2016 Presidential Election Candidates

[60Shock]

If the 2016 Republicans presidential campaign is run in the same manner as the last two, it doesn't matter who they run. For they will be soundly beaten by their same old tired rhetoric and their unwillingness to agressively attack Democrats and bury their candidate.

They need to take off their lilly white gloves, forget about the Marquis of Queensberry Rules, and viciously attack, especially if Hillary gets the Democratic nod. If not, she will stomp on their blue suade shoes and devour them.

Obama was so vulnerable in so many areas, but they let his campaign strategy attack them placing them constantly on the defense trying pititully to counter that they were not the party of the rich.

The McCain and Romney campaigns, along with Senator Dole's, should serve as perfect role models for how to lose an election without even trying.

[1979Shocker]

I decided to put this in here instead of starting a new thread.

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup
By NATE SILVER

This weekend’s announcement by the former governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, that he would not seek that state’s Democratic nomination for Senate represents the latest in a series of favorable developments for Republicans as they seek control of the chamber.

The G.O.P.’s task will not be easy: the party holds 46 seats in the Senate, and the number will very probably be cut to 45 after a special election in New Jersey later this year. That means that they would need to win a net of six contests from Democrats in order to control 51 seats and overcome Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s tiebreaking vote. Two years ago at this time, Republicans faced what seemed to be a promising environment and could have won the Senate by gaining a net of three seats from Democrats and winning the presidency. Instead, Mitt Romney lost to President Obama, and the G.O.P. lost a net of two Senate seats.

[Rlh04d]

Because running liberal/moderate candidates has worked out so well for the Republican party. Do you really believe America is far left because Obama won?

America is not that far left.

However, the Republican Party has gone too far right. America is clearly slightly left of center at the moment, and the Republican Party is a number of steps to the right.

What I find really concerning about all of this is how dominant the Democratic Party has become in demographics with minority groups, women, and the youth vote. The youth vote hasn't gone away, and the Republicans are getting annihilated there. Meanwhile, the fight against immigration is destroying the Republicans with Hispanic voters, and the insane fringe elements of the party are destroying it with women. Who is going to vote for the Republicans in the future? The party's base is progressively becoming more and more old white guys -- old people, while they vote a lot, also tend to be on their way to dying. And white folks are the slowest growing ethnic group in the country.

It doesn't really have anything to do with President Obama winning. However, I do think he was in one of the weakest positions a sitting President has been that I've seen when running for reelection, and he didn't just win -- he won by 126 electoral votes. In the last six Presidential elections, winning Democrats have won by an average of 185 electoral votes, while winning Republicans have won by an average of 20.

Now personally, I don't really care who wins the team-oriented politics war. I'm a pretty strict independent. However, I think it's bad for this country if any one party dominates the political scene, and I think it's becoming very likely that the Republican Party's obsession with losing arguments is going to drive them into irrelevancy.

I don't really know that even the debate of economy or social issues matters. There is a very strong feeling in this country that the Republican Party is sexist, homophobic, elitist, and racist. It's an image problem now. And, quite frankly, there are too many fringe elements in the Republican party that ARE sexist, homophobic, elitist, and racist -- it makes it incredibly easy to paint the entire Party with the same brush because there isn't any attempt to self-police it. Which, I think, comes down to the fact that the Republican Party hasn't had a real leader that has been broadly respected since Reagan. The Republican Party amazes me in that it is so controlled and in lock step in Congress, and yet there is no one that actually speaks for the Party with any image of authority.

Looking at this dispassionately -- I think the Republicans are in a lot of trouble. I only see two possible future paths: Change drastically and hope that doesn't drive away the base of the party, or do everything you can to drive down voting rates among groups that they can't win. Seems like it's option two right now.

[pinstripers]

We already have a liberal party. Having two really does help matters.

[SubGod22]

It does crack me up when people say the Republican party has gone too far right when it's run by a bunch of people who keep moving farther and farther left. The right, for some reason, has been painted as sexist, racist, elitist and homophobic even though it's not even close to the truth. But apparently it's working as even the great Rlh04d has fallen for it.

Hell, the "old" Republicans you're talking about are the ones that are seen to be more "moderate" by the press these days and nobody supports them on a national scale. As the Republican party has moved farther left, their support has faded, so moving even farther left isn't the answer. Hell, the past few elections it's basically been a vote for which candidate will move us towards the European model fastest or slowest. Dems = fastest, Reps = slowest. But who we've been given the options to vote for, we'd be moving that way with either. That's really not much of a choice and has been what's killed the Reps lately. If they follow your thoughts it'll just get worse.

[SB Shock]

It does crack me up when people say the Republican party has gone too far right when it's run by a bunch of people who keep moving farther and farther left.

Those who say those type of things are not self-thinkers and are just parrots.

[Rlh04d]

It does crack me up when people say the Republican party has gone too far right when it's run by a bunch of people who keep moving farther and farther left. The right, for some reason, has been painted as sexist, racist, elitist and homophobic even though it's not even close to the truth. But apparently it's working as even the great Rlh04d has fallen for it.

Hell, the "old" Republicans you're talking about are the ones that are seen to be more "moderate" by the press these days and nobody supports them on a national scale. As the Republican party has moved farther left, their support has faded, so moving even farther left isn't the answer. Hell, the past few elections it's basically been a vote for which candidate will move us towards the European model fastest or slowest. Dems = fastest, Reps = slowest. But who we've been given the options to vote for, we'd be moving that way with either. That's really not much of a choice and has been what's killed the Reps lately. If they follow your thoughts it'll just get worse.

If you think I made one statement about my personal feelings regarding any party, maybe the Great Subgod should try reading again. It amazes me how easy it is for people to dissolve into sarcastic vitriol the moment politics enter any discussion. It's why I generally avoid it.

My post was a matter of perception, not fact. If you think the Republican Party does not suffer from an image problem regarding racism, sexism, homophobia, and elitism (not the EXISTENCE of, the PERCEPTION of), then hey ... you're welcome to your opinion. I did state that those things do exist in the fringe elements of the Party ... hell, whether you agree with Rush Limbaugh most of the time or not, he personally has enough quotes for the mainstream media to play over and over again on all of those points to keep that image alive. How many times was his quote about Susan Fluke referring to her as a slut and a prostitute replayed? And that's just one of dozens of instances in the last two years that kept that perception alive.

The only actual political view I'll give here is that the Republican Party is doubling down on so many losing issues that cost them support with the general populace that they are continually distracted from the arguments that they are winning. The Democrats keep winning on social issues, and the Republicans keep winning on fiscal issues -- but thus far it's proven far easier for the average voter to understand and care about those social issues. So is it worth it to keep spending so much energy fighting over social issues when they are hurting the fight over fiscal issues? I think the Republican Party and the country would be far better off if the Republican party just focused on the fiscal argument. I'm not saying who is right or wrong about the social issues -- but my education is all in economics. I'm concerned with the fiscal issues in the country. And the fight over social issues, if it's clear what the majority of the country wants, is just getting in the way of fixing our fiscal problems. Can we just stop fighting over every single issue at once and just concentrate on the ones that are the most immediately important, which happen to be the ones real Republicans should clearly be able to win?

Again, I'm not talking policy. If there was any political party I identified with, it'd be the Libertarians. And if I'm giving my own opinion, I absolutely agree that most of the Republican Party has abandoned most of what gained them support under Reagan, and have been moving more to the left in a lot of policies to a degree that is making it very different to distinguish the two parties outside of social issues. Maybe I should have specifically said the Republican party is clearly to the right on social matters, while the country is left of center.

[SB Shock]

Republicans keep winning on fiscal issues --

Tea party is the only party with any focus on fiscal issue - they are TOLERATED in the Republican party because they need their base, but they are not embraced.

Maybe I should have specifically said the Republican party is clearly to the right on social matters, while the country is left of center.

Capture.JPG

[pinstripers]

Everybody just continues to spend, thinkin, "maybe next week I'll hit the lottery."

[GoShockers89]

.

[SB Shock]

In fairness, not adjusting that for population is a joke. And how does party ticket voting refute his assertion?

Why would you let bankrupt cities and states define you - they should be a warning of what you don't want to becomre.

From Gallup

Capture.JPG

[GoShockers89]

.

[GoShockers89]

.

[Rlh04d]

Tea party is the only party with any focus on fiscal issue - they are TOLERATED in the Republican party because they need their base, but they are not embraced.

Having "party" in their name doesn't make them a political party. The members of the Tea Party are Republicans. They might have different views on fiscal and other issues, but they are still a very significant portion of the Republican Party.

And your map is ridiculous ;)

As for your later point about numbers, I'm not sure how you think looking at the period 1992-2011 as a static period shows anything at all about the changing views of the country on social matters. But here's some polls from Gallup for you, since you used them:

Abortion: 61% of Americans believe abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, while only 31% of Americans believe it should be illegal; only 29% of Americans want to overturn Roe v Wade. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...few-absolutes/)
Immigration Reform: In each of the last two years, 55% of respondents have stated the goal of immigration reform should be to "Deal with immigrants in the US illegally," while only 41% believe the goal should be to "Halting flow of illegal immigrants." (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/Immigration.aspx) (And according to a recent Pew poll I saw, "More than 7-in-10 (71%) Democrats, nearly two-thirds (64%) of independents, and a majority (53%) of Republicans favor an earned path to citizenship." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...c-behind-them/)
Gun Control: 58% of respondents believe that gun control should be more strict. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx)
Gay Marriage: 53% of respondents believe gay marriage should be legally recognized. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/se...ies-above.aspx) (I couldn't find similar numbers through Gallup, but other polls I've seen have only 29% of Americans opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions.)

In every single one of those polls I can show you documented evidence of public opinion polls becoming more and more liberal (except for abortion, which has slightly become more conservative). Support for gay marriage, for instance, was only 27% in 1996. If I averaged that out as a 1992-2011 average of opinions on the issue, it would be DRASTICALLY lower than current public opinion polls show it as. Because what people thought in 1992 isn't relevant.

So when I say that the Republican party keeps fighting losing battles, what I'm saying is that the Republican Party continues to define itself as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, and continually argues that the focus of immigration reform should be on halting the flow of illegal immigrants, and yet in EVERY one of those defining social stances the majority of Americans clearly disagree. And yet Republicans keep fighting on those issues instead of simply shelving them until public opinion returns to their side, allowing them to fight on fiscal issues that they SHOULD be able to win on (theoretically, although you are correct that tea party folks are the ones more likely to win on those issues).

Which, before my post inevitably is misconstrued again, does NOT reflect MY opinions on these issues -- what I think about a given issue is irrelevant in talking about what matters as far as winning elections. My point, yet again, is that if the country keeps moving more liberal on social issues, why do we keep defining the Republican Party based on social issues that are clearly in the minority? What is the point of the Republican Party being the "pro-life" party when only 29% of Americans want Roe v Wade overturned? By making pro-life a defining characteristic of the party, it makes it harder for people who agree with conservative fiscal viewpoints but socially liberal viewpoints to support Republican candidates. What is more important: Continuing to fight a losing battle to overturn something that will likely never be overturned, or actually fixing the fiscal issues of our country? I understand why people feel strongly about these issues, but you are not going to be able to win the argument in the course of an election.

Define the Republican party on fiscal issues and the Republican Party will dominate the political landscape, and the country will be better for it financially. Define it on social issues and it will lose, over and over again.

[Rlh04d]

Many in the far right part of the Republican party have a really hard time acknowledging that a sizable portion of the population (especially in swing states) agrees with them on budget matters but won't ever vote for them because they feel like it's a vote against gays or a vote against women's rights. A conservative in KS believes in low taxes, low spending, is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and supports the display of Christian values in every day life. Meanwhile, an average conservative suburbanite in Pennsylvania believes in low taxes and low spending but probably disagrees with some/the rest of the equation.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Although way more concisely.

I think there is a huge chunk of the country who agree with Republicans (generally) on fiscal issues and agree with Democrats (generally) on social issues. But the fear that Republicans will roll back social changes that they strongly believe in is preventing them from supporting the party.

Back on the issue of 2016 candidates, I understand that Kansans don't want immigration reform, and you'll probably be pissed at Rubio for supporting it. Here's the thing: You're going to vote for him regardless if he gets the nomination. In Florida, which tends to decide the winner of Presidential elections, 67% of voters believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. So what's more important, having a guy that agrees with you on this one issue or winning?