re: The Game: The GOP Field Is Practically Set

quote:

---

Hillary is not a great retail politician. She's shrill and she absolutely sucks a pandering. Her "brand" is big but its not exactly going to energize up many people unless the GOP gives it a reason to do so.

---

The right would be wise to remember this. The "we need to go more conservative" meme isn't going to be helpful this election. Their base isn't excited about her...so don't give them a reason to be excited.

quote:

---

Looking back to Jan/Feb, Romney backed out because it looked like Jeb was assembling a huge political machine. Now Jeb doesn't look as formidable even though he is the default frontrunner. I wonder if Romney is having second thoughts.

---

I'm sure he has, but I doubt he really wants to jump in now. Plus I would be surprised if the big money doners didn't expect Bush to be where he is right now. Romney had similar struggles but was the only reasonable answer. It's not like it would be different for him now and gives the harder right contingents that much more hope of pulling off the nomination and probably losing the general.

quote:

---

The Dems wetdream is for there to be a Ferguson or Baltimore in October of 2016.

---

Not sure that would really help the Dems. The events and subsequent riots inspired the "pants up don't loot" voter as much or more as they did the "hands up don't shoot" crowd.

quote:

---

It just seems to me that the Electoral Map has seen Democrats advancing to GOP turf. The only time the GOP has won the popular vote since 1988 is in 2004 and if 9/11 doesn't happen, the I'd wager W doesn't get re-elected.

---

We'll never know about 9/11, but since you're what-iffing if Perot doesn't run Clinton doesn't get elected either. He didn't get over 50% in either of the elections he won and Perot's positions were far more GOP than Dem.

quote:

---

but since you're what-iffing

---

That's exactly what I'm doing. Just sort of spitballing.

This will be an interesting election cycle though. Trying to think of another one that mimics it.

Can Rubio or Bush win the primary running on an immigration plan that isn't a border fence and kicking them all out? Then if they do and win the election, the make up of Congress will go a long way to determining the ease of getting immigration reform through. Going to have to be small careful steps from a Republican. Dems can go more comprehensive.

Pulling this off would be some skilled political juggling.

quote:

---

On illegal immigration, there just aren't enough Americans opposed to it. Too many think that nothing can be done to stop it. I think it would take an ISIS-related event to get the attention of the general public.

---

A poll came out the other day showing 62% of Americans want the DOJ to punish sanctuary cities..and that only around 26% support amnesty or a path to citizenship.

Trump calling out the immigration problem and the recent murders committed by illegal immigrants quickly flipped the support on that issue. It could end up being a winner for the GOP. Their stance for 2016 should be on economics, foreign policy, and immigration. Don't get baited into social issues

its a sad sack of shite field for the republicans. So many names so much fail between every single one of them. Our political system is sad at this point. We have a clinton and a commie on one side of the isle and a republican clown car on the other.

quote:

---

What would be more useful is an expanded guest worker program to allow for documentation. A long pathway to citizenship for those who want to stay that involves learning English and community service. It's going to be useful having a growing population in twenty or thirty years. The path to citizenship might not be sellable for the GOP, but the guest worker thing will

---

It will be an easier sell than you think to all but the very, very far right.

The vast majority of Republicans know that Hispanic immigrants (the only group big enough to be an issue) as a group hard working, family oriented people mostly looking for a better life. What they abhor is the situation as it exists now where they're simply able to walk in, live here, and enjoy the fruits of the nation without bearing much of the burden.

IMO, a program designed as you outlined that also really hammered border crossers could get passed by a (R) president with ease.

quote:

---

IMO, a program designed as you outlined that also really hammered border crossers could get passed by a (R) president with ease.

---

It's not the POTUS that concerns me, it's the House.

Maybe I am overselling the conservative angst over immigration. I hope I am. I want to see the more reasonable voices from the GOP make strides in getting good proposals out there.

Money being no object has opened up the field quite a bit.

I think it's natural the Republicans have so many candidates given where the conservative movement is. It's a party fighting to move into the 21st century with many still clinging to the past. There are a lot of voices calling for a myriad of different things, thus a big field is reflective of that.

The creme will rise and there's enough people in the race to fracture the factions to limit how right the eventual nominee has to go.

The Democrats will face a similar reckoning once the GOP gets their shite together and it needs to happen. We still run the government lime it's the 70s. A reshuffling of political beliefs is not only healthy, but welcomed.

quote:

---

I'm a Republican, but this candidate selection is ridiculous. Why does the party allow of these dimwits to run and make a mockery of the party and the process? Why haven't we learned from the last 8 years? We have to stop having all these candidates and let only two, maybe three, duke it out for the candidacy. These big packs pick each other apart and lessen the chances of the one who emerges as the one on top. It kind of reminds me of the SEC lately, got all these big dogs and one comes out only to lose in the big game.

---

Well I guess we could always go back to the days where there was no primary at all and the party convention picked the candidate.

All snark aside, that system really wasn't so bad. I let the cooler heads decide on a unified message and pick a voice. It also marginalized the extremes on both ends of the spectrum.

Most of the posters here are young, so you probably don't know that the binding primary is a very new thing. It didn't exist until almost the end of the Vietnam war. Prior to that, the few primaries that were held were basically larger versions of today's Iowa Straw Poll - they were simply a tool to gauge public support and did not bind any delegates.

The problem now with binding primaries is that in many states they're closed to just party members and even in states with open ones, they draw lower levels of participation usually bringing out the true believers. To win the primary, a candidate must pander to the larger group of that block - usually meaning a further left candidate for the (D)s and a further right candidate for the (R)s and those more extreme positions are often harmful in the general election.

quote:

---

I think it's a symptom of the Citizens United SC decision. I think most of them realize they have little to no shot of winning, but the money involved both in running, and the future of their "brand", makes the idea enticing.

---

Citizens United doesn't have one thing to do with it. That case was decided in 2010. 2008 was the last presidential election without an incumbent on the ballot. Prior to the first primary, there were 10 declared (D) candidates and 12 declared (R) candidates.

The 2000 election saw 13 declared (R) candidates. There were only two declared (D) candidates, but one was the sitting VP.

1988 - 13 (D) and 11 (R). In an extremely interesting twist, the (D) field included both Jesse Jackson and David Duke. The internet would melt with a debate like that today.

So, except for one cycle when Gore was the heir apparent, whenever there's been an open seat both parties have seen a LARGE primary field.

Now, looking at races where there's a sitting president:

2012 - 13 (R) candidates
2004 - 10 (D) candidates
1996 - 11 (R) candidates
1992 - 9 (D) candidates
1984 - 8 (D) candidates

Again, large fields for the party looking to oust the incumbent.

It isn't money, or at least not campaign money. Part of it is ego. Lots of people think they've got what it takes to be president. Another part is an effort to garner national name recognition either for future elections or as a springboard to other careers. Huckabee's a good example of using a failed presidential bid to greatly enhance one's post-election career.