Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another threat to our Freedom of Speech

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    After all, if as you say the GOp can run only them, there must be a bunch.
    That's not what I said.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      The Democrats only have Hillary to run. If she goes down in flames - which I think we can all hope for about the email scandal, although I doubt it will sink her - then they'll be scrambling for someone to replace her. And Hillary is hardly hard-left when compared to the rank and file democrats.
      Agreed. Hillary is piling up baggage faster than an airport porter. She will be a hard sell to the public given all of that. If the Democrats run somebody on the hard Left they are not going to win as a majority, by a big margin, of US citizens want nothing to do with Leftism. Obama had the advantage of a lock on 13% of the vote (more or less) with Blacks. I don't think a non-Black candidate can do that.

      My post was more about the recurring shouts from amongst a conservative minority that the GOP isn't 'conservative enough'. Which is always amusing, because the far-right conservatives get shot down and don't poll well once you're beyond primaries.

      Yet still, some GOP supporters seem to assume that they can win without trying to attract moderate and undecided voters by going further to the right. What I would like is to see the GOP run a candidate that satisfies all these peoples who complain about RINOs and such, just to watch him lose. Hopefully it will burst that bubble that the solution to the GOPs problems is to be even more hardline, not less.
      Both parties seem to ignore the fact that Independents now make up nearly a third of all voters, are a majority in some states, and that neither the GOP or Democrats can count on a party line vote to get close to winning.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Agreed. Hillary is piling up baggage faster than an airport porter. She will be a hard sell to the public given all of that. If the Democrats run somebody on the hard Left they are not going to win as a majority, by a big margin, of US citizens want nothing to do with Leftism. Obama had the advantage of a lock on 13% of the vote (more or less) with Blacks. I don't think a non-Black candidate can do that.
        One issue is if it will stick, though. There is still plenty of time till the election, and for many voters it doesn't matter if the GOP is still unpalatable - my friend won't vote for the GOP no matter what because he sees the GOP as a party that treats him as a second-class citizen.

        The benefit and cost of Hillary running is the same element - an uncontested primary with one nationally known figure. It means betting big on a single hand. If it wins, you walk home rich. But if that hand wasn't as good as you thought, well, you're left without a paddle.

        If Hillary is sunk the Dems have few strong contenders for presidency, post-Obama, while the GOP is nursing a pretty strong stable of up and comers.

        Both parties seem to ignore the fact that Independents now make up nearly a third of all voters, are a majority in some states, and that neither the GOP or Democrats can count on a party line vote to get close to winning.
        That is why I always laugh at the people who decry a party running a somewhat moderate candidates as some sort of a existential flaw for the party. A candidate can't just win the primaries, he has to win an election. That means winning votes from moderates and undecided voters.

        Comment


        • #34
          I still say the GOP could run an attack add on her using her old "2 in the morning phone call" ad juxtaposed with her shouting in Congress over Benghazi "What difference does it make?!"

          Then close with "Do you really want a President who won't answer that phone call and doesn't give a hoot in hell about the consequences...?"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            That is why I always laugh at the people who decry a party running a somewhat moderate candidates as some sort of a existential flaw for the party. A candidate can't just win the primaries, he has to win an election. That means winning votes from moderates and undecided voters.
            That is a lie.
            Its what has crippled the GOP and made it so worthless.

            Reagan was no moderate who catered to the indecisive, and he didn't stick it to his base every day of the year like these pathetic little dinks are doing today.

            And in his re-election he carried every state but one.

            He was our last Conservative President, and the Left hated him 110% as much as Obama is hated by the Right today... but when he spoke to the American People he spoke TO us, not as a mouthpiece going by a teleprompter prepared by egg-heads.

            "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
            Famous, and the Left wet their panties, but what you didn't know is that his own staff went into a tizzy- oh no you can't say that it sounds too serious!
            Pfft.... and now the meek have inherited the Earth, and we must all wear matching stright-jackets.

            The American people yearn for a real leader every bit as much as women yearn for a real man, but all you see anymore is talking heads that may as well be cardboard cut-outs.

            And you know, it does not matter where the next one comes from.
            Your side can't produce one, and the GOP won't allow any to make it into the primaries.

            So where does that leave us?
            "Why is the Rum gone?"

            -Captain Jack

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              Reagan was no moderate who catered to the indecisive, and he didn't stick it to his base every day of the year like these pathetic little dinks are doing today.
              And Reagan was hardly a hardliner either. He had strong beliefs but he was also pragmatic and could work with the Democratic-controlled House. He was not a "shut the government down" sort of ideologue. Some of his policies are hardly part of the small-government concept that the GOP plays lip-service (War on Drugs), while federal spending during his terms (22.4% of GDP) were higher than the average of 20.6% from 1971-2009. Remember that debt went from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion during his years in office.

              Of course some might consider this an attack on his reputation - far from it. I consider his presidency a masterstroke for the time-period, one of those perfect fit moments. He worked with Democrats and, while I criticize some of his policies, he certainly left the nation a better state than when he came to power.

              Was he a conservative? Yes. Was he on the far-right end of the spectrum? Hardly. Despite what some liberals say, Reagan was not a GOP extremist.

              The American people yearn for a real leader every bit as much as women yearn for a real man, but all you see anymore is talking heads that may as well be cardboard cut-outs.
              I generally ask women about what kind of man they want, rather than just assume.

              And you know, it does not matter where the next one comes from.
              Your side can't produce one, and the GOP won't allow any to make it into the primaries.
              My side? I'm not a republican.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                I still say the GOP could run an attack add on her using her old "2 in the morning phone call" ad juxtaposed with her shouting in Congress over Benghazi "What difference does it make?!"

                Then close with "Do you really want a President who won't answer that phone call and doesn't give a hoot in hell about the consequences...?"
                The emails and phone messages are a strong and consistent base for some good attack ads if she runs. The problem is judging how effective they will be with the general public. For those who already retch at her name, it might seem massive, but the public is fickle and forgetful. By the time elections come around people might have forgotten or moved on.

                I wish it weren't so - she's not going to make a good president - but that's a political reality. It's too early for me to suggest where it might go.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  The emails and phone messages are a strong and consistent base for some good attack ads if she runs. The problem is judging how effective they will be with the general public. For those who already retch at her name, it might seem massive, but the public is fickle and forgetful. By the time elections come around people might have forgotten or moved on.

                  I wish it weren't so - she's not going to make a good president - but that's a political reality. It's too early for me to suggest where it might go.
                  The Republican ad is already out. It features news clips and Hillery herself making the case on corruption that she has now been caught being involved in. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ng_849624.html
                  “Breaking News,”

                  “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X