The conventional wisdom of Jeb being too moderate to be nominated

[BluesLegend]

Jeb Bush may get nominated but he will lose big in the general to just about any candidate. I'm sorry but the "Bush" brand is both over exposed and damaged and there is a strong track record of moderate GOP candidates getting their asses kicked even when running against a dumb ass like Obama who had zero, zero experience at anything that would qualify someone to be president. Bush = a 2016 win for Democrats.

I'm not sure about that, but let's accept it. Who do you think would be a win for the Republicans?

I'm not prepared to point to any other candidate and say that person can win, but I'm quite confident Bush will lose its a virtual certainty. This country is not ready for another Bush in the White House AND the lying low life scum MSM will be in full on attack mode trying to paint Jeb as another 4 years of his brother. He's too vulnerable in that respect. Forget the Dem candidate its the damn MSM the GOP has to run against and Jeb brings with him too much baggage and ammo for those MSM slimes.

MSM?

MSM = main stream media = NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR (that's right I said it) and the rest of those biased lying sons a bitches.

 

[PratchettFan]

Jeb Bush may get nominated but he will lose big in the general to just about any candidate. I'm sorry but the "Bush" brand is both over exposed and damaged and there is a strong track record of moderate GOP candidates getting their asses kicked even when running against a dumb ass like Obama who had zero, zero experience at anything that would qualify someone to be president. Bush = a 2016 win for Democrats.

I'm not sure about that, but let's accept it. Who do you think would be a win for the Republicans?

I'm not prepared to point to any other candidate and say that person can win, but I'm quite confident Bush will lose its a virtual certainty. This country is not ready for another Bush in the White House AND the lying low life scum MSM will be in full on attack mode trying to paint Jeb as another 4 years of his brother. He's too vulnerable in that respect. Forget the Dem candidate its the damn MSM the GOP has to run against and Jeb brings with him too much baggage and ammo for those MSM slimes.

MSM?

MSM = main stream media = NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR (that's right I said it) and the rest of those biased lying sons a bitches.

Ahhh.... gotcha. Completely disagree with you, but gotcha.

 

[OKTexas]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

 

[PratchettFan]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

 

[OKTexas]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

 

[PredFan]

If the GOP nominates Jeb, it won't matter who wins, the country loses.

 

[PratchettFan]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

 

[PratchettFan]

If the GOP nominates Jeb, it won't matter who wins, the country loses.

I doubt it.

 

[OKTexas]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

 

[PratchettFan]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

I think that would be a good idea. I just don't think it will happen. The people setting up the dates are in the party.

 

[bendog]

Since the nominee is elected soley by republicans, and has not lost a red state unless Slick was running, I'm mystified by this claim. You're complaining that RINOs are choosing the nominee. If true, then Rinos outnumber the very right in the gop.

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

 

[bendog]

Jeb Bush may get nominated but he will lose big in the general to just about any candidate. I'm sorry but the "Bush" brand is both over exposed and damaged and there is a strong track record of moderate GOP candidates getting their asses kicked even when running against a dumb ass like Obama who had zero, zero experience at anything that would qualify someone to be president. Bush = a 2016 win for Democrats.

I'm not sure about that, but let's accept it. Who do you think would be a win for the Republicans?

I'm not prepared to point to any other candidate and say that person can win, but I'm quite confident Bush will lose its a virtual certainty. This country is not ready for another Bush in the White House AND the lying low life scum MSM will be in full on attack mode trying to paint Jeb as another 4 years of his brother. He's too vulnerable in that respect. Forget the Dem candidate its the damn MSM the GOP has to run against and Jeb brings with him too much baggage and ammo for those MSM slimes.

I'm certainly not in favor of another Bush, but I'm at a loss as to name any other candidate who has a remote chance of pulling the number of non-white voters the gop has to have to win. I can't see Rubio.

In 2004, Republicans' most recent presidential victory, George W. Bush won 58 percent of the white vote, and 26 percent of the non-white vote -- numbers that would lose him the White House today, Ayres said.

'"That's the stunning part for me in running these numbers -- to realize that the last Republican to win a presidential election, who reached out very aggressively to minorities, and did better than any Republican nominee before or since among minorities, still didn't achieve enough of both of those groups in order to put together a winning percentage" for 2016, Ayres said.

Ayres isn't the first Republican pollster to stress the demographic challenges facing the party.

"Winning in a non-presidential-turnout year, when older and white voters make up a larger percentage of the electorate, should convince no one that we’ve fixed our basic shortfalls with key electoral groups, including minorities and younger voters," GOP pollsters Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse wrote in The Washington Post last fall. "To win 50.1 percent of the popular vote, we estimate, Republicans will need nearly 64 percent of the white vote -- which would be a record for a non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate."



But Ayres rebutted the idea that Republicans are facing an existential crisis. "The fact is that the Republican Party is one candidate and one election away from resurrection," he said, naming Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as candidates with the potential to win
GOP Pollster Explains Why Republicans Need Record Minority Support To Win In 2016
.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

I think that would be a good idea. I just don't think it will happen. The people setting up the dates are in the party.

I think you're right, I have lobbied my state reps to change it but they are too big of cowards to go against the national party. So maybe we should focus our energies on the national parties.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, the primary system is set up so many red states don't get to cast a meaningful vote. By the the time TX has their primary all the liberal states have already determined who the candidate will be, that needs to change. I would propose a national primary day in April of the election year, for both parties.

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

 

[PratchettFan]

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

 

[bendog]

You want the feds to tell the states how to run their elections?

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

Yeah, but NH wants to be first. It's not the natl party telling them to go first. It's actually the natl party telling Fla they can't jump ahead in line. I understand what you're saying, and I don't really disagree, but it's just a reality that little states maximize their voters' leverage in primaries. I lived in Wyoming for years. Our 3 electoral votes were meaningless, and would always go gop. But, candidates, both dem and gop, courted our delegates.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually I want the states to run them instead of the RNC and the DNC who are running primaries in a way that more conservative states have no real say in picking the candidate. Do you not remember the parties threatening to withhold delegates if a state decided to change its primary date?

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

How would you go about that?

 

[PratchettFan]

And the states could have told the parties to stick it. They just didn't. How do you keep the parties from doing that without the feds?

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

How would you go about that?

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

 

[OKTexas]

Can you say the states could grow a pair and not let the national parties dictate their actions.

But it is the State Parties. It's the state parties that jockey with the dates to attract more attention from candidates and increase their own influence.

My point is the parties shouldn't be involved in running state elections, that way everyone in the country could vote on the whole field of candidates that qualify to be on the ballot. In the last national primary we here in TX only had the choice of bad or worse because most of the candidates had already withdrawn from the race. That's not right.

I think the only way to take care of that is to remove the primaries as a factor.

How would you go about that?

Go back to the way it was. The candidate is selected at the convention. Delegates can vote as they please.

Delegates totally disconnected from the voters, is that really a good idea? Got to be a better way.

 

[bendog]

Well, I'm not sure the national party doesn't have the power to tell all states that there will one primary day. That does disadvantage small states. If we really wanted to do it in way that advantaged no one, but kept small states having some importance, maybe each party could list the states in the order in which they got the most and least % of voters in the last presidential election. That should identify the most conservative/liberal states. Then sort of do a sushi menu with little conservative little liberal, then big conservative and big liberal ......

It'd never work if the aim was fairness and logic because the state parties don't want fairness. LOL