Hillary vs __________(insert name here) 2016: Hillary Loses badly (1 Viewer)

[Homer J Simpson]

Arizona Republicans censure Senator McCain as too 'liberal'

Here's the full text of the resolution.

As leaders in the Republican Party, we are obligated to fully support our Party, platform, and its

candidates. Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today

we are faced with both. For too long we have waited, hoping Senator McCain would return to our

Party’s values on his own. That has not happened. So with sadness and humility we rise and declare:

Whereas Senator McCain has amassed a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting

for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats, such as Amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, the

debt ceiling, liberal nominees, assaults on the Constitution and 2nd amendment; and

Whereas this record has been disastrous and harmful to Arizona and the United States; and

Whereas Senator McCain has campaigned as a conservative and made promises during his re-election

campaigns, such as the needed and welcomed promise to secure our borders and finish the border

fence, only to quickly flip-flop on those promises; and

Whereas McCain has abandoned our values and has been eerily silent against Liberals, yet publicly

reprimands Conservatives in his own Party, therefore

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Arizona Republican leadership censures Senator McCain for his

continued disservice to our State and Nation, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that until he consistently champions our Party’s Platform, we, the Republican

leadership in Arizona will no longer support, campaign for or endorse John McCain as our U.S. Senator

Onion?

Arizona.

Same difference.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Arizona Republicans censure Senator McCain as too 'liberal'

"Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both," the resolution stated.

It went on to reprimand McCain, who has served 27 years in the Senate, for "a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats."

The resolution condemned McCain's role in helping to craft a bill that passed the Senate last year that would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants, which the state Republicans called "amnesty."

It's the modern Republicanism: you must never, ever be seen as willing to work with Democrats. They are the enemy, and we do not work with our enemies, we eliminate our enemies.

Oh, please. Give me a break. Like this only applies to the GOP.

Ah yes, the old "Two Wrongs Make a Right" defense. Well played, sir. Well played.

:whoosh:

That wasn't my point, but nice try. Maybe you should point it out when the Democrats do it instead of pretending that it's only isloated to the GOP.

But then again, with the blinders you wear I probably shouldn't expect that.

 

[danielmclark]

Arizona Republicans censure Senator McCain as too 'liberal'

"Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both," the resolution stated.

It went on to reprimand McCain, who has served 27 years in the Senate, for "a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats."

The resolution condemned McCain's role in helping to craft a bill that passed the Senate last year that would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants, which the state Republicans called "amnesty."

It's the modern Republicanism: you must never, ever be seen as willing to work with Democrats. They are the enemy, and we do not work with our enemies, we eliminate our enemies.

Oh, please. Give me a break. Like this only applies to the GOP.

Ah yes, the old "Two Wrongs Make a Right" defense. Well played, sir. Well played.

:whoosh:

That wasn't my point, but nice try. Maybe you should point it out when the Democrats do it instead of pretending that it's only isloated to the GOP.

But then again, with the blinders you wear I probably shouldn't expect that.

Why the hell should I point that out? Is that a requirement in your world? That if you're going to call someone on bull#### you have to concurrently call out someone on the opposite site? What kind of nonsense is that?

You don't need me pointing to Democrats acting badly; you've got sources of your own and this conversation isn't about them.

And yeah, I know exactly what your point was. You decided to go with the logic my 5-year-old so often employs when I'm scolding him - "BUT MY SISTER DID STUFF, TOO!"

 

[MaxThreshold]

Arizona Republicans censure Senator McCain as too 'liberal'

"Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both," the resolution stated.

It went on to reprimand McCain, who has served 27 years in the Senate, for "a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats."

The resolution condemned McCain's role in helping to craft a bill that passed the Senate last year that would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants, which the state Republicans called "amnesty."

It's the modern Republicanism: you must never, ever be seen as willing to work with Democrats. They are the enemy, and we do not work with our enemies, we eliminate our enemies.

Oh, please. Give me a break. Like this only applies to the GOP.

Ah yes, the old "Two Wrongs Make a Right" defense. Well played, sir. Well played.

:whoosh:

That wasn't my point, but nice try. Maybe you should point it out when the Democrats do it instead of pretending that it's only isloated to the GOP.

But then again, with the blinders you wear I probably shouldn't expect that.

Why the hell should I point that out? Is that a requirement in your world? That if you're going to call someone on bull#### you have to concurrently call out someone on the opposite site? What kind of nonsense is that?

You don't need me pointing to Democrats acting badly; you've got sources of your own and this conversation isn't about them.

And yeah, I know exactly what your point was. You decided to go with the logic my 5-year-old so often employs when I'm scolding him - "BUT MY SISTER DID STUFF, TOO!"

:whoosh:

My god you're a stump. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[danielmclark]

Arizona Republicans censure Senator McCain as too 'liberal'

"Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both," the resolution stated.

It went on to reprimand McCain, who has served 27 years in the Senate, for "a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats."

The resolution condemned McCain's role in helping to craft a bill that passed the Senate last year that would provide a pathway to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants, which the state Republicans called "amnesty."

It's the modern Republicanism: you must never, ever be seen as willing to work with Democrats. They are the enemy, and we do not work with our enemies, we eliminate our enemies.

Oh, please. Give me a break. Like this only applies to the GOP.

Ah yes, the old "Two Wrongs Make a Right" defense. Well played, sir. Well played.

:whoosh:

That wasn't my point, but nice try. Maybe you should point it out when the Democrats do it instead of pretending that it's only isloated to the GOP.

But then again, with the blinders you wear I probably shouldn't expect that.

Why the hell should I point that out? Is that a requirement in your world? That if you're going to call someone on bull#### you have to concurrently call out someone on the opposite site? What kind of nonsense is that?

You don't need me pointing to Democrats acting badly; you've got sources of your own and this conversation isn't about them.

And yeah, I know exactly what your point was. You decided to go with the logic my 5-year-old so often employs when I'm scolding him - "BUT MY SISTER DID STUFF, TOO!"

:whoosh:

My god you're a stump. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

That's the best you've got? No logic, no attempt to refute my point, just poorly executed deflection and personal attack? Debate club must've loved you.

 

[Widbil83]

Hilary won't even be the Democrat nominee. Is there a Jerry Brown thread yet?

 

[squistion]

Hilary won't even be the Democrat nominee. Is there a Jerry Brown thread yet?

 

[Rove!]

"We won" "Elections have consequences"

 

[Trey]

I really think that comparing the 2016 run-up to the 2008 run-up is incredibly lazy analysis. The only similarity is that Clinton is the front runner.

There is no "once in a lifetime" candidate waiting in the wings. The big money donors are all in lock step, not even flirting with other potential candidates. Clinton's numbers aren't stuck in the 30s in the horse race D polls. The list goes on and on.

Barack Obama caught lightning in a bottle. Phenomenal organization that changed the face of presidential elections certainly played its role. But if we are being honest here, demographics are destiny. And Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton because in 2008, being African Amercian and the chance to be the first black president carried the day. 90+% AA, 70+% youth.. There was no overcoming those type of numbers. And those numbers cannot be duplicated by anyone in 2016.

If Clinton runs, the nomination is hers. The presidency very well could be but it will once again come down to a handful of swing states with Clinton's floor north of 250 EVs.

 

[fatness]

Dave Agema is a Republican National Commiteeman from Michigan, one of the state's three avatars in the organization. His successful campaign for the job told voters that there "simply weren't enough conservatives" in the RNC to challenge "the big government Republicans." He gets to vote on party bylaws, on the chairman—stuff like that. And he's not really on board with this kinder, gentler Republican Party jive. A source points me to Agema's Facebook page (viewable only to friends), where Agema has shared a semi-viral list by "Frank Joseph, M.D.," all about the threats posed by homosexuals.You can read the whole article at this link; it asserts that "part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle," that "homosexuals aren't discriminated against in employment," and that "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities," among other fun factoids.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/27/a_michigan_rnc_committeeman_wants_you_to_know_the_truth_about_filthy_homosexuality.html

facebook post

In addition to labeling gays and lesbians as “filthy,” the article -- penned by Frank Joseph, M.D. -- makes several aggressive accusations against the gay and lesbian community, including pinning homosexuals as child molesters.

“Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children.” the article adds. “Homosexuals can be heard chanting ‘TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT’ in their homosexual parades.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/dave-agema-homosexuals_n_2965310.html

I stand for traditional marriage, not homosexual ones. The family unit is the basic unit in society. When you tear the family apart, you tear the country apart. I worked with these individuals for almost 30 years at American. I know what they do. I know [inaudible] American Airlines with San Francisco said, "We could not land in San Francisco and do business with American Airlines unless we paid same-sex unmarried benefits."

...

I'm a flight attendant, you have AIDS, you come to me and say, "Tell them I'm your lover for the last six months." You get on the health care. American Airlines spends $400,000 before you die of AIDS. And he goes on to the next, and the next, and that's what was happening.

Folks, they want free medical because they're dying between 38 and 44 years old ... So to me, it's a moral issue. It's a Biblical issue. Traditional marriage is where it should be and that is in our platform. So people that are opposed to me that issue within our party are wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/dave-agema-audio_n_4428801.html

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Dave Agema is a Republican National Commiteeman from Michigan, one of the state's three avatars in the organization. His successful campaign for the job told voters that there "simply weren't enough conservatives" in the RNC to challenge "the big government Republicans." He gets to vote on party bylaws, on the chairman—stuff like that. And he's not really on board with this kinder, gentler Republican Party jive. A source points me to Agema's Facebook page (viewable only to friends), where Agema has shared a semi-viral list by "Frank Joseph, M.D.," all about the threats posed by homosexuals.You can read the whole article at this link; it asserts that "part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle," that "homosexuals aren't discriminated against in employment," and that "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities," among other fun factoids.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/27/a_michigan_rnc_committeeman_wants_you_to_know_the_truth_about_filthy_homosexuality.html

facebook post

In addition to labeling gays and lesbians as “filthy,” the article -- penned by Frank Joseph, M.D. -- makes several aggressive accusations against the gay and lesbian community, including pinning homosexuals as child molesters.

“Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children.” the article adds. “Homosexuals can be heard chanting ‘TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT’ in their homosexual parades.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/dave-agema-homosexuals_n_2965310.html

I stand for traditional marriage, not homosexual ones. The family unit is the basic unit in society. When you tear the family apart, you tear the country apart. I worked with these individuals for almost 30 years at American. I know what they do. I know [inaudible] American Airlines with San Francisco said, "We could not land in San Francisco and do business with American Airlines unless we paid same-sex unmarried benefits."

...

I'm a flight attendant, you have AIDS, you come to me and say, "Tell them I'm your lover for the last six months." You get on the health care. American Airlines spends $400,000 before you die of AIDS. And he goes on to the next, and the next, and that's what was happening.

Folks, they want free medical because they're dying between 38 and 44 years old ... So to me, it's a moral issue. It's a Biblical issue. Traditional marriage is where it should be and that is in our platform. So people that are opposed to me that issue within our party are wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/dave-agema-audio_n_4428801.html

OMG that guy is gayer than come on a mustache.

 

[Statorama]

I'm not trying to convince you kool aid drinkers, I'm here to help guide those on the fence.

For those of you on the fence, hit me up with some questions and I'll lay out the truth for you. If you don't like what you hear, hey, at least you heard the truth from a conservative perspective.

Most of the stuff you see in the media is incorrect. A narrative has been built of the conservative movement in the media, whose members are essentially Democrat cheerleaders.

Hear the truth from me for yourself and determine the path you choose. I trust that you're smart enough to make your own choices. The left is not quite as sure.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm not trying to convince you kool aid drinkers, I'm here to help guide those on the fence.

For those of you on the fence, hit me up with some questions and I'll lay out the truth for you. If you don't like what you hear, hey, at least you heard the truth from a conservative perspective.

Most of the stuff you see in the media is incorrect. A narrative has been built of the conservative movement in the media, whose members are essentially Democrat cheerleaders.

Hear the truth from me for yourself and determine the path you choose. I trust that you're smart enough to make your own choices. The left is not quite as sure.

Spit out some truth, brother!

And if the "truth" is that Dems are also owned by the banks and other corporate interests, save your breath.

 

[Hilts]

Okay stat, let's hear some truth. I voted for Dubya once. I voted for McCain in his non Palin run. I've also voted Democrat. Depends on who runs. I'm no slave to any party. I detest the job Obama has done. I'm open to voting Republican in the next election, as I have voted Republican in the past.

Sell me.

 

[timschochet]

The centrist, moderate wing of the Republican party has managed to fight off the extremists again and again- the nominations of John McCain and Mitt Romney represented a repudiation of the extreme right. However, these were hard fights and both men were forced to move much farther to the right than they wanted- in both cases the result was a loss in November.

Listen to the conservatives, however, and it's clear they have learned nothing from this. In fact, quite the opposite: they are more determined than ever that next time around they are going to nominate a true Tea Party type, a "real conservative", and not one of the RINOs they so detest.

Perhaps this is what has to happen. Maybe the centrists and establishment types should give up this time around- let these guys nominate a Rand Paul or a Cruz or Rubio and see what happens. After the landslide wipeout, just maybe that will allow the Republican party to start over...

 

[Hilts]

Dave Agema is a Republican National Commiteeman from Michigan, one of the state's three avatars in the organization. His successful campaign for the job told voters that there "simply weren't enough conservatives" in the RNC to challenge "the big government Republicans." He gets to vote on party bylaws, on the chairmanstuff like that. And he's not really on board with this kinder, gentler Republican Party jive. A source points me to Agema's Facebook page (viewable only to friends), where Agema has shared a semi-viral list by "Frank Joseph, M.D.," all about the threats posed by homosexuals.

You can read the whole article at this link; it asserts that "part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle," that "homosexuals aren't discriminated against in employment," and that "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities," among other fun factoids.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/27/a_michigan_rnc_committeeman_wants_you_to_know_the_truth_about_filthy_homosexuality.htmlfacebook post

In addition to labeling gays and lesbians as filthy, the article -- penned by Frank Joseph, M.D. -- makes several aggressive accusations against the gay and lesbian community, including pinning homosexuals as child molesters.

Because homosexuals cant reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. the article adds. Homosexuals can be heard chanting TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT in their homosexual parades.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/dave-agema-homosexuals_n_2965310.html

I stand for traditional marriage, not homosexual ones. The family unit is the basic unit in society. When you tear the family apart, you tear the country apart. I worked with these individuals for almost 30 years at American. I know what they do. I know [inaudible] American Airlines with San Francisco said, "We could not land in San Francisco and do business with American Airlines unless we paid same-sex unmarried benefits."

...

I'm a flight attendant, you have AIDS, you come to me and say, "Tell them I'm your lover for the last six months." You get on the health care. American Airlines spends $400,000 before you die of AIDS. And he goes on to the next, and the next, and that's what was happening.

Folks, they want free medical because they're dying between 38 and 44 years old ... So to me, it's a moral issue. It's a Biblical issue. Traditional marriage is where it should be and that is in our platform. So people that are opposed to me that issue within our party are wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/dave-agema-audio_n_4428801.html

UPDATE 3/28/2013: A group of Michigan Republicans -- led by Dennis Lennox, a Republican precinct delegate -- is now calling for Agema's resignation, releasing a statement Wednesday condemning Agema's "deplorable actions."

This isnt about what we believe either politically or as women and men of faith, the statement read. "This is about common decency and realizing that you cannot win an election by insulting a wide swath of the electorate."

On Thursday, the national organization GOProud also weighed in on Agema's Facebook post, urging members of the Republican Party to "not tolerate rank anti-gay bigotry."

"When we fail to stand up to the bigotry displayed by people like Dave Agema, we give the left the opportunity to smear all conservatives and Republicans," Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, explained in a statement. "Dave Agema's comments do not reflect the conservative movement or the Republican Party."

"Our movement is a welcoming one and we are the movement that is offering common-sense solutions that will improve the lives of all Americans -- including gays and lesbians," LaSalvia added.

 

[Rove!]

I'm not trying to convince you kool aid drinkers, I'm here to help guide those on the fence.

For those of you on the fence, hit me up with some questions and I'll lay out the truth for you. If you don't like what you hear, hey, at least you heard the truth from a conservative perspective.

Most of the stuff you see in the media is incorrect. A narrative has been built of the conservative movement in the media, whose members are essentially Democrat cheerleaders.

Hear the truth from me for yourself and determine the path you choose. I trust that you're smart enough to make your own choices. The left is not quite as sure.

Spit out some truth, brother!

And if the "truth" is that Dems are also owned by the banks and other corporate interests, save your breath.

if ever there was a time for a third party, this is it.

You have two parties whose economic policies are stuck in the last century.

How do we deal with the new economy with automation and globalization? What happens to the Middle class?

The internet has drastically changed the equation...

America's shrinking workforce....what to do?

How do we get a slightly better wealth distribution without repercussions that make things worse for everybody?

How do we deal with pollution from China impacting the US?

 

[danielmclark]

I'm not trying to convince you kool aid drinkers, I'm here to help guide those on the fence.

For those of you on the fence, hit me up with some questions and I'll lay out the truth for you. If you don't like what you hear, hey, at least you heard the truth from a conservative perspective.

Most of the stuff you see in the media is incorrect. A narrative has been built of the conservative movement in the media, whose members are essentially Democrat cheerleaders.

Hear the truth from me for yourself and determine the path you choose. I trust that you're smart enough to make your own choices. The left is not quite as sure.

Do you have cookies? Because if I'm going to be converted, I'd like there to be cookies.

I'm not expecting much truth though, to be honest. Anyone with an avatar like yours isn't the most... let's say "objective", person around. You say "truth", I kinda feel like you mean the other thing.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm not trying to convince you kool aid drinkers, I'm here to help guide those on the fence.

For those of you on the fence, hit me up with some questions and I'll lay out the truth for you. If you don't like what you hear, hey, at least you heard the truth from a conservative perspective.

Most of the stuff you see in the media is incorrect. A narrative has been built of the conservative movement in the media, whose members are essentially Democrat cheerleaders.

Hear the truth from me for yourself and determine the path you choose. I trust that you're smart enough to make your own choices. The left is not quite as sure.

OK, thank you for helping and answering our questions for conservatives/Republicans. I will listen to your truth and make up my mind myself on this question I have often wondered about but have no personal experience with:

After tapping your foot repeatedly in an airport or train station men's room, and achieving your desired initial resulting contact with the stall denizen next door, when you reach under the stall separating wall and run your hand along the bottom of it to further progress the contact, what is that viscous, slimy, greasy substance that comes off and coats your hand?

TIA, will answer yours.

 

[roadkill1292]

I've never thought the Republicans were dead as far as future elections go. But over the next two+ years about two million voters are gonna die and will be replaced by a roughly equal number of new voters. The former mostly voted Republican, the latter Democrat, meaning more than ever that Republicans will need a platform that appeals to a different demographic.

The numbers leave them no choice but I actually think a fiscally responsible message with pragmatic plans for strengthening the economy (and creating jobs) and showing vision in addressing the brand new problems incurred by the technological society will resonate with young voters. Critics are right in that Dems have shown little will to break out of conventional thought patterns themselves; this is where they're ripe for a takedown.

But they'd better stop waving the God and flag and morality banners or their message will never be heard above the peals of youthful laughter.

 

[danielmclark]

I've never thought the Republicans were dead as far as future elections go. But over the next two+ years about two million voters are gonna die and will be replaced by a roughly equal number of new voters. The former mostly voted Republican, the latter Democrat, meaning more than ever that Republicans will need a platform that appeals to a different demographic.

The numbers leave them no choice but I actually think a fiscally responsible message with pragmatic plans for strengthening the economy (and creating jobs) and showing vision in addressing the brand new problems incurred by the technological society will resonate with young voters. Critics are right in that Dems have shown little will to break out of conventional thought patterns themselves; this is where they're ripe for a takedown.

But they'd better stop waving the God and flag and morality banners or their message will never be heard above the peals of youthful laughter.

Well, that's the problem. They never will. And I don't just mean the extremists or the fringe of the party, I mean the general rank-and-file of the Republican party is way into god and morality. It's the core of the party, it's half of what makes a Republican and Republican - and there's nothing wrong with that. Much as I disagree with them, they get points for being honest about their religious and moral foundation.

 

[roadkill1292]

I've never thought the Republicans were dead as far as future elections go. But over the next two+ years about two million voters are gonna die and will be replaced by a roughly equal number of new voters. The former mostly voted Republican, the latter Democrat, meaning more than ever that Republicans will need a platform that appeals to a different demographic.

The numbers leave them no choice but I actually think a fiscally responsible message with pragmatic plans for strengthening the economy (and creating jobs) and showing vision in addressing the brand new problems incurred by the technological society will resonate with young voters. Critics are right in that Dems have shown little will to break out of conventional thought patterns themselves; this is where they're ripe for a takedown.

But they'd better stop waving the God and flag and morality banners or their message will never be heard above the peals of youthful laughter.

Well, that's the problem. They never will. And I don't just mean the extremists or the fringe of the party, I mean the general rank-and-file of the Republican party is way into god and morality. It's the core of the party, it's half of what makes a Republican and Republican - and there's nothing wrong with that. Much as I disagree with them, they get points for being honest about their religious and moral foundation.

I know. Sigh. Those (god and flag anyway) won't be important values in the future. Dealing with fast-changing technological, economic and social environments are what voters will expect out of government.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Perhaps this is what has to happen. Maybe the centrists and establishment types should give up this time around- let these guys nominate a Rand Paul or a Cruz or Rubio and see what happens. After the landslide wipeout, just maybe that will allow the Republican party to start over...

This. It takes a McGovern type beating to start thinking about the reset button. Carter was a bit of a post-Watergate fluke, but Mondale and Dukakis were pretty solidly old-school liberal as well.

All the legislative defeats in the world don't seem to sharpen the mind like an absolute drubbing in a Presidential election.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The country continues to be divided down the middle.

 

[Rove!]

Perhaps this is what has to happen. Maybe the centrists and establishment types should give up this time around- let these guys nominate a Rand Paul or a Cruz or Rubio and see what happens. After the landslide wipeout, just maybe that will allow the Republican party to start over...

This. It takes a McGovern type beating to start thinking about the reset button. Carter was a bit of a post-Watergate fluke, but Mondale and Dukakis were pretty solidly old-school liberal as well.

All the legislative defeats in the world don't seem to sharpen the mind like an absolute drubbing in a Presidential election.

I think Cruz would have a shot. He's smart and would probably be able to adapt his message and make it palatable. He's probably a little more battle tested, as he's had a target on his back since before he was in office.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Rubio / Paul ticket could be interesting.

 

[Rove!]

A Rubio / Paul ticket could be interesting.

Cruz/Jeb

 

[danielmclark]

No Tea Party candidate has a shot, no matter who his running mate is. If Cruz gets the nomination, he'll lose the general. There's way too much bat####-crazy attached to the Tea Party, it's far too easy for the opposition to attack them. The Republicans need someone who is youthful, energetic, modern and free of baggage like the Tea Party. As far as I can tell, they don't have anyone like that right now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Rubio / Paul ticket could be interesting.

Cruz/Jeb

Either of those guys on a ticket, I'm going elsewhere, including even a Democrat not named Clinton. As for Bush, enough of this merry go `round sht with the Bush and Clintons, this is not a monarchy or Peronist country. As for Cruz, enough of the lousy tea party candidates making a rhetorical mess of everything; I think those candidates warp the Democrats just as much as the GOP actually. It's one thing in the District and Senate races, on a national/presidential level it would be a disaster for everyone.

 

[fatness]

A Rubio / Paul ticket could be interesting.

It would be fun to watch, with Paul putting his foot in his mouth left and right. Talking about Monica Lewinsky in 2013 isn't going to get the Republicans any votes; just ridicule or being ignored.

"War on women" is just a proxy for one view of the battle over abortion and reproductive rights, and Republicans haven't signaled any shift in their stance. If anything, they appear to be closer to doubling down. So perhaps it's no surprise that a October 2013 United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll found that women are hardly warming to the Republican Party since 2012.

"Only 14 percent of women said the Republican Party had moved closer to their perspective. More than twice as many women, 33 percent, said the party had drifted further from them. A plurality, 46 percent, saw no change," writes Shane Goldmacher in the National Journal.

Which leaves Paul to talk about Bill Clinton.

 

[Rove!]

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x325q90/855/zudv.jpg

 

[TwinTurbo]

The centrist, moderate wing of the Republican party has managed to fight off the extremists again and again- the nominations of John McCain and Mitt Romney represented a repudiation of the extreme right. However, these were hard fights and both men were forced to move much farther to the right than they wanted- in both cases the result was a loss in November.

Listen to the conservatives, however, and it's clear they have learned nothing from this. In fact, quite the opposite: they are more determined than ever that next time around they are going to nominate a true Tea Party type, a "real conservative", and not one of the RINOs they so detest.

Perhaps this is what has to happen. Maybe the centrists and establishment types should give up this time around- let these guys nominate a Rand Paul or a Cruz or Rubio and see what happens. After the landslide wipeout, just maybe that will allow the Republican party to start over...

I agree to a certain extent, but I think McCain and Romney would have fared better against Hillary. And Obama crushed all of them in charisma and likability. The underlying campaign platforms and promises are mostly bull#### anyway for both parties. The problem for Republicans is all they can offer up are a collection of tools. It's the same problem the Democrats had with Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. That said, I don't think Hillary can win a national election because no matter who she runs against, she would probably be the most unlikable candidate and probably the most polarizing as well. For that reason, I don't think she will end up as the Democratic nominee.

 

[Clifford]

Any amount of money TommyBoy, the one thing I am relieved about in 2015/2016 is that I don't have to wonder who is going to be the next President. She is tough as nails, appeals to both progressive and conservatives, she has decades of experience including being the 1st Lady already for 8 years, Senator in New York for 8 years I believe, 4 more as Secretary of State, she has foreign alliances built up over the past 2-3 decades, there isn't a person on either side who will bring as much experience, passion, and dedication as she will. I really think you are in here fishing. The only people that are gonna tune in during 2016 will be the Fox Newsies praying they can get someone in there but I expect Clinton to win by a good margin if not more. It won't be about 3 or 4 counties in Ohio.

^^^ This

With Bill and Barry helping on her campaign how could she lose? Who is the RNC going to drag out Bush/Bush II/Cruz/TeaParty Nut/Palin

Please Lord let the RNC nominate one of those Tea Party Loons.

Even moreso than last election, they have absolutely no shot. Now is the time to run the religious nutjob ticket. Santorum/Bachmann or Cruz/Santorum. They either win the most unlikely victory ever with that ticket, or they get the final piece of proof they need to kick the morons out of the tent and begin reconstructing the GOP brand along the original lines that have cross-spectrum appeal. Then in 2020 guys like Hunstman will have a real shot, and they have a chance at not only winning the presidency but actually doing some good in terms of entrenching some sensible, non-ideologically handpicked reforms.

If they are smart they punt this one to the fundies, let them get erased as a political force via the biggest landslide loss in the history of the EC, and start rebuilding without the lunatic fringe.

 

[The_Man]

Even moreso than last election, they have absolutely no shot. Now is the time to run the religious nutjob ticket. Santorum/Bachmann or Cruz/Santorum. They either win the most unlikely victory ever with that ticket, or they get the final piece of proof they need to kick the morons out of the tent and begin reconstructing the GOP brand along the original lines that have cross-spectrum appeal. Then in 2020 guys like Hunstman will have a real shot, and they have a chance at not only winning the presidency but actually doing some good in terms of entrenching some sensible, non-ideologically handpicked reforms.

If they are smart they punt this one to the fundies, let them get erased as a political force via the biggest landslide loss in the history of the EC, and start rebuilding without the lunatic fringe.

I'm as liberal as they come, but this isn't real accurate. In 1984, Mondale won his home state of Minnesota and he won DC.

No Democrat is ever coming close to that. The Deep South - SC, GA, AL, MS - is never, ever going Democrat, no matter who the Republicans nominate. And i think the same is true for a big section of the Plains - ND, SD, KS, OK.

 

[Clifford]

You're right about the landslide most likely, but it's still their best chance to rebuild. The establishment will never kick out the fundies without proof their numbers can't win an election. They still look at Bush's 2nd term as proof of the political value that pretending to be religious gets them.

 

[cstu]

You're right about the landslide most likely, but it's still their best chance to rebuild. The establishment will never kick out the fundies without proof their numbers can't win an election. They still look at Bush's 2nd term as proof of the political value that pretending to be religious gets them.

If Hillary wins then it's highly likely that she'll win re-election, which would be 16 years without a Republican President. If that doesn't get them to change, nothing will.

 

[cstu]

A Rubio / Paul ticket could be interesting.

Cruz/Jeb

Either of those guys on a ticket, I'm going elsewhere, including even a Democrat not named Clinton. As for Bush, enough of this merry go `round sht with the Bush and Clintons, this is not a monarchy or Peronist country. As for Cruz, enough of the lousy tea party candidates making a rhetorical mess of everything; I think those candidates warp the Democrats just as much as the GOP actually. It's one thing in the District and Senate races, on a national/presidential level it would be a disaster for everyone.

I've said it before but Jeb gives them the best chance to win.

 

[danielmclark]

A Rubio / Paul ticket could be interesting.

Cruz/Jeb

Either of those guys on a ticket, I'm going elsewhere, including even a Democrat not named Clinton. As for Bush, enough of this merry go `round sht with the Bush and Clintons, this is not a monarchy or Peronist country. As for Cruz, enough of the lousy tea party candidates making a rhetorical mess of everything; I think those candidates warp the Democrats just as much as the GOP actually. It's one thing in the District and Senate races, on a national/presidential level it would be a disaster for everyone.

I've said it before but Jeb gives them the best chance to win.

That's not saying much. The Bush name is tarnished to the point that the guy wouldn't stand a chance nationally.

 

[cstu]

Republicans also have to be very concerned that two of their conservative Justices (Scalia and Kennedy) are going to be 80 in 2016. If Hillary were to win re-election they'd have to hang on until they were 88.

 

[Clifford]

Until they find an identity they aren't getting back into the White House. This country needs a viable opposition party.

 

[Thunderlips]

Until they find an identity they aren't getting back into the White House. This country needs a viable opposition party.

The EC math just kills them. What 248 EC votes have come from states that have voted for the Democrat the last 6 times versuse 104 for the Republicans. I don't think those states are going to swing.....so more or less ALL of the power of the DNC just targeted at a few swing counties in a couple of swing states. That's just flat out tough to overcome.

The RNC needs to find their Dr. Dean and implement a 50 State offensive....but for whatever reason, their constituency doesn't want that. That's why we got Christine O'Donnell instead of Mike Castle. The current powerbrokers in the RNC don't love North East Republicans or Liberal Republicans.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

 

[fatness]

And one more loon brightens the party's reputation

Susanne Atanus, GOP Candidate: Autism, Dementia Are God's Punishments For Gays, Abortions

Officer Malloy already has a topic on this one. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=703393

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She really is just butt ugly these days. She never was much to look at, but now, just horrifying even for an old lady. Unelectable IMO. I think a woman can be president but she'll need to be right in that sweet spot between hot and matronly.

Yeah, she is not aging well. Remember how the Democrats played the "he could die at any time, and if so, do you really want Palin as the president?" card on McCain in '08? Republicans could easily do the same with Hillary in '16, although you'd have every liberal feminist crying about sexism and all of that horse ####.

They were shocked anybody would support old Grandpa McCain. But it's Grandma Hillary's time now, again....

No.

Id easily support a (I) Bernie Sanders run for POTUS. But he is 72 and looks every bit of it. And if his VP mate was John Edwards or Jesse Jackson Jr his age would be on the table (note* he didnt have cancer or heart concerns and such like McCain) and rightfully so.

Hillary meanwhile is a full 6 years younger then Sanders or what McCain was. And women age better with a expectancy of over 80 years of age.

While men expectancy falls where McCain and Sanders (74) would be during their terms. Not so with Hillary.

Love the shtick, especially about Hillary's life expectancy. We need a FBG poll about this ASAP!

Here's one way Mrs. Clinton's age would play a role in the election: her energy level.

Dole and McCain (and btw a much younger Dukakis) were perfectly capable of being president, as would Hillary - but what they lose is energy on the stump, the vigor and the intensity they bring to their speeches and tv appearances. A young Bill Clinton vs Bush Sr. could be another example.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And one more loon brightens the party's reputation

Susanne Atanus, GOP Candidate: Autism, Dementia Are God's Punishments For Gays, Abortions

Officer Malloy already has a topic on this one. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=703393

Yaknow, this reminds me of the Billy Knight quote when he saw his Hoosier team losing to one of Larry Brown's super talented but doomed 1980's LSU Tigers basketball teams in the Final Four lo many years ago now.

"Yeah, I was worried, but then I looked down at the other bench and saw Larry there."

 

[Thunderlips]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

Now that's a good point.

Of course Bill brings his own mixed bag with the ladies also.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I would expect the black vote to fall back to where it's always been. Hillary simply isn't that exciting and she's not Barack Obama. And she's old - as unfair as that sounds I think it will harm her more than it would a man.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I would expect the black vote to fall back to where it's always been. Hillary simply isn't that exciting and she's not Barack Obama. And she's old - as unfair as that sounds I think it will harm her more than at would a man.

The Clintons ("Fairy Tale", LBJ made the CRA) and Obama (race card in SC) did lose some love there in the ol' 2008 election too.

 

[Thunderlips]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

Now that's a good point.

Of course Bill brings his own mixed bag with the ladies also.

People like Bill. I think Bill beats W in 2000 and 04...I think Gore beats W in 00 if he didn't distance himself from Clinton.....and I think there's going to be a full court press by the media and DNC ops on the greatness that will be The First Dude....er Gentlemen or whatever the hell he'll be called.

I just can't get see the Electoral College math that brings a Republican victory....... maybe there's a tap in to White, Rust Belt Families who haven't prospered during the Obama years....but I don't know. That could work in Ohio.....but I don't even know if the Democrats would need Ohio to win anymore. They have more paths to victory.