[quote]pushharder wrote:
Condi could do the job. If she wanted it.[/quote]
I feel like there would be too much “bush” baggage muckraking for her to overcome .
The real problem with all of this is that whoever gets the nomination is fighting against the nominee and media, 1 vs 2. As we have seen with obamao, if you shine up a turd to look like a diamond, the masses dont know the difference.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
This is also strange to me…I don’t get why the militant feminists don’t go after these countries for treating women as subhuman. [/quote]
People tend to focus on things in their backyard moreso than something occurring miles away.
I think Condi Rice is WAY to smart to run.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think Condi Rice is WAY too smart to run.
Mufasa[/quote]
This will be a consistent problem the republicans face as long as they keep losing the culture war.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Condi could do the job. If she wanted it.[/quote]
She polled well when looking at who would replace the retiring Barbara Boxer for California Senator. What brought her popularity down was being linked to Bush, but she could help change the narrative about minorities and the GOP.
Bottom line, the Democratic lineup is about as bad as the Republican lineup. After Hillary and Warren, whose next, Biden ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Condi could do the job. If she wanted it.[/quote]
She polled well when looking at who would replace the retiring Barbara Boxer for California Senator. What brought her popularity down was being linked to Bush, but she could help change the narrative about minorities and the GOP.
Bottom line, the Democratic lineup is about as bad as the Republican lineup. After Hillary and Warren, whose next, Biden ?[/quote]
Warren has a lot of potential, however, she is exponentially easier to beat than Hillary. Warren freaks out a lot of moderates as she plays the hard left/progressive game really well.
The field get very narrow after them, because dem voters need a rock star, not a statesman.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The field get very narrow after them, because dem voters need a rock star, not a statesman.[/quote]
It’s a glorified american idol contest at this point.
2016 will be a sad state of affairs. In America, we have no shortage of talented, experienced people in any number of fields - and we are likely going to be left with a Bush versus Clinton matchup (what year is it?), and the reason we are going to be left with this is because you look over their shoulders and there is basically a clown show of wannabe candidates.
What we need is something like a Dwight Eisenhower-Adlai Stevenson race in this country. Smart, experienced, trustworthy pols who have different ideas, plenty of disagreements on policy, but the public generally trusts the other one to govern effectively if their preferred candidate loses.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but the public generally trusts the other one to govern effectively if their preferred candidate loses.
[/quote]
Do you really see this as possible in today’s hyper partisan, 24/7, social media driven orgy of hate we call current social norms?
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The field get very narrow after them, because dem voters need a rock star, not a statesman.[/quote]
It’s a glorified american idol contest at this point.[/quote]
TB is right when he said clown show lol. It’s embarrassing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
When I said she could do the job I meant serve as a competent executive of the federal government of these united states. I wasn’t necessarily addressing her electability and stance on issues.
I believe her performance would be light years ahead of Bam, Biden, Bubba and Cuckoldette Clinton, McCain, and…Dole.
FTR, I believe Romney would’ve been a competent executive too.[/quote]
ooohhhh.
Yeah I agree on the above too. Except, if Romney is POTUS, we have a nation assault weapons ban post Sandy Hook.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Condi could do the job. If she wanted it.[/quote]
She polled well when looking at who would replace the retiring Barbara Boxer for California Senator. What brought her popularity down was being linked to Bush, but she could help change the narrative about minorities and the GOP
Bottom line, the Democratic lineup is about as bad as the Republican lineup. After Hillary and Warren, whose next, Biden ?[/quote]
Warren has a lot of potential, however, she is exponentially easier to beat than Hillary. Warren freaks out a lot of moderates as she plays the hard left/progressive game really well.
The field get very narrow after them, because dem voters need a rock star, not a statesman.[/quote]
I think the people overall are much more wary of the rockstar candidate after Obama, the draw we saw with Obama we will not see for a long time.
I would love to see some ex-military person run. I feel like that should be a requirement to hold a federal position. Maybe that’s too logical for the masses to elect someone with actually leadership experience.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What we need is something like a Dwight Eisenhower-Adlai Stevenson race in this country. Smart, experienced, trustworthy pols who have different ideas, plenty of disagreements on policy, but the public generally trusts the other one to govern effectively if their preferred candidate loses.
[/quote]
That’s what you got in McCain and Romney. They were smart, experienced, trustworthy and had plenty of ideas and disagreements.
You’re pining for more moderates just like the ones who’ve already been defeated.[/quote]
McCain didn’t lose because he was a moderate - he lost because of fatigue with the GOP, and had the GOP ran a true-believer right-winger, it could have been a clean sweep. Don’t forget what won 2008 was an appeal to “no red state, no blue state” thinking.
As for Romney, it’s hard to beat incumbents, but putting up a hard-right winger wouldn’t have made it any closer, or won the election. Romney’s weakness was his upper-crust nature and frankly tired economic ideas in a time of economic uncertainty. Hard-right wingers may not have the upper-crust sensibilities that turn off voters, but they have the baggage of appearing well outside the mainstream personally (witness any of the Tea Party darlings), amd their economic message would have been largely the same as Romney’s, if not more discordant.
The GOP brand has been broken for some time becausr of the Bush years (not just Bush himself, but the Congress during his time as well) - and it has lost the big tent status necessary to form coalitions to win national elections. Having a hard-right winger as the standard bearer shrinks the tent more, not less.
In any event, it isn’t simply about running a “moderate”. It’s also about run in someone competent and up to the task, and the clown show shows few who fit that bill. It juat so happens that the hard-rights are the worst of the bunch in terms of competence. Whether that is cause or correlation is a different topic, but it is what it is - mainstream America in the real world isn’t going to hire Cruz or Rand Paul to run anything.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
I would love to see some ex-military person run. I feel like that should be a requirement to hold a federal position. Maybe that’s too logical for the masses to elect someone with actually leadership experience. [/quote]
David Petraeus was certainly on a lot of people’s list. (Including my own).
His resignation was NOT the fault of the President. He is a Man of Honor whom felt that resignation was the best course, and that he had let HIMSELF down.
I believe him.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
I would love to see some ex-military person run. I feel like that should be a requirement to hold a federal position. Maybe that’s too logical for the masses to elect someone with actually leadership experience. [/quote]
David Petraeus was certainly on a lot of people’s list. (Including my own).
His resignation was NOT the fault of the President. He is a Man of Honor whom felt that resignation was the best course, and that he had let HIMSELF down.
I believe him.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Petraeus has been very supportive of Obama recently. Not surprising with that investigation still hanging over him like the sword of Damocles…
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-01/why-is-the-fbi-still-targeting-petraeus
One other thing - Hillary has been, in recent interviews, talking about how how she wants to create and preside over a “warm, purple space” and has apparently communicated through surrogates how she doesn’t want to be yet another president consigned to history as a polarizer.
So, she is already making moves to set a narrative and occupy this space, which is very appeal in to the electorate, which has been drifting away from party affiliation.
Will the GOP counter and try to claim this hill? Seems unlikely.
Hillary’s sophists have also said she wants to “weave gender into matters of economic fairness and opportunity”.