Yorktown (237 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026435059
Are Republicans sure to lose in 2016?
There are not many Democratic candidates, and none seems to carry an unsurmountable bagage.
Not so for Republicans. The choice seems to be between:
- Bush IIIrd, and I think the dynastic effect would be a bit to rich in a modern democracy, or
- one of the other candidates using too extreme religiousness (some Ted Cruz quotes already are weird)
Any views of the inherent dynastic/extreme religiosity GOP weakness?
pscot (18,774 posts)
2. I think they're likely to win
FoxNewsSucks (347 posts)
13. I don't know that I'd use the word "win", since that word implies fairness and legitimacy.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if a filthy republicon somehow weasels its way into the White House.
geek tragedy (44,542 posts)
30. The key question for me is getting the Obama coalition out to vote in 2016. Will PoC vote in the same numbers as they did in 2012? Will voter ID work at keeping them home? Have they grown fatigued over a messy political system where progress is only seen in the rear view mirror?
TM99 (2,022 posts)
7. It does not matter who the GOP runs they have the momentum to win at this point.
Only Democrats in denial would believe otherwise given the take over of the Senate and a stronger majority in the House by the GOP in 2014. Not to mention, they also took more governorships and state legislatures are now overwhelmingly in GOP control.
geek tragedy (44,542 posts)
29. The worry is that blacks and Latinos don't turn out in the numbers they did for Obama. Clinton will capture a similar percentage of them, but will she get enough of them out to vote? Right now I see her having a better chance of doing that than O'Malley or Bernie Sanders.
DemocratSinceBirth (50,619 posts)
31. I believe she will outperform President Obama slightly among whites and Latinos and underperform him slightly among African Americans.
CK_John (7,624 posts)
16. I fear we have to go with the full wave of the GOP train wreak until 2024. The voters need to get the government they deserve.
bowens43 (15,265 posts)
37. Most likely they will win. That's the direction the country is going. we are a country of religious nut jobs and bigots. If a candidate yells about how much he loves jesus and how much he hates gays, liberals and Hispanics he will win. extreme religiousness a negative?? You got to be kidding. That alone may be enough to get a nut job in the whitehouse
Agnosticsherbet (4,290 posts)
59. From a historical POV, the Republicans have an advantage.
Since 1838, the Democratic party managed to elect another Democrat only twice after a Democrats served two terms, Van Buren succeeded Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded himself.
For whatever reason the people seem reluctant to give parties a third term, and that amounts to an advantage to Republicans.
So, no, I do not think Republicans are sure to lose.
They will nominate a candidate that we will be told appeals to the center, whether this is Bush or Walker is irrelevant. Extremists like Cruz have no real chance. Republicans like them, but the nominee is almost always someone the Republicans think appeals to the center.
FoxNewsSucks (347 posts)
13. I don't know that I'd use the word "win", since that word implies fairness and legitimacy.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if a filthy republicon somehow weasels its way into the White House.
CK_John (7,624 posts)
16. I fear we have to go with the full wave of the GOP train wreak until 2024. The voters need to get the government they deserve.
DemocratSinceBirth (50,619 posts)
31. I believe she will outperform President Obama slightly among whites and Latinos and underperform him slightly among African Americans.
CK_John (7,624 posts)
16. I fear we have to go with the full wave of the GOP train wreak until 2024. The voters need to get the government they deserve.
TM99 (2,022 posts)
7. It does not matter who the GOP runs they have the momentum to win at this point.
Only Democrats in denial would believe otherwise given the take over of the Senate and a stronger majority in the House by the GOP in 2014. Not to mention, they also took more governorships and state legislatures are now overwhelmingly in GOP control.
My gut tells me that the democrats win it all. They take back the senate for sure and will keep the presidency. If they don't win the HOR it will be razor close.
Now this has nothing to do with the democrats but all to do with the way the GOP elite have shit on their base. After 38 years as a republican, I change my registration about a month ago. Romney and the GOPe managed to make almost 5 million conservatives stay home in 2012. They are working on 10 million now.
My gut tells me that the democrats win it all. They take back the senate for sure and will keep the presidency. If they don't win the HOR it will be razor close.
Now this has nothing to do with the democrats but all to do with the way the GOP elite have shit on their base. After 38 years as a republican, I change my registration about a month ago. Romney and the GOPe managed to make almost 5 million conservatives stay home in 2012. They are working on 10 million now.
ck to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #15)
Sun Mar 29, 2015, 10:19 PM
1StrongBlackMan (18,426 posts)
24. True ...
But we have the gop lunacy working in our favor!
Cruz?
Bush has a lot of baggage.
Walker won't stand up to scrutiny of his record.
My gut tells me that the democrats win it all. They take back the senate for sure and will keep the presidency. If they don't win the HOR it will be razor close.And how's that working out for you?
Now this has nothing to do with the democrats but all to do with the way the GOP elite have shit on their base. After 38 years as a republican, I change my registration about a month ago. Romney and the GOPe managed to make almost 5 million conservatives stay home in 2012. They are working on 10 million now.
I think it will be exactly the opposite. I think that Obama will have ****ed up things in general so badly, that the moderates will see whoever the Dems put up--Hillary or Martin O'Malley or whoever they choose--as a continuation of the policies that he used to royally screw the USA. I think that the Republicans keep the Senate by a razor-thin margin and keep the HOR, and win the Presidency. The elections of 2018 will see the Dems putting up some 20-odd Senators for reelection, just as they had this time around. If President Walker gets his razor-thin majority and repeals Obamacare, expect the economy to start to take off . . . and leave the Dems showing their collective asses in the 2018 midterms.
And how's that working out for you?Romney was no Reagan, for sure, but he would have been a great administrator, and he would have slowed the decline.
- We have a tidal wave of undocumented Democrats pouring over the border.
We have an historic "framework, which will most likely lead to WWIII--which will be nuclear.
Jughead is ignoring the millions of people who turned out in droves to reject his agenda, and instead announced that he has heard the voices of those who couldn't be bothered to get off their azzes to vote.
Lowest ever percentage of people participating in the job market.
Highest ever percentage of deadbeats on Food Stamps.
Obamacare (which Romney promised to repeal on Day One.
Hundreds of judges appointed who will prolong the agony of the Obama agenda for decades.
Etc., etc., etc.
Obama thanks you for sitting out 2012.
:-(
Slowing the decline is like reducing the deficit. It's driving off the same cliff at 75 mph instead of 100 mph. Romney's history as MA's governor, the best indicator of his potential performance as President, didn't inspire confidence that he would stop the runaway jalopy.My candidate of choice right now is Scott Walker, but I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, including Chris Christie. There is too much at stake to allow another four or (shudder) eight years of out-of-control socialism and Alinsky tactics.(https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/cliff-gif.gif?w=635)
Graphic representation of a Romney presidency. Note the good hair.
And in the debates, he let himself get buffaloed by Obama and Candy Crowley. Who would have thought that the debate moderator would have colluded with one of the candidates to throw the debate. I saw it, and I was appalled.If those two could trip him up, the world's heavy hitters would have knocked him down and taken his lunch money.Kind of like what the mullahs did with Jughead? Romney would have done no worse. I can pretty much guarantee that if Iran had pulled some of this crap with Romney--like attacking a mock-up of an American ship, or declaring that wiping Israel off the map was non-negotiable, the "negotiations" would have been over in that moment.
Memo to Republican Party: Stop pretending to be the party of smaller government, then nominating soft-bellied big government progressives- or be prepared for President (insert any Dim name here).
My candidate of choice right now is Scott Walker, but I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, including Chris Christie. There is too much at stake to allow another four or (shudder) eight years of out-of-control socialism and Alinsky tactics.
To vote for any of the above is incredibly short sighted. if somebody is nominated that doesn't share and plan to implement small government policies that I believe in, then they've already lost my vote long before election day. Unfortunately, that happened in the last election.I know a guy--an outspoken staunchly pro-life conservative--who sat out the 2008 election. Wouldn't vote for McCain because he supported stem cell research. The guy felt he was responsible to God for his vote, and it had to be, in his own words, "all or nothing." So, he voted for nothing, and felt sanctimonious and self-righteous about it.
First, I voted for anybody but King Barky the Liar of Fecal Touch.I agree with you. I am deeply, deeply disappointed in McConnell.
Second, would a more conservative candidate or...OR just one that would attack Obama like ROmney did in the primaries have won? Yes I think so.
Third, 2014 was a very low turnout election and those that turned out overwhelmingly voted to STOP OBAMA.
Fourth, The GOPe gave everything to Obama that he wanted and then some.
I'm not a battered wife. I leave. **** the GOP, they are dead to me after the Cochran thing of reaching out to black donks with racism. Then, THEN they give 105% of what the democrats want. Please point out the difference that "the OMG if we get the senate things will so change" of McTurtle versus Reid? Just one? It sure ain't putting another straight up black racist as AG. That is sailing through. Oh Maybe it's illegal amnesty? NOPE. Wait I know having individual funding bills and not omnibus spending bills? NO. Not one damn thing has changed. NOT ONE.
I'll vote but my vote means jack shit in the primaries. Donations to the RNC dried up in 2012. Went to candidates that the RNC works hard to stop.
Again and in the strongest of terms **** THE GOP!
I know a guy--an outspoken staunchly pro-life conservative--who sat out the 2008 election. Wouldn't vote for McCain because he supported stem cell research. The guy felt he was responsible to God for his vote, and it had to be, in his own words, "all or nothing." So, he voted for nothing, and felt sanctimonious and self-righteous about it.
Meanwhile, on the other side, we had a guy who voted "present" for his entire time in the Illinois legislature--until he felt the right to unfettered abortion was on the line. He even voted for infanticide (!!!!!) because he felt the bill in question posed a threat to Roe v. Wade.
So, I did what I could to stop the Obama agenda. And the guy I knew didn't. His non-vote (and the millions of others who also didn't vote) are responsible for a whole lot of crap that isn't on MY conscience.
That guy saw the light and didn't sit out 2012. Too bad so many others didn't.
I know a guy--an outspoken staunchly pro-life conservative--who sat out the 2008 election. Wouldn't vote for McCain because he supported stem cell research. The guy felt he was responsible to God for his vote, and it had to be, in his own words, "all or nothing." So, he voted for nothing, and felt sanctimonious and self-righteous about it.So to your single issue friend, they were one in the same? good for the friend to realize that they were two sides of the same corrupt coin. I didn't sit out, I didn't throw away my vote. I voted for Gary Johnson, the candidate that represented the absolute best combination of my values. His platform was more in line with conservative values than Romney by a long shot. Defense votes only delay the inevitable. I know I post this often, but it bears repeating:
Meanwhile, on the other side, we had a guy who voted "present" for his entire time in the Illinois legislature--until he felt the right to unfettered abortion was on the line. He even voted for infanticide (!!!!!) because he felt the bill in question posed a threat to Roe v. Wade.
So, I did what I could to stop the Obama agenda. And the guy I knew didn't. His non-vote (and the millions of others who also didn't vote) are responsible for a whole lot of crap that isn't on MY conscience.
That guy saw the light and didn't sit out 2012. Too bad so many others didn't.
What ever happened to Gary Hart anyway ?
Emperor Putmos appointed him Special Envoy to Northern Ireland. Basically, a taxpayer-funded vacation house on
the Irish Sea, and all the Irish redheads he can eat.
So to your single issue friend, they were one in the same? good for the friend to realize that they were two sides of the same corrupt coin. I didn't sit out, I didn't throw away my vote. I voted for Gary Johnson, the candidate that represented the absolute best combination of my values. His platform was more in line with conservative values than Romney by a long shot. Defense votes only delay the inevitable. I know I post this often, but it bears repeating:No, they clearly weren't one and the same. Do you think Jughead will ever appoint a judge who doesn't believe in the right to abort right up to the last push? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? That was close, but do you think McCain would have appointed Sotomeyer and the other one? (Can't think of her name right now . . .) There were promises made to pro-life Dems to get their votes on Obamacare, but Jughead must have had his fingers crossed, because now even the Little Sisters of the Poor have to pay for "services" that violate their own consciences.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAyr0kWRGE[/youtube]
I feel there is a time and place for ideological purity, and that's in the primaries. When it comes to the general election, the thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
The Senate has moved bills forward that have forced Jughead to openly defy the electorate, which Reid protected him from.
[/li][/list]
No, they clearly weren't one and the same. Do you think Jughead will ever appoint a judge who doesn't believe in the right to abort right up to the last push? How about the Hobby Lobby decision? That was close, but do you think McCain would have appointed Sotomeyer and the other one? (Can't think of her name right now . . .) There were promises made to pro-life Dems to get their votes on Obamacare, but Jughead must have had his fingers crossed, because now even the Little Sisters of the Poor have to pay for "services" that violate their own consciences.
I'm glad you didn't sit out the election, but I feel there is a time and place for ideological purity, and that's in the primaries. When it comes to the general election, the thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
o you think Jughead will ever appoint a judge who doesn't believe in the right to abort right up to the last push?