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

[theHawk]

I doubt any Republican can win 2016. Way too many people dependant on the government now. The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.

America has become 'Obamanation'.

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

 

[theHawk]

Great! Another one with this clear, concise, incredibly simple point if view!

It seems that you are conceding the demise of the GOP. If what you say is true....then there is no way the GOP can ever win again.

Do you really think there are more smart, educated, hardworking people in this country who voted for Romney over Obama? Really? After thinking about it...do you really believe that?

I am conceeding the demise of the USA. Its overrun by the uneducated. Decades of liberalism has finally paid off for you progressives. 17 Trillion in debt, the average IQ of the high school graduate lower than ever....the list goes on of great 'accomplishements' of government dependant liberals.

I implore you to visit great Obama strongholds like Detroit, go mingle with the people there, and come back and argue that they are more educated and hard working than "Romney voters".

You have a very weak argument. Want to try again?

What's the matter? Don't want to vouch for the intelligence of the average urban Obama voter? Can't say I blame you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am conceeding the demise of the USA. Its overrun by the uneducated. Decades of liberalism has finally paid off for you progressives. 17 Trillion in debt, the average IQ of the high school graduate lower than ever....the list goes on of great 'accomplishements' of government dependant liberals.

I implore you to visit great Obama strongholds like Detroit, go mingle with the people there, and come back and argue that they are more educated and hard working than "Romney voters".

You have a very weak argument. Want to try again?

What's the matter? Don't want to vouch for the intelligence of the average urban Obama voter? Can't say I blame you.

What percentage of the electorate is an average urban Obama voter?

 

[JoeB131]

Zero.

The amount of credibility of any conservative predicting the outcome of the 2016 election who also predicted that Romney would stomp Obama.

Says one of the "MOderates" who insisted that Conservatives should shut up and eat it when served Romney against their better judgement.

I do love how fast you guys are running away from the Weird Mormon Robot now that he's lost. Like you had nothing to do with it at all.

Living in a Fog of Hate impairs your judgement. It's how you can lie to yourself about past events to enhance your self-esteem.

Sad, really.

Not at all.

fact was, pre-primary, Romney's support was never more than 20%.

Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum all had their moment as the "Not Romney" in the polls, and the GOP Establishment went out of their way to destroy them. .

So they painted a child-killer as an innocent victim and we heard about the "Ni**erhead" resort.

We heard about the women who accused Herman Cain of groping them.

We heard about all the dirt on Gingrich one more time, and how Bob Dole blamed hims for his own pathetic 1996 run. (Although it's taken on a new dignity compared to Romney.)

Now, me, I'm tired of the conservative movement and its lies and self-delusion and pandering to the wealthy, but frankly, any conservative should look at you funny if you say, "Hey, let's vote for another guy you hate because the guy you like will lose."

Been there, done that with Romney and McCain.

 

[JoeB131]

I doubt any Republican can win 2016. Way too many people dependant on the government now. The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.

America has become 'Obamanation'.

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

The Solyndra loan was approved under Bush, and it was calculated that some of the companies subsidized under that program would fail.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

 

[candycorn]

I doubt any Republican can win 2016. Way too many people dependant on the government now. The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.

America has become 'Obamanation'.

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

A tax code that favors dividend income over labor income for starters.

 

[candycorn]

The problem is that since the mid 60's, the GOP has been giving half loaf after half loaf with a few full loafs tossed in like, ACA. A GOP President and Congress in 2016 is absolutely necessary to undo the damage.

Compromise with Democrats is like arguing with a would be murderer who wants to shoot you in the head and agreeing that he should stab you in the heart instead.
I agree that we need a candidate that is seen as more centrist than Cruz, but we also can't go with another lib in sheep's clothing like we have in the last 2 cycles.
Charisma will be important. You want someone who comes off like a guy you would like to hang out with for a beer.

Aside from his stance on immigration I think Marco Rubio best fits the bill so far.

The trouble with taking responsibility for millions of immigrants in the trillions we're paying for all of them to have what we have right this very minute.

That's why Marco's "conservatism" is diametric to a balanced budget or even making an attempt to reduce the $17 trillion National debt.

The truth is in the math, and it isn't anywhere else.

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.

 

[theHawk]

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

The Solyndra loan was approved under Bush, and it was calculated that some of the companies subsidized under that program would fail.

Here's an example of Obama bailing out his wealthy donor friends:

…Why did the administration go to such lengths to help these private investors recoup their loses first? Administration officials have argued it was necessary to attract private capital to support the company. But they may have had another motivation. Argonaut is the investment vehicle The George Kaiser Family Foundation. Through it GKFF owned a 35% stake in Solyndra. Despite being called a foundation, GKFF is not a nonprofit in the conventional understanding of the term, but an exotic variation that allows the wealthy to park their assets tax-free. The foundation’s namesake is a major fundraiser of President Obama’s. He was often a guest in the White House and even discussed Solyndra with officials there

Report: Energy Department scrambled to justify letting Solyndra?s private backers recoup losses before taxpayers | WashingtonExaminer.com

But hey, keep on ignoring the truth and blame Buuuuuuuuuuusssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[theHawk]

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

A tax code that favors dividend income over labor income for starters.

Take it up with Obama. He and the Dems had every chance to change the tax code, they chose not to. I suppose you still call the current tax code the "Bush Tax Cuts".

 

[Derideo_Te]

The trouble with taking responsibility for millions of immigrants in the trillions we're paying for all of them to have what we have right this very minute.

That's why Marco's "conservatism" is diametric to a balanced budget or even making an attempt to reduce the $17 trillion National debt.

The truth is in the math, and it isn't anywhere else.

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!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

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. 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.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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. 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.

I think the electorate is able to understand that the attack at Benghazi was not something that Hillary could have prevented. She responded to it well. There is no need for her to make any kind of statement.

It is a manufactured scandal.

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt any Republican can win 2016. Way too many people dependant on the government now. The Free Handout crowd is pretty much going to outnumber the smart, educated, hard-working crowd from now on.

America has become 'Obamanation'.

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

Free handouts for the wealthy?

How about record low taxes? Easing and nonenforcement of environmental and labor laws? Breaking of unions? Unlimited oil drilling rights? No requirement to provide your employees healthcare?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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. 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.

I think the electorate is able to understand that the attack at Benghazi was not something that Hillary could have prevented. She responded to it well. There is no need for her to make any kind of statement.

It is a manufactured scandal.

They are all "manufactured scandals" but unless they are dealt with they keep cropping back up time and time again. Obama dealt with the Rev Wright issue as soon as it came up and it dropped off the radar. Romney ignored his tax returns issue and it haunted him throughout the election. The relevance of the "scandal" is not necessarily germane but how you deal with it has implications for the campaigns themselves. Handled improperly and it will never go away, handled right and it becomes a non-issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christie will attack Obama's record and generally ignore HRC other than where she defends it.

 

[theHawk]

Republicans give their free handouts to the super wealthy. In return, they receive unlimited PAC money to buy elections

Didn't work last time as the voters rebelled against them

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

Free handouts for the wealthy?

How about record low taxes? Easing and nonenforcement of environmental and labor laws? Breaking of unions? Unlimited oil drilling rights? No requirement to provide your employees healthcare?

Record low taxes? You mean the same tax rate that Obama and the Dem Congress renewed? Erasing and non-enforcement of environmental and labor laws? Have proof of that? Exactly what laws were erased?

As for Obamacare, its causing more companies to fire people or reduce them to part-timers. What a wonderful accomplishment...

But hey, the few people that still have a job are now mandated to get healthcare, even though most of them already had it to begin with.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Christie will attack Obama's record and generally ignore HRC other than where she defends it.

Sounds like a good strategy to me because Christie has a tendency to become rude when he is talking to people. As long as he remains on policy rather than people he is on solid ground.

 

[rightwinger]

What free handouts were given to the super wealthy by Republicans?

I suppose Obama handing over half a billion tax dollars to a corporation like Solyndra doesn't qualify as one of those handouts eh?

And why is it that the top 1% is doing so well under Obama and the Democrats? Don't they own 20% of all assets in America now?

Free handouts for the wealthy?

How about record low taxes? Easing and nonenforcement of environmental and labor laws? Breaking of unions? Unlimited oil drilling rights? No requirement to provide your employees healthcare?

Record low taxes? You mean the same tax rate that Obama and the Dem Congress renewed? Erasing and non-enforcement of environmental and labor laws? Have proof of that? Exactly what laws were erased?

As for Obamacare, its causing more companies to fire people or reduce them to part-timers. What a wonderful accomplishment...

But hey, the few people that still have a job are now mandated to get healthcare, even though most of them already had it to begin with.

Nobody is forced to lay off employees. Companies are doing that on their own because they don't care about their employees well being

 

[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.

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.