republican Schweiker (R-PA) to be his running make, in the hopes of picking up the last remaining undecided delegates. This, similarly to 1976, caused the ballot for the presidential nominee to go late into the night, although not as late as in 1972 for the Democrats.

Knowing what a media event such conventions are, they are highly scripted these days and the slightest error can cause hardship for that party, especially in a potentially close election.

So, my view is that a large GOP field is healthy for that party's electorate. Let the GOP voters see who is interesting in the run and then let them make up their minds.

The downside, of course, is financial. Large fields of candidates means more people vying for $$ to run campaigns and a general election warchest that is not yet filled.


So, what say you?

No women?

If they did have a woman running, you liberal lesbians would try to tear her and her family to pieces.

 

[Statistikhengst]

(Photo Montage source: AP)

Republicans brace for 2016 free-for-all - Maggie Haberman and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

The above link is a pretty good write-up about a possibly very crowded GOP field in 2016.

I've read the article twice, but will quote very little of it. Rather, I let you all quote what you think is worth discussing and let's have at it.

Here's one quote that could be a good start, I think:

The sprawling, kaleidoscope-like field that’s forming is already prompting Republican presidential hopefuls to knock their likely rivals privately and, at times, publicly. The fact that several candidates’ prospects hinge in part on whether others run only exacerbates that dynamic. Ultimately, the large pack won’t be whittled for many months: Republicans have no idea who will end up running, and insiders don’t expect the field will gel significantly until at least the spring of next year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal take is that a crowded field CAN be a positive thing and historically, the opposition party generally has a large field (at least at the onset) during a re-election year or an open election year.

See:

Republicans 1940 (10 candidates, 6 ballots), 1944 (6 major candidates, including Douglas McArthur), 1948 (3-ballot convention)
Democrats 1960 (4 major candidates, 9 on the ballot, 1st ballot win for Kennedy)
Democrats 1968 (4 major candidates, overshadowed by RFK's assassination)
Democrats 1972
Democrats and Republicans 1976 (the GOP, less so)
Democrats 1984
Democrats 1988
Democrats 1992
Republicans 1996
Republicans 2000 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Democrats 2004 (but the field cleared pretty quickly)
Republicans 2012 (the largest GOP field in quite a while)

It's my contention that it's not the size of the field, but the chaos that can happen at the Convention, that is the deciding factor.

The 1964 RNC and the 1972 DNC will both probably go down in history as the most disastrous conventions in modern times for their respective parties. In 1972, McGovern was not officially nominated until 2 or 3 in the morning, long after Americans went to bed. In 1976, in a procedural move, then-candidate Ronald Reagan forced a floor-vote on a rules change to decide whether incumbent President Gerald Ford should be forced to announce his running-mate before the actual balloting for the presidential nominee to begin, a vote that took quite a while and gave the convention the "feel" of a second-ballot nomination. Reagan has already selected northern liberal Republican Schweiker (R-PA) to be his running make, in the hopes of picking up the last remaining undecided delegates. This, similarly to 1976, caused the ballot for the presidential nominee to go late into the night, although not as late as in 1972 for the Democrats.

Knowing what a media event such conventions are, they are highly scripted these days and the slightest error can cause hardship for that party, especially in a potentially close election.

So, my view is that a large GOP field is healthy for that party's electorate. Let the GOP voters see who is interesting in the run and then let them make up their minds.

The downside, of course, is financial. Large fields of candidates means more people vying for $$ to run campaigns and a general election warchest that is not yet filled.


So, what say you?

No women?

You mean historically, or re: 2016?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

HAAAAA ! looks like the libercommie got his ass kicked.

why do the libercommies always telling us who our best chances for a Republican nominee is or should be for president ?

Well, I don't know what a "libercommie" is, but if you are referring to me, you are wrong. Very wrong.

Is there not even one single right-winger in USMB who can concentrate himself longer than 3 seconds and read for content?

Sad.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You know ASSHAT that your claim to be a moderate Republican is refuted by most of your posts that have the pond scum joining in and taking your side...perhaps you should evaluate where and what you want.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have zero credibility. You are an ass-clown. An article speculating about events 2 years in the future is as worthless as anything you've ever posted.

That article was published in Politico, a strongly right-leaning site. Even the title is from Politico. But your vicious vitriol is noted. Oh, and this thread is in zone 2.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

So, the right talking about the right? What's wrong with that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

HAAAAA ! looks like the libercommie got his ass kicked.

why do the libercommies always telling us who our best chances for a Republican nominee is or should be for president ?

Well, I don't know what a "libercommie" is, but if you are referring to me, you are wrong. Very wrong.

Is there not even one single right-winger in USMB who can concentrate himself longer than 3 seconds and read for content?

Sad.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You know ASSHAT that your claim to be a moderate Republican is refuted by most of your posts that have the pond scum joining in and taking your side...perhaps you should evaluate where and what you want.

Well, that was stupid of you. Please show where I have ever claimed to be a moderate Republican. I'm a Democrat and have never claimed otherwise. Put the whiskey bottle down.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[frigidweirdo]

[
Well, that was stupid of you. Please show where I have ever claimed to be a moderate Republican. I'm a Democrat and have never claimed otherwise. Put the whiskey bottle down.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Who are you replying to?

 

[Statistikhengst]

[
Well, that was stupid of you. Please show where I have ever claimed to be a moderate Republican. I'm a Democrat and have never claimed otherwise. Put the whiskey bottle down.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Who are you replying to?

Vigilante. It looks like the quotes got messed up.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[frigidweirdo]

[
Well, that was stupid of you. Please show where I have ever claimed to be a moderate Republican. I'm a Democrat and have never claimed otherwise. Put the whiskey bottle down.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Who are you replying to?

Vigilante

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Okay, I have him blocked so I was looking at posts and couldn't see who you might be replying to and thought it might be me.

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, rather than address the point being made in the OP...they attack the messenger

 

[rightwinger]

The sprawling, kaleidoscope-like field that’s forming is already prompting Republican presidential hopefuls to knock their likely rivals privately and, at times, publicly. The fact that several candidates’ prospects hinge in part on whether others run only exacerbates that dynamic. Ultimately, the large pack won’t be whittled for many months: Republicans have no idea who will end up running,

This is what killed Mitt Romney in 2012. NOBODY wants to leave the Clown Car. Thanks to Citizens United, those in the Clown Car have enough campaign cash to ride out the primaries to the end. Rather than weed out the candidates who cannot win, Republicans keep them alive as they attack each other in endless debates. The candidate with the GOP nomination emerges bruised and broke

Meanwhile, the Democrats sit back, pick their candidate early and smile as Republicans do their work for them

 

[Statistikhengst]

As usual, rather than address the point being made in the OP...they attack the messenger

Yepp. Like ravenous dogs. Really.

Even with an OP that cites a right-wing site and invites discussion.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk