Will The GOP Lose To Hillary In 2016 By Nominating A Loser Like Jeb?

[Statistikhengst]

I want to see the Rand Paul/Hillary Clinton race. I am serious about this, the debates would be so interesting and fun to watch. He would be formidable and the race would be close but Hillary still wins. She beats anyone the Rs have to offer.

Rs will never win the WH until they stop playing this silly game called who's turn is it? They don't want to step on toes, they aren't thinking about who can beat Hillary. They feel anyone can beat her but that isn't the case.

I agree with you. Rand Paul could really change the face of the GOP. This question is: would they be willing to go so far as to nominate him?

Doubtful. Look at what they did to his dad.

True. But how much like his dad is Rand Paul, really? He seems to be, in many ways, a very different person.

There are two GOP Governors not even on the radar screen right now whom I think would be competent candidates, both from the South: Barber and Bentley.

 

[usmcstinger]

"It’s crystal clear that Hillary Clinton has a glass jaw and is poised to be knocked out in 2016. With Barack Obama and his legacy of failure weighing her down, Hillary must cobble together a coalition by recovering the normal Americans who used to help Democrats win while at the same time satisfying the freak show that is the Democrat base.

But she'll still be the face of the party of idiots who block you on the freeways, of morons who burn stores, of faceless Obamacare bureaucrats raising premiums, and of Goldman Sachs. Yeah, Wall Street crony capitalists pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for her keen insights.

Hillary is a loser and the Democrats know it. So the pygmy vultures are circling. James Webb is sizing up his chances (which are zero). For some reason, Martin O'Malley of Maryland thinks he's a viable candidate. Elizabeth Warren is pretending that she's not thinking of jumping in. There's your Democrat diversity: All kinds of rich white people, from faux populists to failed governors to fake Indians.

So with the GOP facing this crew of future footnotes, why are we toying with potential nominees whose only qualification appears to be the ability to implode?

The 2016 election isn't just an opportunity to win the presidency. We need to save our country and our Constitution from the Chablis-swilling liberal elitists. So it's time to be serious, and by “serious,” I mean we will have to tell people who we like – and some we don’t – that, "Hey, you're not going to win, so get out of the way."

People like Dr. Ben Carson. Hey, Dr. Carson is a great guy with a powerful message who has no business running for president in 2016. He's never been elected to anything. He's never run anything besides a hospital. If I need brain surgery on my children, he’s the man. If I need someone who knows how to lead the world’s biggest military, outmaneuver an entrenched Washington bureaucracy, and ruthlessly crush progressivism, not so much.

Plus, because he’s inexperienced, he’s a gaffe machine. Go win a Senate race in Maryland, Doc. Then win the governorship. Then let's talk.

Oh look, Carly Fiorina is considering running. I guess she can't resist the groundswell of support from the four people on planet earth who know who she is – yet another zillioniare dilettante who lost a big California race. There's her political resume. One race, which she lost. Does she even live in California anymore? Please, no more Richie Rich GOP vanity candidacies, okay?

And then there's Mike Huckabee. Talk about playing into stereotypes. Sorry, the face of the Republican Party in 2016 probably doesn't need to be an older, hefty, white preacher from Arkansas. On the upside, our stereotype is a minister; for the Democrats, it’s the Occupy guy who choked a grumpy on a NYPD cruiser.

Rick Santorum wants to run again. Apparently he hasn't lost often enough. The last time he won an election was, I think, 2000. Now, losing can help you grow, but there's no evidence Santorum has done anything to change his mind (or anyone else’s) about any of the positions that have made him lose consistently for the last decade and a half.

Then there’s Jeb. Who on earth who isn't a Bush wants Jeb to run for president, much less actually be president? I could maybe get used to a guy being president whose name is “Jeb,” but not one who embraces Common Core, loves amnesty, and gives awards to Hillary Clinton. Go ahead and read how Jeb slobbered over her while giving Hillary a freaking medal for her sterling performance as Secretary of State. What next – a lifetime achievement Oscar for that goofy kid in The Phantom Menace? It should make for some interesting debates. She’ll say she’s awesome, and he’ll argue that no, she’s merely great.

If you like the sound of “President Hillary Clinton,” support Jeb or any of the delusional people I just mentioned. GOP establishment types, you’ve been warned. Want to get a hundred-plus retweets/favorites on Twitter? Diss Jeb. I usually can’t stand people who mutter about not supporting a Republican nominee because he’s not exactly who they wanted, but before I’d vote for Jeb I’d lick the floor of a Detroit bus station restroom.

Now it's fair to ask who I like in 2016. Well, the answer is “Parts of a lot of people.” I wish, like Dr. Frankenstein, I could put together the perfect candidate out of the bits and pieces of many potential nominees. I’d take the brains of a Bobby Jindal and blend them with the aggressiveness of Chris Christie. I’d take the executive acumen of Mitt Romney and put it together with the winning record of perpetual underdog Scott Walker. I’d take the understanding of the Constitution of Ted Cruz and mix it with the charisma of Marco Rubio. I’d take the Texas track record of Rick Perry and match it with the ability to win in a purple state of John Kasich. And I’d infuse my nominee with the ability of Rand Paul to reach out to new constituencies while also slipping out from under the shadows of a wacky father.

But of course you can't just choose the best qualities. The flipside of my perfect candidate would be a barely known squish who can't win an election and probably can't win his own state, who everyone who is not conservative hates and who lies about immigration while not being able to put together a coherent sentence and who embraces the welfare state but wanting to reduce our military down to just seven guys, all while devoting a lot of attention to the threat of chemtrails.

There are two people who I think can more likely than not beat Hillary. Commenters, that doesn’t mean I support them. I think Chris Christie has the aggressiveness to win and Mitt Romney has the ability to win by repeating over and over, “See, I told you so.”

I think Walker, Jindal, and Paul are good guys who I'd love to see elected, but I think it will be tough for them. I think Perry had his chance and blew it. I think Kasich would lose because he’s chosen RINOhood – there’s no place in the GOP for a Hillary Lite. I love Ted Cruz. I've seen him speak and he's greatly impressed me as a leader and a lawyer, and I'm sorry to say he has absolutely no chance of ever being president. As far as Rubio, he lied to us about immigration, and it's going to take a lot to get me to forgive. I will never forget.

What’s going to happen? Who knows? It has two years to play out. In the meantime, who is telling the likes of Jeb that they should run for president? I've got to assume it's Chuck Schumer, because he's just devious enough to do it."
Will The GOP Lose To Hillary In 2016 By Nominating A Loser Like Jeb - Kurt Schlichter - Page 1


Yep, you're fucked.

 

[Sarah G]

I want to see the Rand Paul/Hillary Clinton race. I am serious about this, the debates would be so interesting and fun to watch. He would be formidable and the race would be close but Hillary still wins. She beats anyone the Rs have to offer.

Rs will never win the WH until they stop playing this silly game called who's turn is it? They don't want to step on toes, they aren't thinking about who can beat Hillary. They feel anyone can beat her but that isn't the case.

I agree with you. Rand Paul could really change the face of the GOP. This question is: would they be willing to go so far as to nominate him?

Doubtful. Look at what they did to his dad.

True. But how much like his dad is Rand Paul, really? He seems to be, in many ways, a very different person.

There are two GOP Governors not even on the radar screen right now whom I think would be competent candidates, both from the South: Barber and Bentley.

Huh. Didn't Barber run once? They kind of have to be rock stars these days to get the money needed for a presidential run. I sort of know who you're talking about but I'm into politics.

Of course Bill Clinton was a relatively unknown and he turned out to be my fav.

 

[JoeB131]

As of 2016, before the election, you will have to go back 28 years in time, to 1988, to find a Republican do better in the electoral college as the winner than the DEMS have done in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

The GOP couldn't even crack the NPV in 2000 and just barely cobbled together 271 EV, the second narrowest EV margin in our history, after 1876. That is just pathetic. But, a win is a win is a win.

And in 2004, with a sitting GOP president, still riding high on his popularity from the Iraq War, the GOP could only grab 16 electors more than absolute minimum to win the White House. Hell, even Jimmy Carter did better than that in 1976! So did both Nixon and Kennedy in 1968 and 1960, respectively. And the election that Dewey (R) was supposed to win in 1948? Truman (D) 303 EV, just like Kennedy in 1960. Excluding 2000, you have to go back to 1916 to find an EV spread narrower than Bush's re-election in 2004.

The DEMS winning EVs in the last 6 cycles: Clinton 379 (96), Clinton 371 (92), Obama 365 (08), Obama 332 (12)

The GOP's winning EV in the last 6 cycles: Bush 286 (04), Bush 271 (00)

DEM low point of six cycles: Kerry 252 (04)
GOP low point of six cycles: Dole 159 (96)

So, over 6 cycles, the GOP has won between 159 and 286 EV.
But in the same 6 cycles, the DEMS have won better 252 and 379 EV.

The difference between the R to D low and R to D high points in those cycles? Roughly 100 EV.

In three of the last six cycles, the GOP went under 200 EV, in 2012, it just got barely over 200 EV. Now, compare that with Kerry '04: 252.

No matter whom the DEMS run in 2016, it starts with a far larger, far more secure base electoral column than the GOP. Any hack of contends otherwise is fooling himself.

I wouldn't be too keen to just look at numbers. You also have to look at history.

Historically, the Presidential Party changes every 8 years. and it's been this way since the 1950's.

While I think there are some demographic problems the plague the GOP, after 8 years of Obama and a weak economy that never seems to really get any better, the GOP could make the right argument with the right candidate.

Also, you have the biggest problem with Hillary- she just isn't likable.

 

[Sarah G]

As of 2016, before the election, you will have to go back 28 years in time, to 1988, to find a Republican do better in the electoral college as the winner than the DEMS have done in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

The GOP couldn't even crack the NPV in 2000 and just barely cobbled together 271 EV, the second narrowest EV margin in our history, after 1876. That is just pathetic. But, a win is a win is a win.

And in 2004, with a sitting GOP president, still riding high on his popularity from the Iraq War, the GOP could only grab 16 electors more than absolute minimum to win the White House. Hell, even Jimmy Carter did better than that in 1976! So did both Nixon and Kennedy in 1968 and 1960, respectively. And the election that Dewey (R) was supposed to win in 1948? Truman (D) 303 EV, just like Kennedy in 1960. Excluding 2000, you have to go back to 1916 to find an EV spread narrower than Bush's re-election in 2004.

The DEMS winning EVs in the last 6 cycles: Clinton 379 (96), Clinton 371 (92), Obama 365 (08), Obama 332 (12)

The GOP's winning EV in the last 6 cycles: Bush 286 (04), Bush 271 (00)

DEM low point of six cycles: Kerry 252 (04)
GOP low point of six cycles: Dole 159 (96)

So, over 6 cycles, the GOP has won between 159 and 286 EV.
But in the same 6 cycles, the DEMS have won better 252 and 379 EV.

The difference between the R to D low and R to D high points in those cycles? Roughly 100 EV.

In three of the last six cycles, the GOP went under 200 EV, in 2012, it just got barely over 200 EV. Now, compare that with Kerry '04: 252.

No matter whom the DEMS run in 2016, it starts with a far larger, far more secure base electoral column than the GOP. Any hack of contends otherwise is fooling himself.

I wouldn't be too keen to just look at numbers. You also have to look at history.

Historically, the Presidential Party changes every 8 years. and it's been this way since the 1950's.

While I think there are some demographic problems the plague the GOP, after 8 years of Obama and a weak economy that never seems to really get any better, the GOP could make the right argument with the right candidate.

Also, you have the biggest problem with Hillary- she just isn't likable.

I love her. She can be very likable. Her peers love working with her and maybe Bill will be more into campaigning for her this time around.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As of 2016, before the election, you will have to go back 28 years in time, to 1988, to find a Republican do better in the electoral college as the winner than the DEMS have done in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

The GOP couldn't even crack the NPV in 2000 and just barely cobbled together 271 EV, the second narrowest EV margin in our history, after 1876. That is just pathetic. But, a win is a win is a win.

And in 2004, with a sitting GOP president, still riding high on his popularity from the Iraq War, the GOP could only grab 16 electors more than absolute minimum to win the White House. Hell, even Jimmy Carter did better than that in 1976! So did both Nixon and Kennedy in 1968 and 1960, respectively. And the election that Dewey (R) was supposed to win in 1948? Truman (D) 303 EV, just like Kennedy in 1960. Excluding 2000, you have to go back to 1916 to find an EV spread narrower than Bush's re-election in 2004.

The DEMS winning EVs in the last 6 cycles: Clinton 379 (96), Clinton 371 (92), Obama 365 (08), Obama 332 (12)

The GOP's winning EV in the last 6 cycles: Bush 286 (04), Bush 271 (00)

DEM low point of six cycles: Kerry 252 (04)
GOP low point of six cycles: Dole 159 (96)

So, over 6 cycles, the GOP has won between 159 and 286 EV.
But in the same 6 cycles, the DEMS have won better 252 and 379 EV.

The difference between the R to D low and R to D high points in those cycles? Roughly 100 EV.

In three of the last six cycles, the GOP went under 200 EV, in 2012, it just got barely over 200 EV. Now, compare that with Kerry '04: 252.

No matter whom the DEMS run in 2016, it starts with a far larger, far more secure base electoral column than the GOP. Any hack of contends otherwise is fooling himself.

I wouldn't be too keen to just look at numbers. You also have to look at history.

Historically, the Presidential Party changes every 8 years. and it's been this way since the 1950's.

While I think there are some demographic problems the plague the GOP, after 8 years of Obama and a weak economy that never seems to really get any better, the GOP could make the right argument with the right candidate.

Also, you have the biggest problem with Hillary- she just isn't likable.

Not always. The President's party served THREE terms from 1981-1993 (Reagan, Reagan, Bush).

As for the Hillary likeability factor, one can have a huge debate about that. She is LOVED among Democrats and respected among Republicans and still has a large + favorability rating. So, imo, that one is a red herring.

 

[JoeB131]

Not always. The President's party served THREE terms from 1981-1993 (Reagan, Reagan, Bush).

Yes, you can break the cycle- if you have a perfect economy AND your opponent completely implodes. It should be pointed out that Dukakis was leading BUsh by 16 points, until he decided that he would ride around on a tank and not be terribly upset if someone raped and murdered his wife.

Now, yeah, the GOP might do a crazy thing and nominate Ted Cruz. But I think they will be a little smarter than that.

As for the Hillary likeability factor, one can have a huge debate about that. She is LOVED among Democrats and respected among Republicans and still has a large + favorability rating. So, imo, that one is a red herring.

She was well liked when she was Sec. of State and above the fray.

as a retail politician, she really doesn't have the skills of her husband or Obama.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wait and see....

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't like Dynasties anywho, so no bushes, ever again. I like Jindal a lot. Walker and Cruz are a tie for close second. Christie bugs me for some mysterious reason, Romney kicked a guaranteed win away. I think he would do the same miserable performance if given the chance again, so no thank you.

^That moment when someone takes Cruz seriously as a politician LOL!

Cruz would be better than Hillary. Hillary should walk away from politics altogether, shes burned out and bitter which makes her irrational and untrust worthy. Then again I have absolutely no Idea who I would vote for. It shure wouldnt be another Bush.

yesterday's people should just walk away and let the torch be passed to the next generation

 

[Two Thumbs]

it doesn't matter who runs for Pres, a white female dem will be elected in 2016

no one else need apply

hell the gop might even pick up more senate seats, just so when the economy fails under the aca, there's plenty of blame to be moved from the WH to the gop. and once that is done, we will have a proper socialist tyranny

 

[BULLDOG]

Walker/Kasich
Walker/Perry
Walker/Cruz

I could change my mind next week though.

For sure. Right Wing politicians always sound nice at first and then their real motivation jumps out like a car crash right in front of you.

Searching for a smart and responsible Right Winger is like watching the sky for shooting stars.

I disagree with that assessment and after nearly every Democrat in office (including Hillary) has compromised their integrity for the rat bastard in the WH, they won't be in any position to attack an opponent's integrity, and character assassination is what they always do. I think people are ready to toss the Dems out and the Republicans can win decisively if they run a true conservative. People want the real thing.

Is that you Carl?

 

[S.J.]

Walker/Kasich
Walker/Perry
Walker/Cruz

I could change my mind next week though.

For sure. Right Wing politicians always sound nice at first and then their real motivation jumps out like a car crash right in front of you.

Searching for a smart and responsible Right Winger is like watching the sky for shooting stars.

I disagree with that assessment and after nearly every Democrat in office (including Hillary) has compromised their integrity for the rat bastard in the WH, they won't be in any position to attack an opponent's integrity, and character assassination is what they always do. I think people are ready to toss the Dems out and the Republicans can win decisively if they run a true conservative. People want the real thing.

Is that you Carl?

I don't know who Carl is but you left out the comma.

 

[BULLDOG]

Walker/Kasich
Walker/Perry
Walker/Cruz

I could change my mind next week though.

For sure. Right Wing politicians always sound nice at first and then their real motivation jumps out like a car crash right in front of you.

Searching for a smart and responsible Right Winger is like watching the sky for shooting stars.

I disagree with that assessment and after nearly every Democrat in office (including Hillary) has compromised their integrity for the rat bastard in the WH, they won't be in any position to attack an opponent's integrity, and character assassination is what they always do. I think people are ready to toss the Dems out and the Republicans can win decisively if they run a true conservative. People want the real thing.

Is that you Carl?

I don't know who Carl is but you left out the comma.

Rove.....Thanks for the punctuation correction. That is not the worst literary mistake I have ever made, but I'll have myself flogged first thing tomorrow as penance.

 

[Sarah G]

Walker/Kasich
Walker/Perry
Walker/Cruz

I could change my mind next week though.

For sure. Right Wing politicians always sound nice at first and then their real motivation jumps out like a car crash right in front of you.

Searching for a smart and responsible Right Winger is like watching the sky for shooting stars.

I disagree with that assessment and after nearly every Democrat in office (including Hillary) has compromised their integrity for the rat bastard in the WH, they won't be in any position to attack an opponent's integrity, and character assassination is what they always do. I think people are ready to toss the Dems out and the Republicans can win decisively if they run a true conservative. People want the real thing.

Is that you Carl?

I don't know who Carl is but you left out the comma.

Rove.....Thanks for the punctuation correction. That is not the worst literary mistake I have ever made, but I'll have myself flogged first thing tomorrow as penance.

He actually spells his name with a K, Karl just like a 12 year old girl would do.

 

[S.J.]

Walker/Kasich
Walker/Perry
Walker/Cruz

I could change my mind next week though.

For sure. Right Wing politicians always sound nice at first and then their real motivation jumps out like a car crash right in front of you.

Searching for a smart and responsible Right Winger is like watching the sky for shooting stars.

I disagree with that assessment and after nearly every Democrat in office (including Hillary) has compromised their integrity for the rat bastard in the WH, they won't be in any position to attack an opponent's integrity, and character assassination is what they always do. I think people are ready to toss the Dems out and the Republicans can win decisively if they run a true conservative. People want the real thing.

Is that you Carl?

I don't know who Carl is but you left out the comma.

Rove.....Thanks for the punctuation correction. That is not the worst literary mistake I have ever made, but I'll have myself flogged first thing tomorrow as penance.

I'm sure it isn't.