General election polls are too early to matter at this point. Let the media and HRC demonize the goofy things Carson, Huckabee, and Cruz have said for several months, and this poll will flip in a hurry.
Way too early republican primary thread
- Thread starter Larry T Spider
- Start date
General election polls are too early to matter at this point. Let the media and HRC demonize the goofy things Carson, Huckabee, and Cruz have said for several months, and this poll will flip in a hurry.
That's not the point. The point is that he was a dangerous opponent to Clinton.
I think Obama was a bad President and largely abhor his ideology, but the guy was a great candidate for a few reasons. First, he is a gifted and inspiring orator (when properly rehearsed and/or on teleprompter). Second, when examined only superficially, he has an impressive personal story and is a likable guy. Third, he had a hot wedge issue (the Iraq War) that he could use to bludgeon Clinton. Fourth, he was black, which meant that black voters and guilt-ridden white voters looking for attonement were going to look for reasons to vote for him, even if it meant shafting Clinton. Fifth, he was an absolutely prolific fundraiser, especially for his relative youth and inexperience. Finally, the media completely jumped in the sack with him like they've never jumped in the sack with anybody. Most journalists virtually had an orgasm every time they talked about him, so the guy's positive coverage was through the roof.
All of those factors were necessary to take out Clinton in '08. None of Clinton's opponents have those things going for them this time around.
People vote based on negativity as much as anything. If this race is Clinton v. one of your preferred candidates, they will hold their noses and vote for her just to deny them the Presidency.
The problem with your preferred candidates is that they shrink the base with very narrow appeal. They'll get white evangelicals and pretty much nobody else. The sad thing is that this mostly because of things they've said about non-issues or issues of very little relevance to the Presidency, with the exception of Cruz. In addition to some goofy statements, the ******* factor will hit him hard. He's a jerk. At least Carson and Huckabee are nice guys.
I think it will be her, and I think that's a good thing. I think she's very beatable so long as the GOP puts up a respectablee candidate rather than a carnival act.
... only after the DNC facilitated the horse race. maybe I failed to mention the FL and MI primaries in '08? Remember that?
He was a dangerous opponent because he had no track record compared to the one she had and, by association, Willy. democrats fell over themselves choosing the savior they thought they were getting, thanks to superb marketing, than the devil they knew was in the wings.
I don't doubt there factor of the yeller dog, but I hope our nation hasn't strayed so far from its established principles as to, once again, elect an elitist socialist. We got the "black" card knocked down ... she's STILL a poor choice on so many levels it's not even recognizable.
I appreciate your commentary on the current admin, but I'm ready to see if a conservative can take the white house. The red/blue breakout of counties in the nation suggest it'd be a landslide (I'm still trying to recalibrate red = conservative, blue = liberal) ... why not run a conservative rather than a boisterous personality who's famous and who's history is more aligned with a liberal philosophy on nearly every point of the platform.
If Trump gets elected, a RINO will be the POTUS ... which will mean very little difference in an HRC administration.
Oh ... I don't need a nice guy to be POTUS. I need a conservative who can think on his feet and hold fast to that. I need a guy who isn't afraid to put smarter "SMEs" in the cabinet/et al. We all have an ego, but the person needs to minor in ego and major in service. That's gonna be someone who's not been in Washington most of their adult life and probably not someone who has deluded themselves into thinking their actions have resulted in their real estate fortune, while it was built largely during the mortgage crisis founding.
Thanks
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
So is making statements such as "supporting this candidate is de facto supporting Hillary." She's been running for the last 2 years. And the GOP has been running against her the last two years also. It's not like people don't know who she is.
The GOP, I admit, is different. But the media has given voters a good long look over the summer and fall at these candidates...and the crazy thing is, according to the polls, they haven't been scared away.
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
I don't disagree that guys like Carson could do well if the election were today. However, they have to be able to withstand a smear campaign run by the left and much of the media for almost a full year. They also have to be able to articulate their points in a clear, concise way that the media can't filter too much. Many good candidates just cannot withstand that amount of scrutiny and keep their numbers high enough to win against somebody with the machine of HRC.
In the end, I think a republican beats her. Her negatives are high (hard to overcome) and she always does poorly when facing another candidate. She is like the ultimate practice football player than is perfect against air but withers when facing remotely tough competition. Our job is to give her tough competition. I think Rubio, Kasich, or Fiorina would mop the floor with her. Other guys, Im not so sure about.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Fiorina would DESTROY Hillary.
My number 1 ticket is Fiorina with Rubio as Veep.
The difference is that Carson has already given Hillary the rope with which to hang him by saying foolish things and sounding borderline incoherent when discussing issues. He could run a perfect campaign, but he's going to be asked to defend his previous goofball comments and incoherence. HRC is going to try to make that the focus, and the media will bend over backwards to help her do it. If he's forced to talk about prison rape and pyramids as grain storage facilities in September of next year, he's done, especially of he's fumbling around when trying to talk about taxes and healthcare policy.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I don't have any problems with a religion or a candidate that is religious as long as they can separate their church from their government obligation to represent an entire diverse nation.
This is weird: http://nypost.com/2015/11/08/ben-carson-features-portrait-of-him-and-jesus-in-home/
I can't embed the picture but Ben Carson has a painting of him with Jesus hanging in his house. He doesn't appreciate the vetting process of the media but this should be an expectation of all POTUS candidates. Ultimately, Carson has an extremely weird vibe about him that will appeal to the Evangelical crowd but turnoff anyone else, IMHO. The far right will buy into his "the media is out to get me" rhetoric but I don't think that will sell in a general election.
This is weird: http://nypost.com/2015/11/08/ben-carson-features-portrait-of-him-and-jesus-in-home/
I can't embed the picture but Ben Carson has a painting of him with Jesus hanging in his house. He doesn't appreciate the vetting process of the media but this should be an expectation of all POTUS candidates. Ultimately, Carson has an extremely weird vibe about him that will appeal to the Evangelical crowd but turnoff anyone else, IMHO. The far right will buy into his "the media is out to get me" rhetoric but I don't think that will sell in a general election.
Even some Evangelicals will think it's weird.
I don't think they want to elect an elitist socialist, but nobody in the race self-identifies as such. (Even Bernie Sanders would consider himself a populist socialist.) Furthermore, most people are going to choose the lesser of two evils. I know the Obama voters on this forum chose him not because they thought he was great but because they thought he was better than the alternative. That's the key. There needs to be an alternative to HRC that is clearly preferable to people who aren't partisan Republicans or militant ideologues.
We don't vote by county. We vote by the electoral college, and that doesn't favor the GOP. The loss of educated, white voters in urban and inner suburban areas has turned several formerly purple states solidly blue, making the path to victory narrower and narrower. They need to attract this sort of voter back to the party to solve this problem. I think these people will vote for a conservative, but they want a real policy agenda. In fact, everybody should want that. If you're a nice guy or an "outsider' (which is a euphemism for inexperienced and gaffe-prone) but you don't run on a policy agenda or you can't intelligently discuss the policy agenda you claim to be running on, then you're running on superficiality rather than substance.
Just to clarify any ambiguity, I don't support Trump at all. My preferences in order would be Kasich, Rubio, Fiorina. I consider Trump to be wholly unviable - even less so than Carson.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm a social liberal-fiscal conservative voter. I'd vote Kasich and likely Rubio over any on the Democrat slate. If the Republicans nominate Trump, Carson or Cruz I will hold my nose and vote for HRC or Sanders. If they are the alternative to those 3 R candidates I feel I'd have no choice. The jury is still out on Fiorina. The more hawkish she shows herself or socially conservative (i.e. swinging wildly at Planned Parenthood) the more I'll put her in the Trump camp.
Yeah, I know. I'm not the author of our election system, but I've read the cliffnotes. We've amended our Constitution for much less important aspects, too ... this one needs attention. A relative handful of counties is dictating the direction of the nation. That's not what was envisioned.
Bottom line is we need to start taking responsibility for ourselves again. Stop thinking "the govt should" for virtually everything. Seattle Husker doesn't like the attacks on planned parenthood. We can argue the impropriety of the abortion issue, but looking to the Fed for support is NOT in accordance with our pursuit of freedom and liberty.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
I have no idea why some folks are enamored with Kasich. Whenever I hear him boast that he "fought" for a balanced budget or this or that in the 14 years he was in DC as a member of Congress, as if he personally was responsible for tax revenues rain down from the sky, I want to throw a bowling ball through my TV.
Last edited:
He wasn't personally responsible for the tax revenue, but he was very instrumental at keeping the government from spending all the revenue it received, which it had previously done regardless of whether revenue was high or low. If you look at spending levels as a percentage of GDP, he kept it low compared to what it was before and after he chaired the Budget Committee.
Also, I have a significant degree of respect for real accomplishment and put a premium on it over political promises and pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. When I hear the other candidates and political hacks scoff at Kasich's accomplishments and brag about advocating for a ten percent flat tax and keeping spending levels low enough to make it balance (without providing any policy or strategic specifics), it sounds a little like me claiming that if the Texas Rangers would give me a contract, I'd be able to bat .400 and hit 70 home runs. It sounds great, but no matter how much hitting ability I promise while I'm sitting on the couch drinking a beer, it's just not as impressive as a guy who bats only .300 and hits only 30 home runs but does it for real.
The electoral college actually is kinder to conservatives than a national popular vote would be, because it gives small, rural states a disproportionately large influence. For example, Wyoming only has .18 percent of the national population. However, it has .56 percent of the electoral vote. California has 12.17 percent of the population but has only 10.2 percent of the electoral vote. Without the electoral college, rural states (which tend to be more conservative than urban states) would be virtually irrelevant in presidential politics.
The only reason that a handful of counties are dictating the direction of the nation is that most of the nation is extremely polarized. Well, that's a problem with us, not with the Constitution.
If states want to, they can also change the way they choose their electors if they want to change the dynamics. We hold elections and (mostly) choose electors on a winner-take-all basis. No state is required to do that, and a few of them don't. They could decide to choose electors based on congressional districts results, by proportion of the popular vote within that state, etc. They could even decide not to have an election at all and have the legislatures directly choose their electors.
If you could remove the polarization of the abortion issue from the discussion, you could probably sell Seattle Husker on at least tightening the rules on how PP uses the money it receives. You might even be able to sell him on defunding it. I've been reading his stuff on this forum for years, and I've never heard him advocate for taxpayer funding of abortion. However, if you force him to take an absolutist position or have significant holes in your argument, he errs on the pro-choice side. Personally, I err on the pro-life side and think SH is wrong on the issue. However, rather than look for conflict with him and others like him, I'd rather look for common ground where possible. After all, doing so advances the ball in my direction, not the hard Left's.
Furthermore, SH identifies as a fiscal conservative and social liberal (though I'd describe him as a social moderate). Since the overwhelming majority of questions resolved at the federal level (meaning actual votes and policymaking, not shrill arguments and political grandstanding) involve fiscal policy (how money is raised and spent by the government) rather than social policy, SH should feel welcome in the GOP at the national level without fear of being insulted or having his views crapped on, especially when it's on issues that have little bearing on actual governance. Guys like him aren't our enemies. They're our friends, and we should be able to work with them where possible and disagree respectfully where we can't (as the GOP used to be able to do). The fact that we can't is a significant part of the GOP's difficulty in winning national elections.
I apologize for my comment's inferring I think SH is the enemy ... I only used his statement because of proximity.
What's problematic about the "find common ground" part from where we are ... our government is so expanded and intrusive, compromise only makes it LESS so. And what's the most recent example of government being pushed back into its circle? A few gun laws, which STILL require government issued license. So, marginally less intrusive. Kinda like a Beall's store sale ... 80% off ... after the items were marked-up 150% ... STILL a higher price than two weeks before the "big sale." That's not a "sale," and compromise on many of these things, where they are, according to the conservative stance ... isn't progress either.
I agree with you regarding electors ... the problem IS with the electorate ... US.
what platform is more appealing?
"I'll enable you to provide for yourself and gain a greater sense of self worth"
"I'll take from the rich and give to you because you're OWED it."
What's problematic about the "find common ground" part from where we are ... our government is so expanded and intrusive, compromise only makes it LESS so. And what's the most recent example of government being pushed back into its circle? A few gun laws, which STILL require government issued license. So, marginally less intrusive. Kinda like a Beall's store sale ... 80% off ... after the items were marked-up 150% ... STILL a higher price than two weeks before the "big sale." That's not a "sale," and compromise on many of these things, where they are, according to the conservative stance ... isn't progress either.
I agree with you regarding electors ... the problem IS with the electorate ... US.
what platform is more appealing?
"I'll enable you to provide for yourself and gain a greater sense of self worth"
"I'll take from the rich and give to you because you're OWED it."
Last edited:
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
My book has taken all of the individuals out other than Rubio. You can either bet Rubio wins or Rubio doesn't win.
Cruz's ad people are horrible! Thankfully, we Texans are spared the million commercials other parts of the country are seeing, but every Cruz ad I have seen is painful to watch.
He had the debacle with his own 2 kids, now the commercial running is kids playing around a castle and talking about eminent domain.
My dog could think and implement better ads.
He had the debacle with his own 2 kids, now the commercial running is kids playing around a castle and talking about eminent domain.
My dog could think and implement better ads.
I guess if children can't sell your campaign, why not try porn stars?
This is the basis of our problem. Bad choice of ads? absolutely. I reckon Ted is directing a change in personnel about now ... but rather than focus on how many canines could do a better job ...
the problem is we, the electorate, ARE style over substance. For those of us who at least try to pay attention, this is why the Watters world/et al clips are so identifiable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming Holland. I'm using his post as a reference for convicting our electorate. We simply have lost sight of what's important ... we've collectively decided it's just easier to let someone else tend to our affairs. I'm not without guilt in this, but if my level of guilt was the greatest level, we'd not be 19 trillion/counting in the hole, we'd not have 957 different Federal Agencies all looking to bolster their own 'turf' ... and we'd not be institutionally trying to redefine words which, themselves, define our most basic institution, for example ... and we'd not sanction the indiscriminate destruction of innocent human life.
Deez, above you defended SeattleHorn's positions. Admirable. In that you mentioned the failure of the GOP to include fiscal conservatives who aren't quite right socially (my characterization, not yours). You mentioned governance is fiscal. But, with many of the recent examples (recent is relative, I'm going-back to 1964) ... they are exclusively social governance. Even latter efforts in the amendments to the Constitution correct social wrongs in governance.
So ... social issues are important ... in fact, I think they are MORE important because the governance of PEOPLE is more important than a given nation's budget/spreadsheet. Relationships matter, and when we have an outlook on that which has no basis in reality nor in natural order, chaos ensues. Surely we can identify the chaos which has infected our society. That doesn't originate from an askew budget. It's the result of people looking in the wrong places for validation.
Thanks.
as I wrote " convicting our electorate" ... I then recalled the buffoonery in the DNC primaries in Iowa and NH. Flipping coins and arbitrarily reassigning delegates???
THIS is why we need to get out of this primary nonsense.
put Those original 21 or 25, however many there were, ALL on the ballot and hold the first election on the first Tuesday in March ... Runoff the top 5 on the first Tuesday in May ... take the top two (might be two "democrats???") THEN have a full blown campaign culminating in the November date with our electoral college. I'm sure there are issues to address or tweek, but ...
We simply MUST get the parties OUT of defining the ballot. Limit their position to promotion of platform. PERIOD. Not declaring winners/losers for a nomination to a ballot.
THIS is why we need to get out of this primary nonsense.
put Those original 21 or 25, however many there were, ALL on the ballot and hold the first election on the first Tuesday in March ... Runoff the top 5 on the first Tuesday in May ... take the top two (might be two "democrats???") THEN have a full blown campaign culminating in the November date with our electoral college. I'm sure there are issues to address or tweek, but ...
We simply MUST get the parties OUT of defining the ballot. Limit their position to promotion of platform. PERIOD. Not declaring winners/losers for a nomination to a ballot.
Though I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure Hollandtx is a woman. Either way, I don't think she has lost sight of what's important, and I don't think she's going to vote for or against Ted Cruz based on this. Like me, I think she's just a bit baffled that porn actress was able to work her way into a major presidential candidate's commercial.
First, I'm not sure what you mean by "social governance." Most of the decisions made by Congress and the President are not on social issues. The overwhelming majority of them are in some shape or form about money (generating money, spending money, regulating businesses that make money, regulating how people use their money, etc.), hence the $19T debt and 957 agencies you mentioned.
Second, I don't dispute that social issues are important. They are. However, most people don't take absolutist positions on social issues. They see shades of gray. That's why social issues have traditionally (and should be) decided by deliberative bodies (legislatures) at the state level, where the cultural preferences of each state and local community can be taken into account. When they have gotten to the federal level, it has almost always been the result of litigation - a federal court being asked to strip a state government of its power to decide a social issue. That means that the best way to impact social issues in your favor in national elections is to win the Presidency and get conservative jurists appointed to the federal courts.
So why do I think we should try to find common ground with people like Seattle Husker? First, because he generally takes a conservative approach to most of the issues Congress and the President decide, which involve money and economic governance. If SH and I were in Congress together (LOL!), we'd probably vote together 80 percent of the time or more. Second, though he leans Left on social issues, he's not a radical. For example, he has said he'd favor a ban on late term abortion. Furthermore, he doesn't mind being a part of an electoral coalition that disagrees with him on social issues, so long as the majority (within that coalition) doesn't force its views on him or disrespect his sincerely held beliefs as he doesn't disrespect theirs.
If the Right shoves social issues in his face and tells him how wrong he is every chance it gets, it's going to tell him that the Right disrespects his beliefs and will use the power of the federal government to force its agenda on him (for example through a national ban on abortion). That's going to induce him to vote Democratic. If he's forced to do that, he'll end up with judges who (unlike him) are social radicals and will strike down all socially conservative measures, even ones he agrees with. That may not be what he wants, but if forced to an extreme (which he shouldn't be forced to), he's going to err on the side of abortion rights.
What I'd rather do is invite people like SH into a broad electoral coalition and win the Presidency rather than lose it and have both fiscal liberalism and social liberalism forced on me by Left-wing nuts on the federal bench that I can't do anything about. Once my side wins the Presidency, it can appoint judges who will respect the constitutional order by leaving social issues at the state level where they belong. SH can have liberal social policy in Washington (state). I can have conservative social policy in Texas. Most people like SH can live with that framework, and so can I. After all, that's the framework the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution int he first place.
Thanks for advising on Holland ... sorry Ms Holland.
completely agree with your comments about states rights on social issues ... that's not really happened now has it? The Fed has overtaken so much of the States' rights, and made States so dependent upon the Fed, there's really very little to do in the 50 capitals.
I'm not seeking a confrontational exchange. Certainly not to "call someone out."
I just want to reiterate the "compromise" from a far left position is STILL left and not right.
... and ultimately, we get the government we deserve. As a friend of mine repeated ... the relationship is similar to a boat in the water.
The water can support the boat, but it can capsize it, too.
completely agree with your comments about states rights on social issues ... that's not really happened now has it? The Fed has overtaken so much of the States' rights, and made States so dependent upon the Fed, there's really very little to do in the 50 capitals.
I'm not seeking a confrontational exchange. Certainly not to "call someone out."
I just want to reiterate the "compromise" from a far left position is STILL left and not right.
... and ultimately, we get the government we deserve. As a friend of mine repeated ... the relationship is similar to a boat in the water.
The water can support the boat, but it can capsize it, too.
Well Mr. ShAArk92, I'm sorry but I an unable to accept your kind apology.
You have violated my safe space, force fit me in to a non-neutral gender role, potentially hurt my feelings with words...I could go on, but I won't. You know what you have done.
Have a great weekend!
You have violated my safe space, force fit me in to a non-neutral gender role, potentially hurt my feelings with words...I could go on, but I won't. You know what you have done.
Have a great weekend!
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 570
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 603
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
