It's still State politics. Republicans do fine on the State level, but lately on the national stage not so good. And also obviously there's a whole different set of backers and power brokers in a National election/primary. Many of you Republicans are underestimating the Bush money, backers, and the Bush political machine.
In 2012 Romney spiraled down about 1/2 dozen times. He still ended up the GOP nom. It's early.
I don't think that a Young Earth Creationist has any business with political power, let alone in the white house. If you are so out of touch with reality or so distrustful of facts that you think the world could be thousands instead of billions of years old, you can't be trusted with anything serious.
I put santorum on the No way I'd vote for him list though if the Hildabeast is the candidate I might.
I lean to Rubio as VP because he has a direct Hispanic face and American voters are like that--whether folks want to hear that or not.
However, I think Gov. Sandoval of NM would do a much better job as VP, has a much lengthier resume, and would bring along NV, NM, and CO.
Ii's easy to see Walker winning Iowa and Paul running a tie for 2nd.
NH is far different with an open primary--which I believe helps Paul the most.
If Bush was so sure of himself, I think he'd have announced already.
He's down to 10% in the winner-take-all Florida primary which will be a bloodbath .
Romney depended on the self-destruction of the conservative alternatives, something Jeb can't depend on.
Why? You don't think that some of Huckabee's or Santorum's or Graham's views on religion and religion in government(them being very much FOR it) will torpedo their campaigns? Or their far right views on social issues?
Jeb and Pataki are the moderates in the GOP field right now. And in spite what the Limbaugh's and Fox says the GOP establishment isn't stupid, they KNOW to win the White House their candidate needs to move to the center during the general election, and Jeb is the only one who can do that.
Richard Nixon once said: For a Republican to win the presidency he had to: "Run hard to the right in the primaries; steer back to the center for the general election."
again, no it isn't, any more than being liberal is/was a problem for Obama.
without scaring off the middle
And for the time he was correct. Now he would be wrong..........Being a moderate / centrist didn't work for Romney, it didn't work for McCain, and it won't work for Jeb.
Obama is NOT liberal. He's pretty middle of the road, hell on foreign policy he's probably to the right. I know nowadays it's a very popular conservative talking point to say Obama is a liberal, Muslim, socialist, communist.. But he's none of those
Yes, I agree. But IMO talking about religion, and them wanting more religion in the government, them attacking abortion, and nowadays the constant fight against gays(even polls show younger Republicans views have changed dramatically towards gays) is going to turn off, yes scare the middle. Most of the GOP candidates are still pandering to the older, white voters, their base. That's not the way to go anymore.
Again Romney DID NOT move to the center. He showed no balls at all, he moved to the right during the primaries and but he stayed there during the General Election. He let the far right part of the GOP manipulate him. He was a moderate, but he NEVER moved to the center. Just look how he flip flopped during the GE, espeically on social issues. IMO I think Jeb will have a set of balls, he'll move to the center, he won't let the far right pushed him around. IMO that's a big plus for him.
As for 2008 because of the economic collapse in August and September no Republican would have won in November. The voters were going to punish the party who was in the WH when the collapse happened, and that was the GOP.
Obama is indeed quite liberal, especially when you compare him to the leadership that he replaced in the Democrat Party, which was deliberately centrist in orientation. I have noticed that liberals sometimes tend to confuse "what he has been able to get accomplished" with "what he would like to have accomplished" when grading him ideologically.
Actually women and latino's are more likely to favor restricting abortion than whites and menAs for the "wanting more religion in government", that's a lefty talking point that appeals perhaps to other liberals/atheists who share it as an assumption rather than an actual description of their position. I haven't seen Rubio or Walker advocate for "more religion in government", but I'm betting you are using social conservatism as a proxy.
:shrug: sure, and his flops were part of the major reason why conservatives didn't really turn out for him. We knew he was a moderate. For that reason we will also not turn out for Jeb.
That's very likely as well.
Obama's not a liberal. Anyway the clown car continues. And please can someone tell these guys that OBAMA is NOT running in 2016. That's all any of these guys got. Criticize Obama. BTW Rick the glasses don't make you smarter.
Rick Perry, Shrugging Off 2012, Announces He Will Run Again for President
By MANNY FERNANDEZJUNE 4, 2015
ADDISON, Tex. — Rick Perry, the former Texas governor whose 2012 campaign for the White House turned into a political disaster that humbled and weakened the most powerful Republican in the state, announced Thursday that he will run for president again in 2016.
Mr. Perry is the latest candidate to officially enter a crowded field of Republican presidential contenders, declared and undeclared, several of whom have Texas ties and have overshadowed him in recent months, including Senator Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, Mr. Perry’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion.
“We will make it through the Obama years,” he told a cheering crowd at a small municipal airport here in Addison, a northern suburb of downtown Dallas. Saying “It’s time,” he declared, ”I am running for the presidency of the United States of America.”
cont..
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/rick-perry-republican-nomination-for-president.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Alright Obama isn't a liberal. Fine. Then don't call him a centrist or a moderate. He's not one of us.
One of Us? You're label says you're a Neoconservative? I wouldn't call him that either.
Neoconservatives were/are a moderate/centrist string of Democrats and Republicans.
NeoCons are moderate? John Bolton is a moderate?
We're going to have to disagree about that.
John Bolton isn't a neoconservative, but rather an ally of foreign policy neoconservatives.
Become more familiar with the history of neoconservatism, especially in terms of domestic policy. It's a centrist orientation and has been since 1965.
Bolton's not a neocon huh? I guess you can label anyone anything then. On this site alone every day a dozen conservatives will label Obama a communist appeaser, which would put him far to the left.. And another dozen conservatives will call him a him a fascist dictator, which will put him firmly on the right. Call Bolton whatever you want, be my guest.
Anyway there is NOTHING moderate about neocon foreign policy.. Even their economic policy is pretty far right.
But that's another topic for another thread.
John Bolton isn't a neoconservative, but rather an ally of foreign policy neoconservatives.
Become more familiar with the history of neoconservatism, especially in terms of domestic policy. It's a centrist orientation and has been since 1965.
SenorXm/Sirius said:Anyway there is NOTHING moderate about neocon foreign policy.. Even their economic policy is pretty far right.
Hey! Stop stealing my posts!
:lamo
I think he'll find it even more difficult in today's climate to get any traction since he's doesn't blindly toe the party line.
Is it a "disaster?" How many people are polling under him, because there are many candidates. Do they call those doing worse a "disaster"? I think even more because he won't toe the line, that his party and mainstream media are more willing to go after him and to paint him as a candidate without a chance. They have to, because if by some ridiculous miracle of sorts, he got the nomination; it wouldn't be good for the GOP. They'd have a candidate they couldn't control. That's not good for party power.
National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, calling the Paul campaign “a disaster.”.....snip~
Oh, kind of like how things are now with BO Peep, huh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?