Republican Realist? Who will beat Clinton?

[rogue06]

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.

You can also win elections that way. Obama didn't make any significant turn toward the center in 2012 but instead chose to motivate his core constituencies -- his base. OTOH, conservatives pretty much sat at home in that election refusing for the most part to support Romney. Romney won the Independents in 2012 by something like 5 points but it didn't matter if you can't get the base to go out and vote.

[KingsGambit]

Let's not crown Hillary just yet. Nate Silver thinks her odds (assuming she does get the nomination, which he thinks will happen) are about 50/50 right now: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...its-a-toss-up/

[Sam]

You can also win elections that way. Obama didn't make any significant turn toward the center in 2012 but instead chose to motivate his core constituencies -- his base. OTOH, conservatives pretty much sat at home in that election refusing for the most part to support Romney. Romney won the Independents in 2012 by something like 5 points but it didn't matter if you can't get the base to go out and vote.

Karl Rove recently estimated that ~500,000 more self-identified conservative voters turned out in 2012 than in 2008:

Source: The Myth Of The Stay-At-Home Republicans. Karl Rove. Wall Street Journal. 2015.04.01

But the drop-off was not among conservatives. According to exit polls, self-identified conservatives made up 35% of the 2012 turnout, and 82% of them voted for Mr. Romney. This translates into about 45.2 million conservatives who turned out—roughly 531,000 more than in 2008.

In 2008 conservatives were 34% of the turnout, and 78% voted for John McCain. So Mr. Romney got around 2.2 million more conservative voters than Mr. McCain—and the conservative share of the 2012 electorate was the highest since exit polls began asking voters about their political leanings in 1976.


Here’s another way of looking at the electorate. The number of self-identified conservative voters rose to about 45.2 million in 2012 from 30.6 million in 2000. And the number of conservatives voting for the Republican presidential candidate rose to about 37.1 million in 2012 from 25.1 million in 2000.


Still, Mr. Romney would have needed an estimated 7.7 million additional conservative voters (assuming he took 82% of them) to beat President Obama. But that implies that conservative voters would have constituted nearly 39% of the turnout. This has never happened.

© Copyright Original Source

The Republican base isn't the problem for GOP candidates. The demographic future is:

4-6-2015_LEDE.png

10-part-affiliation-graph.nocrop.w529.h373.png

[Mountain Man]

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.

There are a lot of conservative voters who stayed home when McCain and Romney were on the ballot. That's why they lost. Conservatives simply didn't want to vote for them because the longer the campaign went, the more wishy-washy and "moderate" they became.

Let's put it this way: there's a reason liberals and the media are desperately trying to knock Paul and Cruz out of the running as quickly as possible to pave the way for Jeb, because they know that in Jeb vs. Hillary matchup, conservatives will again stay home, and Hillary will win in a landslide.

[Mountain Man]

You can also win elections that way. Obama didn't make any significant turn toward the center in 2012 but instead chose to motivate his core constituencies -- his base. OTOH, conservatives pretty much sat at home in that election refusing for the most part to support Romney. Romney won the Independents in 2012 by something like 5 points but it didn't matter if you can't get the base to go out and vote.

Exactly. The conventional wisdom that you win with the independent vote was a liberal con job that Republicans fell for hook, line, and sinker, because while Republicans are busy abandoning their base and playing to the middle, Democrats do nothing but appeal to their base, and the last 5 presidential elections speak for themselves.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Bloomberg

Among all Republicans and independents in the poll, 42 percent said they would never consider voting for Bush, a former Florida governor and brother and son to former presidents.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...mary-obstacles

© Copyright Original Source

[pancreasman]

From afar, I think the nomination process really works against Republicans. They get nominated by appealing to their base with policies and positions that tend to alienate whole sectors of the electorate. Then running for president they have to move to the centre to try to recapture the vote they lost in the primaries. Here they alienate their base and lose the support of their 'on the ground' workers.

I know it's an unpopular opinion here, but I think the distance between the Republican base and the greater electorate is widening all the time and making it very difficult for them to produce a viable candidate. I'm no fan of Hillary but on pure brand recognition she'll take a lot of beating.

[KingsGambit]

Source: Bloomberg

Among all Republicans and independents in the poll, 42 percent said they would never consider voting for Bush, a former Florida governor and brother and son to former presidents.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...mary-obstacles

© Copyright Original Source

They say that when being polled now, in the context of intense primary battles, but when push comes to shove, I bet a fair number would vote for him against Hillary.

[Mountain Man]

From afar, I think the nomination process really works against Republicans. They get nominated by appealing to their base with policies and positions that tend to alienate whole sectors of the electorate. Then running for president they have to move to the centre to try to recapture the vote they lost in the primaries.

No, that's what Democrats and the media tell Republicans they need to do to win, but it has proven to be a losing strategy (which, of course, is precisely what liberals want). Again, look at Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney who all made strong appeals to the center and performed poorly on election day (even Bush who eked out two victories). Romney, in fact, won big with independent voters, but he lost because his base wasn't there for him.

History is clear: when it's the choice between a far-left Democrat and a "moderate" Republican, the Democrat will almost always win. That's why the liberal media is cheering on Jeb Bush, because they know he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary.

[Starlight]

From afar, I think the nomination process really works against Republicans. They get nominated by appealing to their base with policies and positions that tend to alienate whole sectors of the electorate. Then running for president they have to move to the centre to try to recapture the vote they lost in the primaries. Here they alienate their base and lose the support of their 'on the ground' workers.

Although the same problem happens for Democrats. They run to the left in the primaries to try to capture the base, and then race for the center in the general. It's received wisdom that this is how it has to be done, but it seems to cause a lot of voters to become disillusioned with the whole process. It seems a problematic process all-round.

[pancreasman]

Although the same problem happens for Democrats. They run to the left in the primaries to try to capture the base, and then race for the center in the general. It's received wisdom that this is how it has to be done, but it seems to cause a lot of voters to become disillusioned with the whole process. It seems a problematic process all-round.

History is clear: when it's the choice between a far-left Democrat and a "moderate" Republican, the Democrat will almost always win. That's why the liberal media is cheering on Jeb Bush, because they know he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary.

I find the whole 'far left - far right' thing as it is used by Americans very problematic. As far as I can see most of your politicians are centre right to right. If some of you people lived in other countries around the world, I thin k your heads would explode.

[Sam]

No, that's what Democrats and the media tell Republicans they need to do to win, but it has proven to be a losing strategy (which, of course, is precisely what liberals want). Again, look at Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney who all made strong appeals to the center and performed poorly on election day (even Bush who eked out two victories). Romney, in fact, won big with independent voters, but he lost because his base wasn't there for him.

History is clear: when it's the choice between a far-left Democrat and a "moderate" Republican, the Democrat will almost always win. That's why the liberal media is cheering on Jeb Bush, because they know he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary.

US Presidents since 1944:

Truman (D)
Eisenhower (R)
Kennedy (D)
Johnson (D)
Nixon (R)
Ford (R)
Carter (D)
Reagan (R)
H.W. Bush (R)
Clinton (D)
G.W. Bush (R)
Obama (D)


Which of these Democrats were "far-left"? Which of these Republicans were not "moderate"? What's your sample size?

[Darth Executor]

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.

Jeb Bush has gone out of his way to antagonize his base. In the unlikely scenario in which he wins the primary he will lose the general election. Conservatives don't like him and moderates will be forced with the prospect of another Bush. As far as political dynasties go I'd much rather be a Clinton than a Bush going into a general election. The only thing Jeb has going for him is money, and money isn't enough. His corrupt party machine just can't raise as much money as the Democrats' corrupt party machines, especially with Hillary piloting a state of the art Crintonu MK-3 Mecha.

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)

IMO Scott Walker has done a very good job of making himself not stand out at all, which is why I'd say he has the best chance to beat Hillary.

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.

Rubio's flip flop on amnesty probably killed his political career (nobody but political wonks remember his SOTU response). He's like a Scott Walker without the teflon skin.

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.

Rand Paul picked the wrong side in the current ethnic wars. He's running for leadership of the White Party but stupidly backed the manufactured hands up don't shoot garbage which won't play well with his base. OTOH he did do a good job of handling abortion questions. I'd say he's the wild card in this election.

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

You're a liberal pretending to be a centrist so you probably don't realize most people care even less about bridgegate than they do about benghazi. For me bridgegate would actually be a plus if it were true because I'd love to see a president playing cutthroat cloak and dagger politics behind the scene, Kennedy style. Christie won't win because he's loud and fat for himself rather than being loud and fat for others.

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.

Not yet (and possibly, ever, the Democratic coalition will implode sooner or later).

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.

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

From your lips to God's ears. The Republican Party hates its core base so hopefully they will never have full power again. Conservatives should aim for as much deadlock as humanly possible and start surgically hijacking back their party in the interim.

One thing I'd caution about though is taking trends for granted in the long term, like some of the light thinkers here do. Germany did a 180 from decadent liberal Weimar to pseudo-conservative head hunting Nazi in a very short amount of time. My guess is that Millenials will be the last progressive generation before a radical political shift.

[Darth Executor]

Karl Rove recently estimated that ~500,000 more self-identified conservative voters turned out in 2012 than in 2008:

Romney was a better candidate than McCain, so that's not surprising. But it's meaningless because they were both moderates.

[Mountain Man]

US Presidents since 1944:

Truman (D)
Eisenhower (R)
Kennedy (D)
Johnson (D)
Nixon (R)
Ford (R)
Carter (D)
Reagan (R)
H.W. Bush (R)
Clinton (D)
G.W. Bush (R)
Obama (D)

Which of these Democrats were "far-left"? Which of these Republicans were not "moderate"? What's your sample size?

Quoting from my previous post:

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.