Elections GOP Road to 2016 Primary Thread

[Jack V Savage]

I think each side has a branch to it that it isn't very proud of and even condemns to a degree.

I don't ever see Republicans condemning their Southern faction.

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.

It's just a cheap stunt. The fact is, the GOP has been relying on identity politics to the exclusion of everything else in their national-level marketing with the result that highly educated whites and all non-white groups overwhelmingly oppose them. And a result of the success of identity politics is that they have no real policy agenda that their voters can expect from them (base voters just want them to essentially burn the country to the ground, while "moderates" want them to just threaten to burn it down for some token concessions). I mean, honestly, what does the GOP think the biggest problems that can be solved by policy are? Rich people aren't rich enough?

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.

If they showed any signs of reaching for diversity in their voters by crafting policy that benefits anyone but the rich, I'd grant that change is coming.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

President- Jeb
VP- Jindal
Secretay of State- Kasnich

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

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.

I always find it interesting that liberals/progressives/democrats seem so concerned with how Republicans do in elections.

The jist of the advice democrats give republicans is this:
"If you Republicans just act more like Democrats, then you MIGHT do better in elections, and the media will love you. All you have to do is compromise every core principal you have and just be Democrats lite".

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I always find it interesting that liberals/progressives/democrats seem so concerned with how Republicans do in elections.

The jist of the advice democrats give republicans is this:
"If you Republicans just act more like Democrats, then you MIGHT do better in elections, and the media will love you. All you have to do is compromise every core principal you have and just be Democrats lite".

My original post had alittle sarcasm in it. It's obvious the far left wants the weakest Republican to win the nomination, so I find it humorous when they give advice to the Republicans as if they'd want them to eventually win the White House against their token Democrat nominee.

The sad fact is, among establishment Republicans and their advisors, such advice is actually taken seriously when it comes from the mainstream media.

 

[Lead]

4 GOP hopefuls expected to attend Koch event

Koch brothers inviting Rubio, Paul, Walker, and Cruz for gathering with donors

 

[PolishHeadlock]

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

No love for Jeb?

 

[ShoelessRye]

Koch brothers inviting Rubio, Paul, Walker, and Cruz for gathering with donors

Koch's will try and clear the way for Walker here me thinks. Rubio has no path to victory with Jeb running as Jeb wins Florida easily, Cruz is a gadfly who could make some noise but can't win the GE.

I think the Koch dream ticket would be Walker/Cruz. Rubio and Paul stay in the Senate. Rubio won't run as the VP on the ticket though because he'd have to give up his Senate Seat to do so. Walker has basically done the Koch's bidding in Wisconsin - he's proven himself to them.

I wonder if the Koch's could run Rubio just to play spoiler against Jeb in Florida as Fla is still winner-take-all delegates, so if Rubio could pull enough from Jeb to have Walker sneak though a win that would basically seal his nomination.

 

[ShoelessRye]

No love for Jeb?

They'll back him come the GE, but he has his own big money backers and he doesn't need them so they'd have no influence with him. Big donor money has strings attached.

More interesting to me is that Christie isn't there.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

They'll back him come the GE, but he has his own big money backers and he doesn't need them so they'd have no influence with him. Big donor money has strings attached.

More interesting to me is that Christie isn't there.

Didn't realize faustian had that kind of cash.

 

[Lead]

Scott Walker Heading to New Hampshire

As he continues to gear up for a likely Republican presidential bid, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is planning his first trip to New Hampshire of the 2016 campaign season.

On March 14, Walker will be the keynote speaker at an event that is being hosted by the New Hampshire Republican Party in the first-in-the-nation primary state.

"We have enacted bold, successful reforms in Wisconsin and we have a great story to tell," Walker said in a statement announcing his visit. "I look forward to sharing our common sense conservative message with grassroots activists, and I thank the New Hampshire GOP for this exciting opportunity."

 

[Lead]

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is moving forward with preparations for a potential presidential bid, bringing on a new finance director and planning a fundraising swing across California next week, CNN has confirmed.

Anna Rogers, currently the finance director for American Crossroads, the GOP outside group launched by Karl Rove, is joining Rubio's political action committee at the start of the next month and would serve as his finance director if he runs in 2016.

He's also planning to miss votes in the Senate next week to take a fundraising trip through California, and will visit the early presidential primary states next month. In February, he has fundraising stops in Texas and Chicago planned.

The news comes as Rubio plans to huddle with advisors and supporters in Miami this weekend to discuss his next steps. The Florida senator is up for re-election in 2016, and has said he'll only run for one office.

ABC News first reported Rubio's hiring of a new finance director.

Rubio moving towards 2016 bid


Seems like if he does run for president that he must feel certain he would get a VP or cabinet spot with whoever could beat him out.

 

[Lead]

Rating 2016 candidates by donors busts conventional wisdom

 

[UpaLoompa]

Anyone but Hillary Clinton. That woman will start a new war every week.

While I too have found Clinton to be overly eager as of late who, besides Rand Paul, of the GOP field do you think would actually be less likely to start combat operations everywhere?
So, although I don't disagree with your concern, I'm not seeing options.

 

[UpaLoompa]

My original post had alittle sarcasm in it. It's obvious the far left wants the weakest Republican to win the nomination, so I find it humorous when they give advice to the Republicans as if they'd want them to eventually win the White House against their token Democrat nominee.

The sad fact is, among establishment Republicans and their advisors, such advice is actually taken seriously when it comes from the mainstream media.

You seem to be suggesting that more extreme candidates would be more likely to win than more moderate candidates. If that's the case, no.

 

[MeatheadMike]

They consider Rick Santorum more left than Romney?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Rand Paul is the only one remotely appealing...the man does seem to have a modicum of honesty...I don't agree with a lot of his views but I admire his candor.

As of right now Ted Cruz, Rubio, Jindal are all duds...

any candidate that will campaign on social conservative issues will get crushed...lose and lose badly.

 

[Lead]

They consider Rick Santorum more left than Romney?

I'm not sure what their criteria is. On social issues alone, Santorum is far right.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You seem to be suggesting that more extreme candidates would be more likely to win than more moderate candidates. If that's the case, no.

The left likes to label commonly held beliefs in America as 'Extreme.'

Like gay marriage, find a state that's held it up to a public vote during an election. Even California's citizens shot it down. So, are they 'extremeists?'

It's also a commonly held belief that government is growing too intrusive, taxing it's citizens more than neccessary, and is spending too much (as evidence of the miltiple-trillion dollar budget deficits).

But what if a someone running for office points this out, and represents this viewpoint? The MSM labels them 'extremists.' And to the Washington establishment, I agree, that's an extremist view.

Oh, and the Republicans have lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes in Presidential elections, and won the two previous ones by landslides. It couldn't be because the candidates since '92 were practically moderate Washington insiders, and the only reason Bush won the popular vote in '04 was because the alternative was boring-as-hell John Kerry. But, the candidate that ran in the two landslides in the 80s, would now be labeled an 'extremist.'

 

[MeatheadMike]

I'm not sure what their criteria is. On social issues alone, Santorum is far right.

Yea that's what I was thinking. I assume their economic is not that different, but Santorum is a bit of a religious nutter, which makes Romney seem like a more moderate candidate to me.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The left likes to label commonly held beliefs in America as 'Extreme.'

Or, you know, polls label them as extreme.

Like gay marriage, find a state that's held it up to a public vote during an election. Even California's citizens shot it down. So, are they 'extremeists?'

Well over 50% of Americans support gay marriage, actually.

It's also a commonly held belief that government is growing too intrusive, taxing it's citizens more than neccessary, and is spending too much (as evidence of the miltiple-trillion dollar budget deficits).

In the abstract, sure. However when it comes to actually cutting anything, no. A similar example can be seen with Obamacare, even people that oppose "Obamacare" support most individual components of the ACA.

But what if a someone running for office points this out, and represents this viewpoint? The MSM labels them 'extremists.' And to the Washington establishment, I agree, that's an extremist view.

Actually what happens is they get stomped in the general elections. A great example I like to point to is Harry Reid. There's no way that guy should have been re-elected, he was supremely unpopular. The republican primary came down to a candidate that talked about bartering with chickens for health care and a candidate that wanted most federal agencies disbanded, wanted the US out of the UN, wanted SS gone, and all the other things you seem to suggest aren't really extreme. The later won the primary (barely) but still got trounced in the general, despite spending a hell of a lot more money than Reid.

Reality doesn't match up well with your views.