[RD] The Republican nomination

onejayhawk

Afflicted with reason
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
13,706
Location
next to George Bush's parents
Contrasting the Democrats, the GOP race is wide open. Unlike most elections, few of the potential candidates have fallen off in the endorsement stakes. The primary exception is 2012 candidate Mitch Romney. There is a certain symmetry that he is broke so early.

Part of the problem is that there is no establishment candidate. The closest at Governor's Christie and Bush. Both are moderates, though many in this forum would say otherwise. Bush's family name has been greatly rehabilitated by President Obama. UVa currently rates Bush 1st tier and Christie 2nd tier.
https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/84259515.jpg?w=773

The other first tier occupant is Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin. He has survived three election in quick succession, which makes him the seasoned campaigner of the entire race--excepting Bill Clinton. He is not a moderate. If elected fireworks could be expected. He has easily enough backing to make that happen.

The others in the picture are on the proverbial shoestring. Sen Rand Paul of Kentucky is more mainstream than his iconic father, but not much better funded. Still, his seat is safe, so he can run as much as he wishes. Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are the Republican party's Latin connection. Both are outstanding stump speakers and are unafraid to go against the party on occasion. Rubio has more name recognition and rates a tier up. Cruz is more his own man, to the point he alienates potential allies.

The final player in the big names is surgeon Ben Carson. He is (obviously) black and very conservative. He has no experience in politics and tends to show it at awkward moments. All that said, he is no one's token candidate. He is very good on camera, a credible critic of ACA and much loved by the Tea Party.

Other names include former candidates Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. All are longshots. The true token candidate (female) is Carly Fiorina. The whole list of names is another page.

J
 
I wonder who will be mentioned the most in GOP debates - Obama, Clinton, or Reagan.

The important question is which should be mentioned more? RR is a standard to aspire. Clinton is an oppnent and/or a bad standard to avoid. Obama is the cautionary tale.

J
 
The important question is which should be mentioned more? RR is a standard to aspire. Clinton is an oppnent and/or a bad standard to avoid. Obama is the cautionary tale.

J

GWBush is the name that the voters need to be hypnotized into forgetting entirely for the Republicans to have any shot at all.
 
Berzerker:
onejayhawk:
Bush's family name has been greatly rehabilitated by President Obama.
really?

would you like to revisit the last couple years of the Bush adm or his 1st year?

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's referring to the Bush family reputation amongst Republican primary voters (where tea party sympathisers are much more significant) instead of voters in the general.
 
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's referring to the Bush family reputation amongst Republican primary voters (where tea party sympathisers are much more significant) instead of voters in the general.

Thats true, albeit the Tea Party aint exactly enamored with the Bush crowd and their neo-con establishment backers.
 
The important question is which should be mentioned more? RR is a standard to aspire. Clinton is an oppnent and/or a bad standard to avoid. Obama is the cautionary tale.

J

The myths for sure. When you look at what Reagan and Obama actually did while in office, Obama falls closer to what the current batch of Republicans are aspiring to than Reagan.
 
The problem here is that in order to win the Republican nomination the candidate is going to have to alienate the middle 3rd of general election voters. We know that there's a group on the right who will, if they come out to vote, always vote for the Republican. And we know that there's a group on the left that, if they come out to vote, will always vote Democratic. Assuming there's no 3rd party candidate, at any rate. So it's the middle 3rd or so who actually, if they vote, elect the president.

But the Republicans have moved so very far from that middle 3rd that they can't connect with them at all. And the rhetoric of Republican primary battles is all about being as repugnant as possible to the center as they possibly can. So after a year of doing everything in their power to make sure the center has no reason to vote for them at all, they then have to switch gears and appeal to that center in a way which doesn't leave their base sitting at home. It's likely to be an impossible task.
 
I think Walker will falter in the GOP debates as he will be the one most likely trying to please the far right and the centrists, thus alienating them both.
 
I think Walker will falter in the GOP debates as he will be the one most likely trying to please the far right and the centrists, thus alienating them both.

I don't think so. I think his plan is just to suck up to the far right. I mean, look at what he's done so far as governor.
 
Every candidate in the republican primaries will suck up to the far right. None will say 'middle east nation building is a demonstrably stupid foreign policy and the fact that the GOP continues to espouse it is borderline criminal and absolutely insane'. None will say 'our economic policies brought the world to the brink of disaster in 2008 so we should adopt policies more like the ones that have brought us back from that brink instead of pretending that never happened and promising to do the same thing again'. So they will 'debate' without ever discussing the policies they all agree on, which are the ones that will get them creamed in the general election. None of them will make any of the others bring up the real republican positions that they share because they all know those positions are rock solid losers. So the 'debates' will revolve around who can make snarky comments about marital fidelity or secret slush funds, or illegitimate mixed race children, and tar their brethren the most effectively.
 
The myths for sure. When you look at what Reagan and Obama actually did while in office, Obama falls closer to what the current batch of Republicans are aspiring to than Reagan.

In what way?

The withdrawl from Iraq could not ahve been more different than RR. ACA and the thought process behind itcould not be more different. The recent book of regulaions on the internet could be more different. The parallels I see are between Barak Obama and Congress in that period.

I don't think so. I think his plan is just to suck up to the far right. I mean, look at what he's done so far as governor.

I think it is simpler still. I think Walker is a true believer.

J
 
Reagan cut and ran from Beirut in the face or terrorism. Obama has killed terrorists.

Reagan raised taxes in 7 out of 8 years, Obama has not.

OMG :lol:

OK. You were not serious. Got that now.

So are you saying the GOP candidates want to cut and run from terrorists and want to raise taxes? Like I said, when they invoke Reagan, it will be the myth.

Enough. This is an RD thread.

J
 
So are you saying the GOP candidates want to cut and run from terrorists and want to raise taxes? Like I said, when they invoke Reagan, it will be the myth.
 
OMG :lol:

OK. You were not serious. Got that now.



Enough. This is an RD thread.

J


The point is, he was serious. he made factually accurate statements. Reagan would not have gone into Iraq at all. He was only willing to do quick strikes, not open troop commitments.
 
You don't get to invoke RD status just to shut up someone who is disagreeing with you. JR may not agree with you but he ain't trolling you either.
 
Top Bottom