Started By
Message
re: 2016 Presidential Election
Posted on 4/13/15 at 4:42 pm to rootisback
Posted on 4/13/15 at 4:42 pm to rootisback
100
0
Posted on 4/13/15 at 4:59 pm to wadewilson
quote:
There's a growing fatigue young Republicans have with the neocons and social conservatives that currently own the Republican party.
I'm sure there is, hence the friction within the party. I advise patience. They didn't get into power within the party in a few years and young conservatives won't either. The demographics are in your favor. Young conservatives are growing in numbers and older conservatives are not.
Posted on 4/13/15 at 5:19 pm to Rebel Land Shark
quote:
What politician isn't evil?
Sure, they all are bad, but her skeletons aren't even in the closet. They're out in the open, and she's telling everyone to suck it.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 8:29 am to Duke
quote:
I'm sure there is, hence the friction within the party. I advise patience. They didn't get into power within the party in a few years and young conservatives won't either. The demographics are in your favor. Young conservatives are growing in numbers and older conservatives are not
Honestly, the GOP needs to cave on certain social issues. It is very obviously holding them back. Gay marriage and legalization/decriminalization of weed particularly. They are inevitable. SCOTUS will legalize gay marriage likely in the summer. (vote count is 5-4 or 6-3 for legalization) By taking certain social issues out of the picture, the GOP can focus on more relevant discussions that would win them elections.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 9:45 am to 5thTiger
quote:
Honestly, the GOP needs to cave on certain social issues. It is very obviously holding them back. Gay marriage and legalization/decriminalization of weed particularly.
I think you're going to see it during this election cycle. Cruz, Rubio, and Paul all say State's rights on both issues.
I think it equates to " I don't like it, but taking a stand against SSM and drugs will be on the losing side, so go for it"
Better than the flip flop from Obama and Hillary in 2008-2013. At least it's a constitutional stance and not pandering.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 10:20 am to 3nOut
Cruz won't . Just look at where he announced if you have any questions of his target demographic.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 10:53 am to 5thTiger
Personally, this is going to be a tricky election to call. Whether you support/respect them or not, the GOP is putting out some heavy hitters. Usually, someone like Jeb could just cruise to the nomination by outspending and by being the "established" candidate. However, his name will make him a lightening rod and there is potential for some other candidates, like Christie, to come in a split up the establishment vote. Then you have someone like Cruz who will try to ride the right wing of the party through the primary. Meanwhile, there is a large segment of the Republican party who want something new...and that's where Walker, Rand, and possibly Rubio come in. Whoever survives will either be battle tested or battered to the point where they'll be served to Hillary on a silver platter.
In the end, the GOP needs to nominate somebody that can energize people to vote FOR them, not just vote against Hillary. You never win a National Election by running as the alternative. Hillary is formidable but is vulnerable at the same time. If the GOP trots out someone who isn't ready for the bigtime, she'll destroy them. However, if the GOP nominates someone who has charisma, has a strong campaign machine, and can rally the party behind them, I think they will win.
The General Election is one big marketing campaign. Hillary will have the "first woman president" thing going on for her and she will go into the General with a lead in the polls over most GOP rivals....but don't underestimate the "Rather have a beer with" vote. Its stupid, but that usually dictates who wins most presidential elections. If you win that, it means people understand you, your message, and think you are in touch with reality. Hillary would lose that vote to most of the GOP candidates.
In the end, the GOP needs to nominate somebody that can energize people to vote FOR them, not just vote against Hillary. You never win a National Election by running as the alternative. Hillary is formidable but is vulnerable at the same time. If the GOP trots out someone who isn't ready for the bigtime, she'll destroy them. However, if the GOP nominates someone who has charisma, has a strong campaign machine, and can rally the party behind them, I think they will win.
The General Election is one big marketing campaign. Hillary will have the "first woman president" thing going on for her and she will go into the General with a lead in the polls over most GOP rivals....but don't underestimate the "Rather have a beer with" vote. Its stupid, but that usually dictates who wins most presidential elections. If you win that, it means people understand you, your message, and think you are in touch with reality. Hillary would lose that vote to most of the GOP candidates.
This post was edited on 4/14/15 at 11:00 am
Posted on 4/14/15 at 11:41 am to 5thTiger
quote:
Honestly, the GOP needs to cave on certain social issues. It is very obviously holding them back. Gay marriage and legalization/decriminalization of weed particularly. They are inevitable. SCOTUS will legalize gay marriage likely in the summer. (vote count is 5-4 or 6-3 for legalization) By taking certain social issues out of the picture, the GOP can focus on more relevant discussions that would win them elections.
First off, this is retarded. Nothing is 'inevitable'. Basically, you're saying "The GOP really needs to act more liberal, being socially conservative is holding them back."
Liberals are not going to vote for the GOP, regardless of how many social issues the GOP surrenders on. Both sides like to go on the airwaves and give advice to the opposite wing that generally goes a lot like "The opposition really doesn't understand that they need to move more toward my opinion. Since my opinion is the morally right and popular opinion, they won't win unless they shift their views to be more like mine". What this really shows is ignorance of how the other side thinks. Gay marriage is not a popular issue in MANY areas of the country. Judges have been striking down anti-SSM laws, but those laws have been going up by referendum or by popular demand, not by executive order. I'm ambivalent toward gay marriage one way or the other as it affects my life not one iota, but it isn't as popular or as 'inevitable' as so many of it's proponents want people to believe.
Both parties do best when they are able to play to their base, and pull in a majority of the center vote. They do not do well when they move toward the center so much that they lose their base support. Obama was a far-leftist, and Bush openly described himself as a "Compassionate Conservative".
Abortion has not slowed the GOP one bit. In fact, if you wanted to mix correlation with causation, you could argue that since abortion was legalized, the GOP's stance against it has become even MORE effective. Since 1976, the GOP has steadily gained more and more state houses, and with the exception of 2006-2010, the GOP has owned the house from 1994-2015. All the while taking a page out of the socialist playbook and regulating abortion clinics out of existence. Libs told the GOP in the 1990s the same thing that is being said now: Abortion is inevitable; the issue is holding the GOP back, etc etc. What it really did was hold the left back.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 11:55 am to cokebottleag
quote:
Liberals are not going to vote for the GOP, regardless of how many social issues the GOP surrenders on. Both sides like to go on the airwaves and give advice to the opposite wing that generally goes a lot like "The opposition really doesn't understand that they need to move more toward my opinion. Since my opinion is the morally right and popular opinion, they won't win unless they shift their views to be more like mine". What this really shows is ignorance of how the other side thinks. Gay marriage is not a popular issue in MANY areas of the country. Judges have been striking down anti-SSM laws, but those laws have been going up by referendum or by popular demand, not by executive order. I'm ambivalent toward gay marriage one way or the other as it affects my life not one iota, but it isn't as popular or as 'inevitable' as so many of it's proponents want people to believe.
We certainly disagree once again. But to clarify, I wasn't suggesting all social issues, only certain ones like SSM and marijuana.
I think alot of people would agree that those 2 specific issues (especially SSM) are inevitable to become legal in some form.
Abortion is such a controversial issue. I never stated anything about it. I don't think I've ever really taken a side on the issue. But there is a big difference between abortion and SSM, at least in public perception.
quote:
Basically, you're saying "The GOP really needs to act more liberal, being socially conservative is holding them back."
Not everything, but some things it would be in their best interest to back down on. Give up a battle to win the war.
You never want to be on the wrong side of history is all I am saying.
quote:
Both parties do best when they are able to play to their base, and pull in a majority of the center vote. They do not do well when they move toward the center so much that they lose their base support. Obama was a far-leftist, and Bush openly described himself as a "Compassionate Conservative".
This definitely depends on the candidate. Romney was a moderate, but that isn't why he lost. He lost due to shooting himself in the foot, and his personal life. Whether it is right or wrong, being rich and Mormon cost him a lot of votes.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 11:59 am to 3nOut
quote:
I think it equates to " I don't like it, but taking a stand against SSM and drugs will be on the losing side, so go for it"
Cruz has said he would oppose weed legalization in Texas.
Both should have been state's issues all along. The only reason they are national is due to the open interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. So thanks FDR. Without you, we wouldn't have had the war on drugs to begin with. For those of you who would challenge this assertion: Before FDR, it took a constitutional amendment to outlaw booze. Outlawing Marijuana at a federal level in 1937 only required a regular law.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 12:10 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Abortion is such a controversial issue. I never stated anything about it. I don't think I've ever really taken a side on the issue. But there is a big difference between abortion and SSM, at least in public perception.
Please explain the difference. SSM seems pretty controversial as well. Both of them are opposed on 'religious' grounds.
quote:
I think alot of people would agree that those 2 specific issues (especially SSM) are inevitable to become legal in some form.
I think a lot of people would disagree as well.
quote:
We certainly disagree once again. But to clarify, I wasn't suggesting all social issues, only certain ones like SSM and marijuana.
Considering nearly 100 years after the repeal of prohibition, we still have blue laws and dry counties, I doubt the legalization of any social act is inevitable.
quote:
Not everything, but some things it would be in their best interest to back down on. Give up a battle to win the war.
You never want to be on the wrong side of history is all I am saying.
Yeah, the USSR used to declare the USA was on the wrong side of history. Guess who had the last laugh on that one?
The fact of the matter is that the gaystapo comprises an extremely small fraction of the population, around 4%. This vs a much, much larger percentage of conservative Christians, blacks, and muslims, all who oppose gay marriage.
The argument that the DNC is doing more damage to themselves by pushing SSM is much stronger. The DNC is bleeding white blue collar support like a head wound. And their solution is to push an agenda from 4% of the voting population that goes against the values of that same voting block they are trying to get back?
SSM may become legal at the federal level. But the DNC is stupid to push it. Abortion didn't 'go away' after 1976 as an issue. There was no surrender by the GOP, and now its an albatross around the neck of every dem in a red state. The same will likely be for the current unpopular 'inevitable' social issues the DNC is pushing for.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 12:55 pm to cokebottleag
Personally, I believe Rubio has the best shot. He's young and a very talented speaker. Not to mention the fact he can garner needed attention to attract the minority/hispanic vote.
Read in an article that he has been collecting donations from all of the major players in corporate America and is likely to receive the most in political donations when the time comes.
Ultimately, I just hope the GOP can get their shite together and win this election. Honestly, I would be satisfied if anyone but Hilary won...
Read in an article that he has been collecting donations from all of the major players in corporate America and is likely to receive the most in political donations when the time comes.
Ultimately, I just hope the GOP can get their shite together and win this election. Honestly, I would be satisfied if anyone but Hilary won...
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:25 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Yeah, the USSR used to declare the USA was on the wrong side of history. Guess who had the last laugh on that one?
The fact of the matter is that the gaystapo comprises an extremely small fraction of the population, around 4%. This vs a much, much larger percentage of conservative Christians, blacks, and muslims, all who oppose gay marriage.
That is a terrible example. Hate using this example but, slavery was once a socially conservative issue. You can argue the economic value of it all day, but at what cost? There are certain social issues that in the context of America that have to be addressed.
As for my "give up battle to win war." Think more WWII. Allies cracked Nazi communication code, yet did not reveal it until many years later. They allowed certain ships to be sunk in order to keep it a secret that they had broken the code. It ended up winning the war.
And where is that 4% coming from? Is that 4% of the total population is gay? Or 4% of the population supports SSM?
quote:
Considering nearly 100 years after the repeal of prohibition, we still have blue laws and dry counties, I doubt the legalization of any social act is inevitable.
The amount of dry counties is so small that it can hardly be considered an issue. Granholm v Heald settled any debate on that (stated that states could not regulate shipments of alcohol). Less than 10 states have municipalities that have dry standards. 1 of those is Tennessee, which is one of the largest producers of alcohol, including a Jack Daniels plant within a dry county.
quote:
SSM may become legal at the federal level. But the DNC is stupid to push it.
I think statistics would disagree.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:28 pm to 5thTiger
Bush isn't electable. He's no different from McCain in '08. If the establishment pushes him, they are essentially throwing in the towel to the Dems. McCain wasn't legitimate opposition to Obama in '08, and Bush won't be opposition to Clinton in '16. And while we're at it, if the presidency is just going to be a token that gets transferred from the House of Bush to the House of Clinton every 10 years or so, can we just go ahead and have a monarchy already?
Cruz is running to stay relevant in the Senate. He doesn't have a legit chance in the General Election because the media will paint him as Anti-Science and people will come out to vote against him.
Christie isn't interesting, and would cause a lot of people to vote third-party. I certainly would.
That leaves Rubio, Paul, and Walker. I'm not a big fan of Walker, cos he comes across as a Koch puppet, but I'd be OK with Rubio.
But my money (in terms of who the strongest candidate is, not who will actually emerge victorious) is Paul. I think he'd eviscerate Hilldawg in a debate, and I think she knows it, too. He has to clean up around the edges a little bit, but he could do well. If he paired with, say, a Tim Scott for his running mate, the GOP would be able to give the Dems a run for their money.
Cruz is running to stay relevant in the Senate. He doesn't have a legit chance in the General Election because the media will paint him as Anti-Science and people will come out to vote against him.
Christie isn't interesting, and would cause a lot of people to vote third-party. I certainly would.
That leaves Rubio, Paul, and Walker. I'm not a big fan of Walker, cos he comes across as a Koch puppet, but I'd be OK with Rubio.
But my money (in terms of who the strongest candidate is, not who will actually emerge victorious) is Paul. I think he'd eviscerate Hilldawg in a debate, and I think she knows it, too. He has to clean up around the edges a little bit, but he could do well. If he paired with, say, a Tim Scott for his running mate, the GOP would be able to give the Dems a run for their money.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:31 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
This vs a much, much larger percentage of conservative Christians, blacks, and muslims, all who oppose gay marriage.
So Muslims and Blacks are going to vote GOP because of gay marriage.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:33 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Cruz said he would oppose weed legalization in Texas
True... But he still leaves it up to the state. Which they pretty much have to do (and I agree with)
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:35 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
Bush isn't electable. He's no different from McCain in '08. If the establishment pushes him, they are essentially throwing in the towel to the Dems. McCain wasn't legitimate opposition to Obama in '08, and Bush won't be opposition to Clinton in '16. And while we're at it, if the presidency is just going to be a token that gets transferred from the House of Bush to the House of Clinton every 10 years or so, can we just go ahead and have a monarchy already?
While I laughed at the House Bush/House Clinton sentiment, I think Jeb is electable. He is not his father or brother. He spent a lot of time in Mexico, speaks fluent Spanish, and married a Mexican. That will resonate with latino voters if they can get that message out. He owns Florida (a key swing state) and has the machine behind him. He helped raise Florida's education system, improving over 2.5 points nationally.
The only thing holding a lot of people back is his last name.
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:41 pm to 5thTiger
Clinton/Bush
Party Like It's 1992
Party Like It's 1992
Posted on 4/14/15 at 1:59 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Please explain the difference. SSM seems pretty controversial as well. Both of them are opposed on 'religious' grounds.
One involves the question of when life begins and possible murder and the other involves letting gays get the same benefits of marriage that heterosexuals do. Strikes me as easy to differentiate.
quote:
The fact of the matter is that the gaystapo comprises an extremely small fraction of the population, around 4%. This vs a much, much larger percentage of conservative Christians
Not voting Dem anyway
quote:
blacks, and muslims
Not voting GOP anyway.
Opinion Poll on Gay Marriage over time from Gallop
The trend suggests it's a winning issue for the DNC. Furthermore, SSM has support from those 18-50 years old. It's the 51-super old that are still majority opposed. Even in the old category, you can see an increase of support toward SSM of about 25% over the past 18 years.
quote:
The argument that the DNC is doing more damage to themselves by pushing SSM is much stronger. The DNC is bleeding white blue collar support like a head wound. And their solution is to push an agenda from 4% of the voting population that goes against the values of that same voting block they are trying to get back?
It's an issue the majority of Americans agree with them on and the trend is also going toward more support of SSM. You argue this is damaging because it's causing the Dems to lose blue collar white folks? They've been losing them as organized labor has lost favor. You got something to support the notion they are going to the GOP because of SSM?
Posted on 4/14/15 at 2:13 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
The only thing holding a lot of people back is his last name.
The last name is incredibly toxic, no doubt. But even if his name were Jeb Smith, he's got a massive hurdle ahead of him because of his support for Common Core. Most parents and teachers that are saddled with this, absolutely hate it. My wife's a schoolteacher, and she wouldn't vote for him because of it.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News