What type of Republican do you think can win the presidency in 2016?

[Kandahar]

The GOP has now lost two presidential elections in a row, so I'm curious as to what kind of candidate you think it will take for them to win the White House in 2016. I'm not asking about specific candidates here, I'm talking about general attributes of a candidate.

I think that a relatively charismatic candidate with a George W. Bush-like domestic policy could still probably win elections for the GOP...pro-immigrant, "compassionate conservatism," generally moderate on economic policy, etc. If they can pair that kind of domestic policy with a less destructive foreign policy (e.g. George H.W. Bush's...or hell, even copy Barack Obama's), I think they'd be back in business.

 

[roflpublican]

1) back off on hatred of mexicans who are only coming here to flee a drug fueled civil war we caused in mexico with our insane drug policies/war on drugs, a drug fueled civil war which has now killed more people in mexico than soldiers we lost in the ~10 year long vietnam war.
2) come to terms with the fact that if the rich wont pay their taxes, neither will the rest of us.
3) get rush limbaugh, bill oreily, and glenn beck off the air. repeating liberals r satan over and over does not make it true, and it turns off moderates/independents who arent sure what satan is, but are pretty sure satan is not an example of the average democrat.

other than that, not sure.

 

[clownboy]

Actually, same candidate as the democrats, or the grens, or the libertarians need. Someone that has the ability to inspire the majority of the party and the nation enough that they will listen favorably to her/his ideas. That's a rare quality, even rarer because the smal pool of those folks cabn really do what they wish in life and aren't always interested in public office.

We've got to like them and trust them enough to find a way to get at least some significant promises to blossom.

 

[clownboy]

1) back off on hatred of mexicans who are only coming here to flee a drug fueled civil war we caused in mexico with our insane drug policies/war on drugs, a drug fueled civil war which has now killed more people in mexico than soldiers we lost in the ~10 year long vietnam war.

That's a liberal characterization that doesn't reflect actual reality. In fact many of the 12 million illegals here are from countries other than Mexico.

2) come to terms with the fact that if the rich wont pay their taxes, neither will the rest of us.

Most of you don't now, and those that do, account for a smaller percentage of the bill. Play with the figures all you like, the large majority of treasury receipts come from those evil corps and fat rich folk you have such a distorted view of.

3) get rush limbaugh, bill oreily, and glenn beck off the air.

other than that, not sure.

The dems tried that in a few ways over the years. What they found out is that, not just conservatives, but liberals as well, tune in to those fellows regularly. And they found out that liberals find the alternatives just as boring as conservatives do.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Someone new, young, fresh and not quite so old fashioned and stuffy.

Because let's face it - that's all that's been populating the republican side for like - ever.

Everyone over there has been around for ages.

 

[Anagram]

The GOP has now lost two presidential elections in a row, so I'm curious as to what kind of candidate you think it will take for them to win the White House in 2016. I'm not asking about specific candidates here, I'm talking about general attributes of a candidate.

I think that a relatively charismatic candidate with a George W. Bush-like domestic policy could still probably win elections for the GOP...pro-immigrant, "compassionate conservatism," generally moderate on economic policy, etc. If they can pair that kind of domestic policy with a less destructive foreign policy (e.g. George H.W. Bush's...or hell, even copy Barack Obama's), I think they'd be back in business.

I would say conservatives need a 2008 Barack Obama. I don't particularly care for his policies, but I think Obama's 2008 campaign was perhaps one of the best in the past 50 years. He was seen by a lot of people as someone almost above politics. He was supposed to lead us away from "politics as usual," and unite the divided country. Now obviously, he really hasn't done that, but I think that was his image as some type of transformational figure. To be honest, I think that is more important in who can win a campaign than any sort of policies so long as they aren't too far out of the mainstream.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I would say conservatives need a 2008 Barack Obama. I don't particularly care for his policies, but I think Obama's 2008 campaign was perhaps one of the best in the past 50 years. He was seen by a lot of people as someone almost above politics. He was supposed to lead us away from "politics as usual," and unite the divided country. Now obviously, he really hasn't done that, but I think that was his image as some type of transformational figure. To be honest, I think that is more important in who can win a campaign than any sort of policies so long as they aren't too far out of the mainstream.

Exactly - and that's the problem. Change to them is like water to Newcomer

 

[Einzige]

Actually, Republicans would in fact be better served by nominating a right-wing hardliner. It might reduce the odds of a Republican win, but it's unlikely the next President will serve two full terms (we'll have had a metastable six-term alternating Presidency by then, a historical anomaly) and it might be the one way they get their agenda through.

 

[roflpublican]

That's a liberal characterization that doesn't reflect actual reality. In fact many of the 12 million illegals here are from countries other than Mexico.



Most of you don't now, and those that do, account for a smaller percentage of the bill. Play with the figures all you like, the large majority of treasury receipts come from those evil corps and fat rich folk you have such a distorted view of.



The dems tried that in a few ways over the years. What they found out is that, not just conservatives, but liberals as well, tune in to those fellows regularly. And they found out that liberals find the alternatives just as boring as conservatives do.

that logic will win your primary, but not a general election.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Actually, Republicans would in fact be better served by nominating a right-wing hardliner. It might reduce the odds of a Republican win, but it's unlikely the next President will serve two full terms (we'll have had a metastable six-term alternating Presidency by then, a historical anomaly) and it might be the one way they get their agenda through.

LOL - no, that won't help the republicans out. LOL But it would help out your guy.

 

[Einzige]

LOL - no, that won't help the republicans out. LOL But it would help out your guy.

Here's my rationale:

I'm 99% certain that the next President, regardless of which Party he/she comes from, is going to be a one-termer. The reason? In 2016, we'll have had a period of alternating two-term control of the White House since 1992, and the odds of that pattern continuing become less tenable with every new election. If I'm right, then the Republicans would be best served by having a staunch conservative in the White House for four years, even at the risk of losing to a potential one-term Democrat, than a moderate.

 

[clownboy]

that logic will win your primary, but not a general election.

Not a factor, it's all in the presentation. Any presidential candidate will have to take more than a few positions that not everyone will agrees with.

 

[roflpublican]

Not a factor, it's all in the presentation. Any presidential candidate will have to take more than a few positions that not everyone will agrees with.

but the republicans need to come closer to the center. people are not buying the radical right ideology anymore on the national stage.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Here's my rationale:

I'm 99% certain that the next President, regardless of which Party he/she comes from, is going to be a one-termer. The reason? In 2016, we'll have had a period of alternating two-term control of the White House since 1992, and the odds of that pattern continuing become less tenable with every new election. If I'm right, then the Republicans would be best served by having a staunch conservative in the White House for four years, even at the risk of losing to a potential one-term Democrat, than a moderate.

There's no way in hell a staunch conservative is going to ever win an election - we're drifting away from that mindset in society.

 

[Anagram]

Here's my rationale:

I'm 99% certain that the next President, regardless of which Party he/she comes from, is going to be a one-termer. The reason? In 2016, we'll have had a period of alternating two-term control of the White House since 1992, and the odds of that pattern continuing become less tenable with every new election. If I'm right, then the Republicans would be best served by having a staunch conservative in the White House for four years, even at the risk of losing to a potential one-term Democrat, than a moderate.

The odds of the pattern continuing are the same every election. It's like when you flip a coin three times and each time it comes up heads, doesn't make it more likely the next one will come up tails. Elections have far more to do with the country's economic situations, the individual candidates, and our foreign entanglements than they have to do with any pattern.

 

[Einzige]

There's no way in hell a staunch conservative is going to ever win an election - we're drifting away from that mindset in society.

It's still just barely possible to piece together a 50.1% winning reactionary coalition. It wouldn't be fun to govern with, but I think it could be done. And, let's be frank, the Republican base isn't going to allow a conciliator to be nominated again.

 

[Kurmugeon]

None.


The level of voter fraud accepted in this election gives the Liberals a lock hold on all American Elections until the injustice and public disgust/mistrust result in a nationwide civil war.


America is finnished.

 

[clownboy]

but the republicans need to come closer to the center. people are not buying the radical right ideology anymore on the national stage.

You're standing to close to the party loudspeaker.

 

[roflpublican]

You're standing to close to the party loudspeaker.

that's nice, but it doesnt change reality. the republicans are farther from the center than the democrats, and that's why they've now lost the presidency for another 4 years. but feel free to consider me some kind of democrat talking head, that amuses me, and probably amuses the some democrats on this forum i've torn into quite a few times as well.

 

[Dwight]

And, let's be frank, the Republican base isn't going to allow a conciliator to be nominated again.

Could the GOP Primaries possibly be as much, or more a circus in 2016? They might be partially spared some of the destructive attention by distraction from the Democrats also having a primary in 2016, but how does a candidate with a tenuous chance at winning the general make it through that kind of meat grinder in tact enough?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

None.


The level of voter fraud accepted in this election gives the Liberals a lock hold on all American Elections until the injustice and public disgust/mistrust result in a nationwide civil war.


America is finnished.

Awe Kurmugeon you're such a curmudgeon.

 

[Einzige]

Could the GOP Primaries possibly be as much, or more a circus in 2016? They might be partially spared some of the destructive attention by distraction from the Democrats also having a primary in 2016, but how does a candidate with a tenuous chance at winning the general make it through that kind of meat grinder in tact enough?

Absolutely. The only difference is that I don't think you'll have as many obvious joke candidates like Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain. The majority of candidates will be hardliners, but they'll probably have learned enough from the last two cycles to at least be presentable.

 

[shiang]

The GOP has now lost two presidential elections in a row, so I'm curious as to what kind of candidate you think it will take for them to win the White House in 2016. I'm not asking about specific candidates here, I'm talking about general attributes of a candidate.

I think that a relatively charismatic candidate with a George W. Bush-like domestic policy could still probably win elections for the GOP...pro-immigrant, "compassionate conservatism," generally moderate on economic policy, etc. If they can pair that kind of domestic policy with a less destructive foreign policy (e.g. George H.W. Bush's...or hell, even copy Barack Obama's), I think they'd be back in business.

Someone some what likable and doesn't say things like

"47% of Americans are leeches"

or

"self deportation"

More importantly someone with real new/good ideas, not just Bush policies with icing on top.

Someone that can lead, can reason for themselves, and doesn't crumble to the pressures of his party and constituents.

Someone that can stand on their own without having to lean on Reagan's Tom Stone.

I thought Romney's record as Governor was moderate/middle conservative, yet he tries to come off as a super conservative even in the general election. Don't ask me why, I don't have a clue.

 

[clownboy]

that's nice, but it doesnt change reality. the republicans are farther from the center than the democrats, and that's why they've now lost the presidency for another 4 years. but feel free to consider me some kind of democrat talking head, that amuses me, and probably amuses the other democrats on this forum i've torn into quite a few times as well.

Whether or not your a democrat or agree with them on other issues, you've bought their BS about the republicans. The nation is right of center and that wasn't as much a factor this time as the economy. That's why the incumbant won.

 

[clownboy]

Back to the thread topic: look for Mia Love and Marco Rubio and even Paul Ryan to be on the fast track for 2016 grooming.