Elections GOP Road to 2016 Primary Thread

[Lead]

Good. With the GOP outspent, perhaps the Republicans can finally nominate an actual Conservative. Not the milk-toast, Democrat-lite, RINO Republicans we've been nominating and losing with.

The GOP would've lost far more if we nominated Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Paul, or Cain to the general election. Romney was the only respectable candidate in that field to use (Gingrich maybe but his time had passed)

 

[ShoelessRye]

According to Bill Clinton, Jeb is a real threat in a GE and Christie, if he runs, will be a sideshow. Also Bill and George HW Bush are so close that Bill was tipped off that Jeb was going to run a couple days before Jeb made the move to divest himself and quit boards and the like.

 

[ShoelessRye]

The GOP would've lost far more if we nominated Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Paul, or Cain to the general election. Romney was the only respectable candidate in that field to use (Gingrich maybe but his time had passed)

It was the usual B/C level players who challenge a sitting President. Bush got Kerry for crying out loud. IIRC Cuomo and others passed on challenging George HW Bush in 1992, as they wanted to wait 4 years to not have to challenge an incumbent, opening the door for Clinton.

Given how well Romney did, and that I don't think that highly of him really, I think somebody like a Christie, with the bombast and stump ability(and without the NJ economy in the tank and Bridgegate, might just have missed their chance at the WH.

 

[Lead]

According to Bill Clinton, Jeb is a real threat in a GE and Christie, if he runs, will be a sideshow. Also Bill and George HW Bush are so close that Bill was tipped off that Jeb was going to run a couple days before Jeb made the move to divest himself and quit boards and the like.

Really weird to see. Oligarchies man...

I don't think Christie could win. I really think it's Bush, Walker, or Rubio. The rest may have some attention but I don't think anyone outside of those three can get enough traction to win it all.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The GOP would've lost far more if we nominated Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Paul, or Cain to the general election. Romney was the only respectable candidate in that field to use (Gingrich maybe but his time had passed)

No. Romney and McCain were just the most Democrat-like. Romney didn't carry a single swing state of any importance. Romney couldn't even win his VP's home state (Wisconsin). In the state of Colorado, more people voted for recreational marijuana than voted for Barack Obama. A pro-individual freedom candidate like Ron Paul would have easily taken Colorado knowing this fact.

 

[Lead]

No. Romney and McCain were just the most Democrat-like. Romney didn't carry a single swing state of any importance. Romney couldn't even win his VP's home state (Wisconsin). In the state of Colorado, more people voted for recreational marijuana than voted for Barack Obama. A pro-individual freedom candidate like Ron Paul would have easily taken Colorado knowing this fact.

Paul Ryan was a house member. That doesn't ever guarantee you the state.

This is your logic right now.

In the primaries, a moderate received more votes and the far-right candidate didn't
which leads to
a moderate receiving less votes in the general election compared to the far-right candidate?

That doesn't make sense. If a far right candidate can't even win in the primary where republicans are the voters, why do you think the general population would vote for that guy?

 

[Lead]

Scott Walker Makes His Biggest 2016 Move Yet

With rave reviews from Iowa in his pocket, the Wisconsin governor is advancing his likely 2016 presidential run by launching a new political organization that will allow him to raise large amounts of cash and sharpen his campaign message.

Several presidential hopefuls have established their own political committees that help them fundraise and travel before officially entering the race. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie launched his leadership PAC earlier this week. But Walker

 

[DeJulez]

They make threads for second place now?

GOP road to the 2016 Silver Medal.

 

[steveflynn]

Good. With the GOP outspent, perhaps the Republicans can finally nominate an actual Conservative. Not the milk-toast, Democrat-lite, RINO Republicans we've been nominating and losing with.

Right, because someone like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann would have done so much better than McCain and Romney did? Like, are you serious in saying this? Really?

 

[Lead]

They make threads for second place now?

GOP road to the 2016 Silver Medal.

I wouldn't be so sure about an election two years ahead of time. Too much happens in-between to be so sure about a nomination.

 

[Lead]

Right, because someone like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann would have done so much better than McCain and Romney did? Like, are you serious in saying this? Really?

The username "Farmer Brown" makes me suspicious.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Right, because someone like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann would have done so much better than McCain and Romney did? Like, are you serious in saying this? Really?

LMao...precisely...

Or Rick Santorum...

many social conservatives will continue to back tea tards, and other degenerates of the GOP, and wonder why and ask the question, "how did we lose?!?!?"

 

[Lead]

LMao...precisely...

Or Rick Santorum...

many social conservatives will continue to back tea tards, and other degenerates of the GOP, and wonder why and ask the question, "how did we lose?!?!?"

I want Iowa to pick Walker just so Huckabee and Santorum are immediately snubbed from prolonging their campaigns if they run. The longer they have a podium at the debates, the worse off the party is.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Paul Ryan was a house member. That doesn't ever guarantee you the state.

No, It shows how weak of a candidate Romney was. He couldn't even bring out the base of the party in a state that have someone on the presidential ticket.

In the primaries, a moderate received more votes and the far-right candidate didn't
which leads to
a moderate receiving less votes in the general election compared to the far-right candidate?

A candidate like Ron Paul polls very well in the national polling (non-intervention, pro-individual freedom on things like marijuana, privacy, raw milk, ect ect ect). In fact, according to a Rasmussen poll, Ron Paul was within the margin of error for victory:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
(I'm well aware of the problems of polls, but it just shows that an actual conservative has a real chance in the generals). If only the GOP didn't do everything in their power to derail his candidacy.

If a far right candidate can't even win in the primary where republicans are the voters,

Actually, at the Republican convention, the GOP had to change the rules mid convention (i.e. cheating) in order to secure the nomination for Mitt Romney. Romney didn't have overwhelming support from the party, and the base didn't support him. I knew the election was Obamas when the GOP had the cheat in their own primary in order to get "their guy" nominated.

why do you think the general population would vote for that guy?

Because "that guy" (Ron Paul) has principals that match up with the majority of Americans (see above). The problem is that the GOP is almost as afraid of Libertarians as Democrats/progressives are. They both worry that a libertarian coming to power may actually slow down the big government gravy train of tax dollars.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Right, because someone like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann would have done so much better than McCain and Romney did? Like, are you serious in saying this? Really?

No, I'm saying each one would have done the exact same as Mitt Romney in the General election in regards to electoral votes. Mitt Romney didn't carry any of the important swing states. So the only votes he actually got were people who were going to vote (R) regardless of who was on the ballot.

When you look at a state like Colorado in 2012, more people voted to legalize marijuana than voted for Barack Obama. If the Republicans would have had a pro-individual freedom candidate like Ron Paul on the ballot, the Republicans would have very likely taken that state as well, putting them one state closer to victory than Mitt Romney was able to achieve.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The username "Farmer Brown" makes me suspicious.

Why? I'm a seed farmer from Nebraska. Why is that reason for suspicion?

I want Iowa to pick Walker just so Huckabee and Santorum are immediately snubbed from prolonging their campaigns if they run. The longer they have a podium at the debates, the worse off the party is.

A few question:

Are you a Republican?

If so, who will you likely support in the primary and why?

If not, why is it that you seem so concerned with how Republicans will do in the next election?

 

[UpaLoompa]

When you look at a state like Colorado in 2012, more people voted to legalize marijuana than voted for Barack Obama. If the Republicans would have had a pro-individual freedom candidate like Ron Paul on the ballot, the Republicans would have very likely taken that state as well, putting them one state closer to victory than Mitt Romney was able to achieve.

Obama won Colorado by 51.5% to 46.1%. You really think that Ron Paul would have picked up enough to make up that difference? Let's pretend that Ronnie would get all of Johnson's 1.4% of votes, we're still talking about a 4% difference. That's a hell of a lot of neckbeards.

You're also assuming that Paul would keep all of Romney's votes which, given Paul's pathetic performance in the primary, is unlikely. Many of those republicans would possibly have stayed home as Paul's positions would be unpalatable.

 

[UpaLoompa]

If not, why is it that you seem so concerned with how Republicans will do in the next election?

The Republican nominee has a slightly less than 50% chance of becoming president. Shouldn't all people, regardless of party affiliation, be concerned about who gets picked?

 

[Lead]

No, It shows how weak of a candidate Romney was. He couldn't even bring out the base of the party in a state that have someone on the presidential ticket.


A candidate like Ron Paul polls very well in the national polling (non-intervention, pro-individual freedom on things like marijuana, privacy, raw milk, ect ect ect). In fact, according to a Rasmussen poll, Ron Paul was within the margin of error for victory:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
(I'm well aware of the problems of polls, but it just shows that an actual conservative has a real chance in the generals). If only the GOP didn't do everything in their power to derail his candidacy.

Actually, at the Republican convention, the GOP had to change the rules mid convention (i.e. cheating) in order to secure the nomination for Mitt Romney. Romney didn't have overwhelming support from the party, and the base didn't support him. I knew the election was Obamas when the GOP had the cheat in their own primary in order to get "their guy" nominated.


Because "that guy" (Ron Paul) has principals that match up with the majority of Americans (see above). The problem is that the GOP is almost as afraid of Libertarians as Democrats/progressives are. They both worry that a libertarian coming to power may actually slow down the big government gravy train of tax dollars.

The same argument you make for pot gaining Ron Paul votes in CO is the same reason he would lose. The GOP's base is Fox New's demographic which is 55 year old white seniors. They wouldn't like legalization at all and would stay home.

You can also see in the polls, Paul stayed at about 7-10% the entire primary and never got the surge all the other Anti-Romney candidates did. That's because even the hard right understood he wasn't electable and he stood far too much on a ideology before a practical solution.

 

[Lead]

Why? I'm a seed farmer from Nebraska. Why is that reason for suspicion?



A few question:

Are you a Republican?

If so, who will you likely support in the primary and why?

If not, why is it that you seem so concerned with how Republicans will do in the next election?

I actually think it's awesome sherdog has a seed farmer within its members. That's variety.

Answers:
1. I don't identify as republican. My candidate was Huntsman in 2012 and I didn't vote in the general election.

2. I'm still undecided on a primary candidate for the fact that we don't hear a range of foreign and national issues from governors until they actually run and have to state their opinion/policy. Once I know that, I'll have a better grasp of who I'd want.

3. I wouldn't say concerned. I made this thread because I like the election cycle. I was locked in it during 2011-2012 despite the awful pool of candidates. This year looks far more interesting and it will be even more if Santorum/Huckabee stay on the sidelines. I just don't enjoy the evangelical crowd's rhetoric. It turns into "we should make the country live exactly like we do even though they don't worship our God" It's very annoying.