• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Talks Raise Pressure on John Boehner

L

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
68,248
Reaction score
25,300
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Instead of raising the pressure, I think the Senate talks are taking a lot of pressure off of the Speaker.

There are enough Republicans that would feel this was a good compromise to give them time to negotiate spending cuts and debt reduction.

We'll see.
 

unless the republicans come up with an ideal candidate, they aren't going to win in 2016. the electoral politics or map if you will is too one sided. the way I see it, if I combine the solid and likely Democratic states who ever is the Democratic candidate will start out with 262 EV, just 8 shy of winning. The Republican solid/likely states are at 191. Those undecided are NV, NH, OH, VA, NC and FL. Sure does look like a repeat of 2012 or maybe 2008. To win the presidency the GOP would have to win all those states except NH which may be the most doable.

But the right candidate changes things. Say a Christie who could move NJ from Dem column into the Rep column and a VP of, let's say Susan Martinez of NM, that changes the whole dynamic. now the Dem lead is 243 to 210 if those two can carry their home states. Martinez might even help the republicans out in Colorado and Florida. If so that would put the GOP in the lead 248 to 234. Take Ohio and NH and you have a Republican president.

But both of us know better, the republicans will not nominate the ideal candidates.
 
Christie is far and away the most electable Republican..I could vote for him..Martinez would be a great help, a female governor with brains, accomplishments, location, a great story, and though people won't like this--her surname..
 
NIMBY said:
people won't like this--her surname..
Click to expand...

Really? Because, I like Cruz' surname. Surname has nothing to do with it. Getting this government monster under control has everything to do with it. Will the monster scream and yell when Cruz puts a leash on it? You bet. Will Obama and the media whine and complain that they can't steal more of your liberty? You know they will. We aren't seeking minimum crying, we're seeking to put this monster back in it's cage. Government is like a spoiled pit bull, menacing every passer-by. Taxing us till we work for them more than ourselves, making us buy things, pushing us around, spying on us, attacking those of us on Obama's "enemies list." Government is a menace and getting worse. There's bound to be a lot of barking and growling as Cruz trains the menace to stop threatening people.

.
 
Omg..
 
NIMBY said:
Christie is far and away the most electable Republican..I could vote for him..Martinez would be a great help, a female governor with brains, accomplishments, location, a great story, and though people won't like this--her surname..
Click to expand...

If I was a Republican and wanted to win in 2016 I would choose someone like the pair I mentioned especially facing an electoral map that is in the Democrat's favor. But I do not think Christie can win in the primaries and they, the GOP will come up with someone who only appeals to its base and not indies. I suppose the question is, do they want to win or do they just want an ideology pure candidate. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…