Is Romney running again, next Presidential election?

(07-17-2014 09:43 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The 2016 nominee Chris Christie is above this.

He was the only candidate on the board that concerned me. He's compromised as a general election candidate.

And the only reason he would have a 5% chance of getting the GOP nomination was because he had the aura of electablity. Now that is challenged, so his hope in the GOP primary is gone.

Only way he gets back in it is if the GOP loses seats in the Senate and the House in 2014, thus shocking the GOP into moderating. Which is unlikely.

Moderating is a two-way street, Tom.

(07-18-2014 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Moderating is a two-way street, Tom.

Yea, that's why you don't see us nominating Elizabeth Warren. Hillary will do just fine. So will Mark Warner.

They aren't seen as moderates in Shelby County Alabama, but HRC and Mark Warner are both considered moderates in a national sense.

(07-18-2014 02:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Moderating is a two-way street, Tom.

Yea, that's why you don't see us nominating Elizabeth Warren. Hillary will do just fine. So will Mark Warner.

They aren't seen as moderates in Shelby County Alabama, but HRC and Mark Warner are both considered moderates in a national sense.

Still hangin' tough in the Jeffco, Tom.

Warner, maybe. Hillary, not so much.

(07-18-2014 02:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Moderating is a two-way street, Tom.

Yea, that's why you don't see us nominating Elizabeth Warren. Hillary will do just fine. So will Mark Warner.

They aren't seen as moderates in Shelby County Alabama, but HRC and Mark Warner are both considered moderates in a national sense.

Still hangin' tough in the Jeffco, Tom.

Warner, maybe. Hillary, not so much.

Hillary and Warner have both been in lockstep with every bad Obama idea and both on record. Either one of them would have major problems getting elected and neither have the cult-like personality Obama has to overcome the failures. The only chance the democrats have would be to try to repackage a governor that has no ties to Washington and can run away from this administration.

(07-18-2014 02:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Moderating is a two-way street, Tom.

Yea, that's why you don't see us nominating Elizabeth Warren. Hillary will do just fine. So will Mark Warner.

They aren't seen as moderates in Shelby County Alabama, but HRC and Mark Warner are both considered moderates in a national sense.

Still hangin' tough in the Jeffco, Tom.

Warner, maybe. Hillary, not so much.

Hillary and Warner have both been in lockstep with every bad Obama idea and both on record. Either one of them would have major problems getting elected and neither have the cult-like personality Obama has to overcome the failures. The only chance the democrats have would be to try to repackage a governor that has no ties to Washington and can run away from this administration.

You are severely underestimating the desire of soccer moms to see a female CINC. Failing that, The Democrats will rally the 'disenfranchised' to their cause via the specter of the GOP boogeyman that is going to return blacks to the plantation, put women back in the kitchen and gays in the stockades.

(07-18-2014 02:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Hillary and Warner have both been in lockstep with every bad Obama idea and both on record. Either one of them would have major problems getting elected and neither have the cult-like personality Obama has to overcome the failures. The only chance the democrats have would be to try to repackage a governor that has no ties to Washington and can run away from this administration.

I've said it before as a Republican and I'll say it again: *anyone* that underestimates the *electability* of Hillary Clinton is foolish. You can disagree with every single position that she has, but that's irrelevant to her *objective* electability, which is extremely high with the demographics that win Presidential elections, such as suburban women (in contrast to white working class males from the Sun Belt, who might have power in off-year elections but generally doom the GOP to 49% losses in Presidential elections). Issues aren't enough to win elections. You need a highly sophisticated tactical strategy that is targeted to swing voters in swing states (which, again, are NOT white working class males from the Sun Belt). The Democrats have been running circles around the Republicans on that front in the past 2 Presidential elections. That's not going to magically change until the Republicans get their act together with the combination of (1) a legitimately electable candidate that is attractive to swing voters and (2) a coordinated strategy that starts in the *primary* process as opposed to forcing candidates to veer too far to the right to win primary votes and then they're forced to play catch up compared to the Democrats in the general election.

Way too many Republicans seem to be satisfied with winning ideological points in the primary process as opposed to tactically winning the White House in the general election. It's like an NFL team being satisfied with just making the playoffs every year as opposed to taking steps to win the Super Bowl. I'm sick of it.

(07-18-2014 03:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:35 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Moderating is a two-way street, Tom.

Yea, that's why you don't see us nominating Elizabeth Warren. Hillary will do just fine. So will Mark Warner.

They aren't seen as moderates in Shelby County Alabama, but HRC and Mark Warner are both considered moderates in a national sense.

Still hangin' tough in the Jeffco, Tom.

Warner, maybe. Hillary, not so much.

Hillary and Warner have both been in lockstep with every bad Obama idea and both on record. Either one of them would have major problems getting elected and neither have the cult-like personality Obama has to overcome the failures. The only chance the democrats have would be to try to repackage a governor that has no ties to Washington and can run away from this administration.

You are severely underestimating the desire of soccer moms to see a female CINC. Failing that, The Democrats will rally the 'disenfranchised' to their cause via the specter of the GOP boogeyman that is going to return blacks to the plantation, put women back in the kitchen and gays in the stockades.

Guys,

I can tell you who will win a national election if I have the following information:

1) African American voter turnout percentage
2) Hispanic American voter turnout percentage
3) Young voter turnout percentage
4) Dem voter preference by white females who attend church less than 6x per year.

The Dems have figured it out for Presidential elections. They've spent 30+ years targeting messages, policies, visuals, and campaigns targeting those groups. They constantly try to back the GOP into a corner by forcing them to take positions that will harm/discredit any attempt by the GOP to make inroads with any of the four groups (Sometimes the GOP doesn't even make them work at forcing them to take those positions - the GOP sometimes does so willingly). Then they have an awesome GOTV machine to get them to the polls.

I'll give you an example - Gay rights. The reason why support for the LGBT persons by the Dems is killing the GOP is not because the 3-5 percent of the electorate that is LGBT is really swinging elections, but rather that the Dems support of those rights (and the GOP's opposition to those rights) helps the Dems achieve their goals with white females and young voters. Getting the extra support and massive campaign donations from the LGBT community is a bonus, but from a political standpoint, not really the main course.

Here's another example - abortion rights. Regardless of national polls showing that a majority of Americans say they don't like abortion, that support doesn't change elections. In fact, the Dems support for abortion rights helps them with white non-religious females, and costs them little support elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the GOP has been looking inward. Any attempt to really cut into the Dem message gets slapped down, hard by GOP primary voters, who enforce purity over electablity.

-------

Here's a news flash, NRA members or LGBT persons don't win or lose elections. Its white women who don't frequently attend church. Everything else is turnout. If your group is already turning up at the polls and you aren't a white women living in a swing state, you really aren't important as to the final result.

And if you just think about how well Hillary will do with the four groups, and you'll see why most people are saying "if she gets the nomination, the election will be over before it starts". Especially if the GOP nominates some man who can be tagged credibly as a homophobic misogynist. And there's plenty on Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

After everything that has happened politically to women in the past few years, Hillary is a shoe in if she runs.

There aren't enough conservatives on the planet to stop it.

(07-19-2014 02:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  After everything that has happened politically to women in the past few years, Hillary is a shoe in if she runs.

There aren't enough conservatives on the planet to stop it.

Okay. Then what?

What in her professional history makes you believe she'll be a good president. Be specific.

(07-19-2014 02:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  After everything that has happened politically to women in the past few years, Hillary is a shoe in if she runs.

There aren't enough conservatives on the planet to stop it.

What has happened to women, who by the way don't vote as a bloc, in the past few years? And what makes you think she won't lose more men than Obama lost?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(07-16-2014 08:06 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rand should have ignored it. He doesn't need to be having this fight right now, Perry does. As far as Perry is concerned, I like him, but the neoconservative foreign policy argument is going to be a loser this time around if foreign policy becomes a central issue.

blah. as opposed to dr. nutz foreign policy argument, which has been rejected nationally every time the nation has has had the opportunity.

it's sheer political opportunism. rand is trying to cobble together an impossible coalition of imaginary groups; libertarian millennials and shattered progressives that have become exhausted by the sheer incompetence of the obamite comedy skit.

won't work. he'll come away with isolationists and single issue pot voters.

Which group is GTS in?

(07-16-2014 07:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 04:28 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, the last 6 years an adult's been in office.

Jesus wept.

Compared to Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, 9-9-9, etc., yes.

And that's why he won reelection. And given the current field on the right, the only questions I have are the following:

1) Will I be going to DC in January 2017 to celebrate the inaugural of President-elect Hillary Clinton, or President-elect Mark Warner?

2) What should I wear to the ball?

------------

And Smaug, deep down you know that we aren't ready to dismantle Social Security and Medicare with nothing else in place to replace it. We might not like the way Social Security is administered or funded, but letting Wall Street get their grubby hands all over American's retirement security is probably not the best idea. So the Ayn Randists are out, including Rand Paul.

You also know that absent of a GOP plan that actually provides affordable health care cost security to Americans, that the people are going to stick with Obamacare. By the way, it hasn't been a failure.

You also know that regardless of the problem at the border, the GOP aligned groups forming mobs to scream at children isn't going to be productive as a policy.

You also know that nominating a social warrior isn't going to be successful either.

-------------------

Compared to that group, yes, Obama is the adult in the room. He's not perfect, but we don't expect him to be.

This is the best post ever. It should be at the top of every thread in this room.

History may be kinder to him than W.

A little.

(07-19-2014 07:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  History may be kinder to him than W.

A little.

All day on FB I see people complaining about Obama. I ask, how many wars has he started? How many troops are dying every night? Have any airplanes crashed into any buildings lately? Has the economy crashed?

(07-19-2014 07:17 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 07:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  History may be kinder to him than W.

A little.

All day on FB I see people complaining about Obama. I ask, how many wars has he started? How many troops are dying every night? Have any airplanes crashed into any buildings lately? Has the economy crashed?

I said he might be remembered more kindly, didn't I?

(07-19-2014 07:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 07:17 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 07:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  History may be kinder to him than W.

A little.

All day on FB I see people complaining about Obama. I ask, how many wars has he started? How many troops are dying every night? Have any airplanes crashed into any buildings lately? Has the economy crashed?

I said he might be remembered more kindly, didn't I?

obama is going to go down as the most incompetent president in history. the tell all books after he leaves office are going to be terrifying when we see how close we came to existential disasters.

Yeah, fizzy's "better than Bush" argument is setting the bar pretty damn low.

It's entirely arguable that he was better than Bush and still sucked balls.

(07-19-2014 09:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Yeah, fizzy's "better than Bush" argument is setting the bar pretty damn low.

It's entirely arguable that he was better than Bush and still sucked balls.

Well when the GOP alternative is someone who wouldn't release his tax returns and called 47% of Americans 'freeloaders', that's what you get.

Maybe the 2016 candidate won't insult so many Americans as to make his election impossible. I wouldn't bet on it.