Elections GOP Road to 2016 Primary Thread

[faustian]

I might bother to make the effort to vote for R-Money, but that's probably it

 

[ShoelessRye]

Republicans Like Their 2016 Options, Assuming They Avoid Chaos









To put this in perspective:
2012 Primary Debates: 20
2016 Primary Debates: 9

2012 Start Date: May 5th, 2011
2016 Start Date: August 2015

2012 End Date: February 22, 2012
2016 End Date: February 2016

They are going for a much tighter and short schedule than last cycle which was criticized for lasting far too long. We had the poll leaders change about 5-6 times before finally getting Romney like we expected.

I'm not sure any of this will matter - because the press will cover their candidates 24/7 regardless if they're debates or just town halls and stump stops. They have to fil the 24 hour news cycle and especially if the Dem side is a coronation - GOP will get all the coverage once again. Also just because first debate is in August, candidates ail start campaigning hardcore come the Spring regardless and soundbytes will be flowing freely. This tighter schedule is more to get the fringe candidates out of the way - less free debate television time etc.

I do think they are making a mistake by having their convention so early - but again that is strategic to get their candidate to be able to tap into GE donations that are walled off until the Convention when they are officially the nominee. They felt that Romney was killed in ads by Obama because he couldn't touch his GE money until the GOP convention while Obama used his primary money to blast away at Romney (Romney of course had t use his primary money to fend off his primary challengers).

 

[Lead]

i think romney runs for sure, it's his ego. he wants to be president in the worst way.

I commend you for not making a mittens comment. I was expecting one.

I'm really surprised he is coming back. I understand the establishment candidate isn't suppose to look eager to run so it looks like they are doing it to serve the country but I really bought into Romney being done. That netflix documentary suckered me and then I read an article saying he had some 2016 candidates meet with his donor base. It's really weird.

But yea, if he does run, the guy is hungry for the presidency. That's true with most people who run though.

 

[Lead]

I'm not sure any of this will matter - because the press will cover their candidates 24/7 regardless if they're debates or just town halls and stump stops. They have to fil the 24 hour news cycle and especially if the Dem side is a coronation - GOP will get all the coverage once again. Also just because first debate is in August, candidates ail start campaigning hardcore come the Spring regardless and soundbytes will be flowing freely. This tighter schedule is more to get the fringe candidates out of the way - less free debate television time etc.

I do think they are making a mistake by having their convention so early - but again that is strategic to get their candidate to be able to tap into GE donations that are walled off until the Convention when they are officially the nominee. They felt that Romney was killed in ads by Obama because he couldn't touch his GE money until the GOP convention while Obama used his primary money to blast away at Romney (Romney of course had t use his primary money to fend off his primary challengers).

Yea but I think the debates starting later is going to have donors consolidate more before that point and will narrow the pool. Some candidates will see they are out-funded and bow out.

It isn't just the debates they are trying to move. They are encouraging states to move their winner-take-all primaries earlier too so it doesn't drag on.

 

[faustian]

i think romney runs for sure, it's his ego. he wants to be president in the worst way.

R-Money is an ultra-competitive overachiever so it really shouldn't surprise anyone that he would give it another go

 

[ShoelessRye]

They're scatterbrained in a way - they wanted a long one because they believed Obama vs Hillary sucked all the oxygen out of the room and got so much more coverage when it went to near the very end of the primary dates when McCain had it wrapped up early. So they get what they wanted and it didn't turn out well, now they're trying to have a really short compact one. Now this compact one shouldn't hurt much should Hillary be crowned with no real challengers BUT the problem with the 2012 schedule is that they had so many fringe candidates hanging around - really because it was Romney vs Anti-Romney, if the GOP had a a few A-List candidates remaining for a long campaign run it would be more like Obama vs Hillary, two top candidates running strong campaigns with iron sharpening iron. Jeb Bush vs Scott Walker in a long drawn out campaign with Hillary stagnant on the sidelines would be what they had in mind for the 2012 schedule/strategy.

 

[ShoelessRye]

I REALLY don't see Romney running. He doesn't want to be a three time loser, and has anybody ran as their parties candidate and lost and ran again the next cycle? He's playing party elder and wants to shape the conversation - but he's not going to run against a Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. He might be toying with a run if it's only nutters in again, but any A-List candidate officially jumps in and Romney will surely end any flirting with the idea of a third run (IF he even is flirting with one).

 

[Like A Bas]

Even after getting kinda trounced last time, Romney is still a solid choice. I really don't think he's an extremist who would make terribly costly foreign policy decisions. We're still in recovery and I think he can lead one better than the field.

 

[Lead]

I REALLY don't see Romney running. He doesn't want to be a three time loser, and has anybody ran as their parties candidate and lost and ran again the next cycle? He's playing party elder and wants to shape the conversation - but he's not going to run against a Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. He might be toying with a run if it's only nutters in again, but any A-List candidate officially jumps in and Romney will surely end any flirting with the idea of a third run (IF he even is flirting with one).

Uhhh yea, that's kinda the GOP motto. They did it with Nixon, Reagan, McCain, and now Romney. It's always been about "who's first in line" for the GOP while for the Dems, it's always been about voting for the outsider (Carter, Obama).

It's weird cause this year might be the exact opposite but who knows. A candidate could come out of nowhere and beat Hilary but I doubt it. Not because it isn't possible but because the Dems are losing younger talent. They have a demographic problem when it comes to their own politicians.

I agree the long 2012 cycle may have only been bad because it really was just Romney/Anti-Romney so the whole primary just served to belittle and criticize Romney's record before giving him the nomination.

 

[Lead]

I REALLY don't see Romney running. He doesn't want to be a three time loser, and has anybody ran as their parties candidate and lost and ran again the next cycle? He's playing party elder and wants to shape the conversation - but he's not going to run against a Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. He might be toying with a run if it's only nutters in again, but any A-List candidate officially jumps in and Romney will surely end any flirting with the idea of a third run (IF he even is flirting with one).

I wish I knew about it now. It really surprised me he announced interest again. I was sold that his runs were over. Him in the election changes everything.

 

[faustian]

I REALLY don't see Romney running. He doesn't want to be a three time loser, and has anybody ran as their parties candidate and lost and ran again the next cycle? He's playing party elder and wants to shape the conversation - but he's not going to run against a Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. He might be toying with a run if it's only nutters in again, but any A-List candidate officially jumps in and Romney will surely end any flirting with the idea of a third run (IF he even is flirting with one).

I assume you mean to ask has anyone ran as their party's candidate, lost the general election, and ran again as their party's candidate the next cycle

John Adams 1796*
Thomas Jefferson 1800*
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney 1808
John Quincy Adams 1824*
William Henry Harrison 1840*
Grover Cleveland 1892*
Eugene Debs 1908, 1912
Eugene Chafin 1912
Thomas Dewey 1948
Adlai Stevenson 1956

*5 of these 10 repeat candidates were voted POTUS the second time around (Adams, Jefferson, Adams, Harrison, Cleveland)

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I'm looking forward to checking out the Far-Leftist of this board's advice to the GOP candidates, and what they're doing wrong and how they can improve.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Uhhh yea, that's kinda the GOP motto. They did it with Nixon, Reagan, McCain, and now Romney. It's always been about "who's first in line" for the GOP while for the Dems, it's always been about voting for the outsider (Carter, Obama).

I meant who was the parties candidate in the GE, lost the GE and ran again in four years. Faustian provided a list - more extensive than I would have thought off hand, but also from 100+ years ago, which was of course very different in terms of exposure to the masses and name branding.

 

[Lead]

I'm looking forward to checking out the Far-Leftist of this board's advice to the GOP candidates, and what they're doing wrong and how they can improve.

It likely will be to run progressive and title it as moderate. The fact is the GOP has quite a few moderates entering this race and when I think about more extreme candidates, I think they'll have far less pull this time around then 2012. We won;t have Ron Paul, Cain's fair tax, Bachman's idiocy, etc. I really don't think Cruz will be able to make a huge impact. Carson may stay around but only cause he will be given the money too and nothing else.

 

[Lead]

I meant who was the parties candidate in the GE, lost the GE and ran again in four years. Faustian provided a list - more extensive than I would have thought off hand, but also from 100+ years ago, which was of course very different in terms of exposure to the masses and name branding.

True dat.

Yea, I guess the first in line policy only really applies to primaries if you didn't lose the general election. Sooo I guess Santorum or Perry next? HA!

 

[Lead]

Rand Paul Plays it Cool
Will Rand Paul's calm and reserved demeanor hurt his run for presidency?

Can Scott Walker's Unflashy Style Break through the 2016 Presidential Race?
Similar article to the one of Rand above. Walker is apart of rustbelt politicans who often are seen as "too nice" when it comes to the national stage (Ex. Tim Pawlenty)

Cash is Piling Up for Ben Carson
Ben Carson's grass root campaign has already raised 12 million and more with a vast amount of under $200 donations

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm looking forward to checking out the Far-Leftist of this board's advice to the GOP candidates, and what they're doing wrong and how they can improve.

They need to run hard to the right and forget about getting anyone to vote for them other than uneducated white Southerners.

 

[Lead]

They need to run hard to the right and forget about getting anyone to vote for them other than uneducated white Southerners.

Jack, I haven't really heard you opinion on how the GOP has been successful in having minority candidates win positions in the south. Couldn't you say there is progress in the party with Republicans like Jindal, Haley, and Scott along with Rubio rising in Florida. Surely you can see more diversity in candidates for the GOP over what the Dems have in 2016?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, I haven't really heard you opinion on how the GOP has been successful in having minority candidates win positions in the south. Couldn't you say there is progress in the party with Republicans like Jindal, Haley, and Scott along with Rubio rising in Florida. Surely you can see more diversity in candidates for the GOP over what the Dems have in 2016?

I generally think that the race of candidates is irrelevant. If Republicans split whites without college degrees roughly even in the South (as they do everywhere else), they'd get about 30 electoral votes in presidential elections. That's what I was alluding to. It's just an uneducated, white Southern party. Winning for them means getting a bigger share of a shrinking pie.

 

[Lead]

I generally think that the race of candidates is irrelevant. If Republicans split whites without college degrees roughly even in the South (as they do everywhere else), they'd get about 30 electoral votes in presidential elections. That's what I was alluding to. It's just an uneducated, white Southern party. Winning for them means getting a bigger share of a shrinking pie.

I think each side has a branch to it that it isn't very proud of and even condemns to a degree. I can't see how getting minority members in high offices and the proof of the party's voting base electing them as a hint that possibly these preconceived notions about the south is gradually changing. Tim Scott was a huge deal this past year. First African American elected to Senate in the South since disfranchising and first African American elected to both the House and Senate.

You can't really take a portion of the US that showing signs of changing and paint the entire party that way, especially when the party actively gets diversity in their candidates.