Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Republican Realist? Who will beat Clinton?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Republican Realist? Who will beat Clinton?

    I haven't visited T-Web for a while. I really miss being able to talk to people who lean conservative, but are able to articulate their arguments in a concise, coherent manner. So let me have it T-webbers,


    Who will beat Clinton? The Republican group of challengers this time is quite large. I will list some of the most prominent ones along with a very brief reason of why I don't think they'll be able to win. (In no particular order)

    1. Jeb Bush. I think he is the "establishment" candidate who has the best chance of beating her. Both candidates have a lot of political baggage, and most of it is based on their family, not on their actual options. Clinton has a host of prior issues/scandals, but things like Benghazi, e-mails, her husband's infidelity, her "it's my turn mantra" appear to be more red meat to motivate the base, and won't convince border-line voters.


    2. Scott Walker. His anti-union credentials may play well with the base, but it will motivate unions and other interest groups. Plus, as his recent foreign policy missteps show that he's more of a Rick Santorum/ Rick Perry hybrid. He's probably the favorite of the social conservatives, but will probably lose to Bush for the same reasons as those two. (IOW, he can't even make it to Clinton)


    3. Marco Rubio. It's stupid, but I don't think he'll ever live down his SOTU response when he looked really thirsty. He just did not "look" presidential. That's not the main reason he'd lose. I doubt a Hispanic person could win the nomination right now. He's also more of a war hawk in recent times. This puts him at odds with people who would vote for Rand Paul, for example.


    4. Rand Paul. As much as I disagree with him, he actually seems to be the candidate that's willing to work with Democrats at least on some social issues, as well as sharing some foreign policy agreements. While this would be good for him as a president, it really hurts his chances of getting a nomination. I think he will do much better than his father, but ultimately will lose the nomination.

    5. Chris Christie - Bridgegate. For better or worse, this pretty much killed his future as a viable presidential candidate.

    6. Others - Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Santorum, Ben Carson, Sara Palin. This group would at most, at this time, be also-rans, and I don't think anyone at this point would take their bids seriously. Of this group, Rick Perry may be able to make a bounce back, but I think it would be a long shot.




    Two other reasons have very little to do with Hilary Clinton and more to do with the electoral trends.

    1. Demographic Shift. Until President Obama, for the most part, all a candidate needed to do to win was to win the male white vote. Now, with Romney loosing almost 75% of the Hispanic vote, it is absolutely necessary for candidates to win or at least come even with minority votes.

    2. This is the even bigger reason. Since 1992, 18 states, plus DC, have been Blue. That's 242 ECV. 14 have gone red, for a total of 102 votes. Hilary Clinton would only need to win Florida, for example to win the presidency. Even if Republicans managed to steal Pennsylvania, for example, they would still have much more difficult path to the 272 ECVs needed to win.

    It was therefore, no surprise why President Obama was able to win re-election.

    I'd say that barring an economic collapse or foreign policy complete blunder (another 9/11, for example), it's highly unlikely that Republicans will win the presidency. I predict they will hold the House, but lose the Presidency and the Senate.

    One good point of contention for Republicans: The Democratic field this time is very, very shallow. If anything happens to Clinton, if she makes a major blunder, then they have virtually no-one else to take her place. If she goes thru the Primary virtually unchallenged, while this will help with her fund-raising, for all her political experience, she will be facing her first real campaign in 8 years. She will be liable to make big mistakes.


    Best of luck to you all, but I'd say the odds weren't in your favor,

    Cheers,

    Nick

  • #2
    Your analysis is completely unbiased and objective. (Yeah, sarcasm.)

    With Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the running, we're already looking at a very different campaign season. These guys aren't going to sit back like Romney and McCain and let the left walk all over them. For that matter, Paul and Cruz have already been noted for pushing back when reporters attempt to craft "gotcha" questions, much to the chagrin of the left.

    And you say that Hillary is only one blunder away from being knocked out of the race? You mean in addition to her constant blunders as Sectary of State? Anybody who has paid attention to politics for the past decade knows that Hillary is already damaged goods, but she's counting on low-information morons to push her to victory.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by nickcopernicus View Post
      Clinton has a host of prior issues/scandals, but things like Benghazi, e-mails, her husband's infidelity, her "it's my turn mantra" appear to be more red meat to motivate the base, and won't convince border-line voters.
      This is very true. I suspect this could be a big problem for Republicans, as some of them seem determined to hammer Clinton on issues that us swing voters don't care about. Waste too much time on those, rather than issues that we want to hear about, and Clinton could gain sympathy.

      Unless the Republicans can come up with a good candidate and some strong positions that I like on the issues I care about, I'll probably vote for Clinton, assuming she's nominated. However, if Clinton doesn't get nominated, then things get thrown up in the air. I don't see a strong Democrat alternative to her yet.


      Jeb Bush looks promising to me so far. I want to see how he performs in the debates. As a successful governor, he has strong qualifications.

      Scott Walker doesn't look as promising. He's failing to catch my interest so far.

      Chris Christie could be a fun candidate. I like his candor. Of course, his candor can get give him problems at times.

      I admire Rand Paul's determination to balance the budget. The budget deficit and debt are right around the top of my list of issues. If I thought his approach to balancing the budget was rational, I'd strongly consider voting for him.

      Marco Rubio is another guy I really want to see in the debates. Even though I've seen his comments now and then in the news, I have a hard time getting a handle on his political approach.
      Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

      Comment


      • #4
        I see this as a three man race between Bush, Walker, and Paul... in that order of likelihood.

        I do not regard Cruz as a serious candidate at all (I know he's serious, but I mean I don't think he has any chance of winning the nomination), and even one Republican operative I'm acquainted with has admitted as much.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #5
          Clinton v. Bush. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
          George Bernard Shaw

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Your analysis is completely unbiased and objective. (Yeah, sarcasm.)
            Nick:
            Good to see you're still around. Indeed, it's been years. Could it be the case that you're actually a "man" now?

            With Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the running, we're already looking at a very different campaign season. These guys aren't going to sit back like Romney and McCain and let the left walk all over them. For that matter, Paul and Cruz have already been noted for pushing back when reporters attempt to craft "gotcha" questions, much to the chagrin of the left.
            And you say that Hillary is only one blunder away from being knocked out of the race? You mean in addition to her constant blunders as Sectary of State? Anybody who has paid attention to politics for the past decade knows that Hillary is already damaged goods, but she's counting on low-information morons to push her to victory.
            Nick:
            Sorry bro, but it doesn't matter what you think of Clinton's failures, perceived or imagined, as Secretary of State, the numbers aren't in the Republican's favor. Stuff like Benghazi and e-mail scandals might motivate some of the base, but it won't hurt her much just like it did not hurt Obama, see?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
              This is very true. I suspect this could be a big problem for Republicans, as some of them seem determined to hammer Clinton on issues that us swing voters don't care about. Waste too much time on those, rather than issues that we want to hear about, and Clinton could gain sympathy.

              Unless the Republicans can come up with a good candidate and some strong positions that I like on the issues I care about, I'll probably vote for Clinton, assuming she's nominated. However, if Clinton doesn't get nominated, then things get thrown up in the air. I don't see a strong Democrat alternative to her yet.


              Jeb Bush looks promising to me so far. I want to see how he performs in the debates. As a successful governor, he has strong qualifications.

              Scott Walker doesn't look as promising. He's failing to catch my interest so far.

              Chris Christie could be a fun candidate. I like his candor. Of course, his candor can get give him problems at times.

              I admire Rand Paul's determination to balance the budget. The budget deficit and debt are right around the top of my list of issues. If I thought his approach to balancing the budget was rational, I'd strongly consider voting for him.

              Marco Rubio is another guy I really want to see in the debates. Even though I've seen his comments now and then in the news, I have a hard time getting a handle on his political approach.
              Nick
              I honestly forgot about Raphael Cruz. He reminds me of Palin, only a lot smarter. I don't think he's going anywhere. Maybe he's fishing for a job as Secretary General. Either way, he’s almost completely unelectable. He has almost as few friends among Republicans as he has among Democrats.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                Clinton v. Bush. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
                Nick:
                I suspect the outcome will be similar to the first time the Clinton's went against the Bushes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nickcopernicus View Post
                  I honestly forgot about Raphael Cruz. He reminds me of Palin, only a lot smarter. I don't think he's going anywhere. Maybe he's fishing for a job as Secretary General. Either way, hes almost completely unelectable. He has almost as few friends among Republicans as he has among Democrats.
                  If Paul wasn't running, I think Cruz might get enough of the Tea Party vote to be a threat in the Republican nomination, but only if the moderate vote got badly split between multiple candidates. Paul will Siphon away his support. Cruz willl provide some entertainment during the debates, but his campaign was completely doomed before it started, and he wouldn't have a remote chance against any likely Democrat candidate that I can think of.
                  Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nickcopernicus View Post
                    Nick:
                    Sorry bro, but it doesn't matter what you think of Clinton's failures, perceived or imagined, as Secretary of State, the numbers aren't in the Republican's favor. Stuff like Benghazi and e-mail scandals might motivate some of the base, but it won't hurt her much just like it did not hurt Obama, see?
                    Like I said, Hillary is counting on low-information morons to propel her to victory.

                    Republicans need a strong, conservative candidate to win. You look at the last 5 presidential elections in which we've fielded "moderate" candidates and the GOP hasn't fared particularly well: Dole got soundly defeated by Bill Clinton; George Bush barely won his two elections; McCain and Romney were both kicked to the curb by Obama. The last time Republicans had a commanding presidential victory was when Reagan was running for office.

                    More simply (because I know you prefer simple explanations), you don't win presidential elections by appealing to "moderates", you win by appealing to your base.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      More simply (because I know you prefer simple explanations), you don't win presidential elections by appealing to "moderates", you win by appealing to your base.
                      You win nominations by appealing to your base. Folks like McCain, Romney, and others did their best to look conservative for the base during their nominations. Unless you have a lot of charisma and/or swing to moderate positions during the general election, you're going to have a rough time winning. Reagan, like Bill Clinton, had a huge amount of charisma. Charisma can be a great trump card during an election. I don't see it playing much of a factor so far, but the debates haven't started yet.

                      If you think a candidate can win the general election with just the conservative vote, well, good luck with that.
                      Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's possible that beating her may not be that difficult, given that the media doesn't seem to want to go the kid-gloves route this time:



                        3.jpg
                        1.jpg
                        2.jpg

                        Nice to see David Lynch still has regular employment opportunities in this market.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Like I said, Hillary is counting on low-information morons to propel her to victory.

                          Republicans need a strong, conservative candidate to win. You look at the last 5 presidential elections in which we've fielded "moderate" candidates and the GOP hasn't fared particularly well: Dole got soundly defeated by Bill Clinton; George Bush barely won his two elections; McCain and Romney were both kicked to the curb by Obama. The last time Republicans had a commanding presidential victory was when Reagan was running for office.

                          More simply (because I know you prefer simple explanations), you don't win presidential elections by appealing to "moderates", you win by appealing to your base.
                          Nick:
                          If your mindset is a representative of a majority of Republicans, then you all are going to have a bad time. As Conservatives, you all consistently look at the past instead of evaluating the present or future. That's not some inane talking point. That's reality. The things that got Reagan elected simply won't work this time around. Mitt Romney got the majority of the male white voters too. He did not win.

                          IRRC, In Reagan's re-election, he won the state of California. Do you honestly believe that a very conservative candidate would win California? The last statewide office won in California was by Arnold friggin Schwarzenegger. Maybe you can get him to work around the Constitution like they did in that movie "Demolition Man?"

                          The simple fact is that it's very likely that Clinton will win both the popular vote, and the Electoral college. You can call her voters "low information" if that makes you feel better, it's not going to help much getting a Republican in office.

                          I would guess that Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Raphel Cruz, and Bobby Jindal are all "conservative" enough for you, right? What do you think their chances of winning the presidency are? I'd say 0.01%

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by nickcopernicus View Post
                            I would guess that Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Raphel Cruz, and Bobby Jindal are all "conservative" enough for you, right? What do you think their chances of winning the presidency are? I'd say 0.01%
                            I think their odds would improve a little against someone like Joe Biden. But yeah.

                            By the way, it's Rafael, not Raphael or Raphel.
                            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Like I said, Hillary is counting on low-information morons to propel her to victory.

                              Republicans need a strong, conservative candidate to win. You look at the last 5 presidential elections in which we've fielded "moderate" candidates and the GOP hasn't fared particularly well: Dole got soundly defeated by Bill Clinton; George Bush barely won his two elections; McCain and Romney were both kicked to the curb by Obama. The last time Republicans had a commanding presidential victory was when Reagan was running for office.

                              More simply (because I know you prefer simple explanations), you don't win presidential elections by appealing to "moderates", you win by appealing to your base.
                              1964_Electoral_Map.jpg
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:34 PM
                              2 responses
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 07:31 PM
                              1 response
                              25 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:47 PM
                              28 responses
                              115 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 10:59 AM
                              30 responses
                              144 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Ronson, 11-21-2020, 09:47 PM
                              46 responses
                              300 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X