Republicans Could Lock Up 2016 If...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?

The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]

I missed this until Zepp said something. I’m not 100% sure this is the case. I know the die hard righties want it to be the case, but I’m not sure if it is.

The dynamics of the race are going to favor Republicans. The last 8 years haven’t been good enough to run on and it is going to be easy to paint the Democrats as an extension of Obama. In fact that will be the play. Now, it won’t be as easy as 08 when Bush was insanely unpopular because Obama’s favorability could be decent come election time. He’s most polarizing with those the Democrats are going to lose anyways. Low information voters might be swayed by look at Wall Street, unemployment, gas prices, etc. W Bush didn’t have any of that going for him as we were in full on crisis mode.

I don’t want Jeb Bush to win, but the idea that he couldn’t beat Hilary but Ted Cruz or some other die hard conservative definitely could doesn’t make a lot of sense to me politically. The thing that will most hurt Bush is probably his last name, but if he goes against Clinton that may wash. I can’t buy the notion that most Republicans would really stay home when Hilary Clinton is on the opposing side and they have been out of the big house for 8 years.

Democrats will try to turn it into a social issues battle if the economic framing doesn’t work. This favors them. If Republicans can’t escape the primary without taking some social positions that aren’t favorable with the majority then they may struggle. If I was putting money on a team though I’d put it on the Republicans. [/quote]

Very Good Read H
[/quote]

Thanks. I could be wrong, but I think Hilary running is advantage Republicans. Hilary is a long time enemy of Republicans. The built up hatred against her is already in play from the festering wounds of yesterday. With anyone else Republicans may tear themselves apart in the primaries and then stay home in a bitter protest that their guy didn’t win the nomination.

Once the Republicans get one it is going to be let’s all sheath the swords and unite to defeat our sworn enemy. Republicans will come together and do everything they can to defeat Clinton. I’m not sure they would with someone like Webb or O’Malley. They would against Warren. I think you see greater turnout for Republicans if Clinton gets the nomination. I think she will cause them to unite behind their nominee. You throw in the dirty laundry of decades of the political machine and the attacks write themselves. Jeb hurts the cause because then it may turn into a “who’d you like better Bill or George W” debate and the dynasty attacks against her fail.

[/quote]

You are spot on once again. There will be fierce competition for the republican nomination. But, as you say they will unite behind the winner to prevent Hillary from winning. As for republican turnout I feel it will be high almost regardless of who the nominee is.

162

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Republicans have a great opportunity to win the White House in 2016. There are three key candidates running, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. One of these candidates absolutely needs to be on the ticket with one of the other two.

The republicans need to win two key states in order to defeat Hillary Clinton (or whomever the democrats nominate)

They need Ohio and Florida. Without winning both states they lose! Reagan, Bush Sr., and W all won both Ohio and Florida. Neither McCain or Romney could do it.

Therefore, a smart ticket would include Ohio Governor John Kasich along with either Jeb Bush (former Gov. of Fla.) or Marco Rubio (Sen from Fla,). It matters not to me if Kasich is at the top or bottom of the ticket, nor does it matter if Rubio or Bush are on the ticket as long as one of them makes it.

There you have it, a sure fire win for the republicans. But will they take it, or will they once again snatch defeat from the mouth of victory?

[/quote]

It matters not if a Republican or Democrat wins The White House as it is just more of the same.
[/quote]

Well, yes and no. One such example of “no” is that come tax time I will not be sending as large a check to the US Treasury. I like such a thought…I get all tingly inside thinking of that.

But then again I’ve worked very hard for what I have and really don’t like sending such a large amount of it to the government. I’m funny like that. There are other such examples far less personal such as having a foreign policy that actually makes sense. Ah…I won’t go on.

163

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So what? You should have thought about that before you helped unleash and support forces that undermined civil society.
[/quote]

Not one of your finest intellectual moments. You been taking night courses at the U of Pittttbulll?[/quote]

No, and I meant the proverbial You, not specifically.

But we’ve covered a lot of ground on this before - how the relatively healthy institutions of civil society have come under withering assault since - well, I’d say the Industrial Revolution, but in grave assault since the 1960s - and what has replaced them is the state.

One of the worst assaults was on the institution of thw family, through the fetishization of individualism and the rise of “if it feels good, do it” social libertinism. The order once established by the family and the social network that it was a part of had to be replaced with something. Enter the welfare state.

There is no extraction of the welfare state from that part of civil society until that institution is reconstituted. Others as well.

165

[quote] pushharder wrote:

I agree.

But I took issue with your statement because it seemed to imply that those who decry the welfare state today were and are responsible for implementing it. That made no sense.[/quote]

Well, some of them are, even if unknowingly or not on purpose. Many libertarians who condemn the welfare atate are also champions of the social libertinism that requires the welfare state. It’s a paradox many won’t even face up to.

So, some who are against are actually (partially) responsible for it.

166

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So what? You should have thought about that before you helped unleash and support forces that undermined civil society.
[/quote]

Not one of your finest intellectual moments. You been taking night courses at the U of Pittttbulll?[/quote]

No, and I meant the proverbial You, not specifically.

But we’ve covered a lot of ground on this before - how the relatively healthy institutions of civil society have come under withering assault since - well, I’d say the Industrial Revolution, but in grave assault since the 1960s - and what has replaced them is the state.

One of the worst assaults was on the institution of thw family, through the fetishization of individualism and the rise of “if it feels good, do it” social libertinism. The order once established by the family and the social network that it was a part of had to be replaced with something. Enter the welfare state.

There is no extraction of the welfare state from that part of civil society until that institution is reconstituted. Others as well.
[/quote]

You think the breakdown of the family preceded the welfare state? The welfare state enables “social libertinism” to exist. The 1930s came before the 1960s.

168

[quote]NickViar wrote:

You think the breakdown of the family preceded the welfare state? The welfare state enables “social libertinism” to exist. The 1930s came before the 1960s. [/quote]

It preceded it, in part, and made it far worse than it was - but, above, I said it began with the stresses caused by the Industrial Revolution. See above.

171

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Many libertarians who condemn the welfare atate are also champions of the social libertinism that requires the welfare state. It’s a paradox many won’t even face up to.
[/quote]

Agreed. I’ve spent quite some time Asia where they still have strong family values and there is not the same kind of dependence on the welfare state that we have here. Its like the whole idea of the government providing support is an alien concept because that is what famy is for. The government is only there as an absolute last resort. Not looking after your family in those cultures is seen the same way hurting small animals is in ours.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, some who are against are actually (partially) responsible for it.
[/quote]

I don’t think that makes them responsible for it. It’s just an issue they try and ignore. They either take a faith based approach or a callous one; neither is endearing.

172

[quote]pushharder wrote:
TB, you of all people here might appreciate this piece:

What Libertarians Get Wrong About American History – American history is not an essentially libertarian story.

And believe it or not it’s from a libertarian website.

(maybe this post should’ve been placed on one of the other threads, oh well)
[/quote]

Thanks for the link. I think that is largely spot-on (obviously, it was written with a libertarian slant decrying, rather than praising, some of the historical trajectory, and I don’t have that slant.

But I think he’s dead right about libertarianism really being a creature of future tense politics, and it can’t credibly root itself in calling for the good old days of the Republic when it was more of a libertarian paradise.

What do you think of his points?

173

Also, since I know Zeb wants to focus on practical politics in this thread, I am going to start a new thread and copy over my post. Very interesting stuff, but unlikely to have much of an impact on how the GOP wins 2016.

:slight_smile:

174

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Yet I wouldn’t vote for the GOP. .[/quote]

Fine however… The other major party isn’t accomplishing anything like you’ve said you want, and in some respects the very opposite.

The simple fact is we are a generation or two before a third party become viable.

So with that, I ask, where do we go from here then? The Democrats are just as much “for big business” as the republicans, just as controlling, just as wild spenders, they just have better messaging.

If you won’t vote for the GOP, and the other side is not materially different than the reasons you say you won’t vote for the GOP… What then? Not vote at all?

175

[quote]chrism50 wrote:
The GOP is a dying party that does not give a rats ass about average American. They are a party for rich and elite that will continue to steal your hard earned money. They have no clue on social issues and they are just as worse when it comes to economy. Heck every time a Rupublicant gets in the White House stock market goes upside down. Most will never giver OBAMA credit for bringing this country back from brink of death. Remember BUSH gave us 2 wars, 9/11, and worse economy since great depression. So if you want to go back to that vote for another white dope !!![/quote]

Take this bullshit, talking point, astro turf the fuck out of here.

If you want to actually have a discussion, fine, but you need to actually think for yourself.

176

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Yet I wouldn’t vote for the GOP. .[/quote]

Fine however… The other major party isn’t accomplishing anything like you’ve said you want, and in some respects the very opposite.

The simple fact is we are a generation or two before a third party become viable.

So with that, I ask, where do we go from here then? The Democrats are just as much “for big business” as the republicans, just as controlling, just as wild spenders, they just have better messaging.

If you won’t vote for the GOP, and the other side is not materially different than the reasons you say you won’t vote for the GOP… What then? Not vote at all?[/quote]

We really only have three options: Vote third party, fix the GOP, or change the voting system so that we don’t “throw our vote away” by voting third party. Both parties are taking us in the wrong direction and I’m not going to vote for the slightly less worse candidate. The big problems aren’t now or in the next couple of terms… They are in 30-40 years if we keep going down the current path. Maybe 40-50 years if we vote Republican instead of Democrat.

177

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Yet I wouldn’t vote for the GOP. .[/quote]

Fine however… The other major party isn’t accomplishing anything like you’ve said you want, and in some respects the very opposite.

The simple fact is we are a generation or two before a third party become viable.

So with that, I ask, where do we go from here then? The Democrats are just as much “for big business” as the republicans, just as controlling, just as wild spenders, they just have better messaging.

If you won’t vote for the GOP, and the other side is not materially different than the reasons you say you won’t vote for the GOP… What then? Not vote at all?[/quote]

We really only have three options: Vote third party, fix the GOP, or change the voting system so that we don’t “throw our vote away” by voting third party. Both parties are taking us in the wrong direction and I’m not going to vote for the slightly less worse candidate. The big problems aren’t now or in the next couple of terms… They are in 30-40 years if we keep going down the current path. Maybe 40-50 years if we vote Republican instead of Democrat.[/quote]

You’d have trouble finding people who disagree with you on this, until you realize you are both headed in opposite directions on the new path.

178

Great speech by Rubio announcing his candidacy. He is gaining in the money raising department as well. All he has to do now is capture the nomination (not an easy task) then choose John Kasich of Ohio as his VP and we beat Hillary all day long.

Florida and Ohio the two magic states that hold the keys to a republican victory.

179

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One of the worst assaults was on the institution of thw family, through the fetishization of individualism and the rise of “if it feels good, do it” social libertinism. The order once established by the family and the social network that it was a part of had to be replaced with something. Enter the welfare state.
[/quote]

Why don’t you just call it freedom? Is your solution to have the government decide what is good? And control anyone who does something they deem as not feeling good?

Social libertarianism sounds like letting people make their own choices to me. Your going down the road that leads to the soda tax. Why let people make their own decisions?

180

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One of the worst assaults was on the institution of thw family, through the fetishization of individualism and the rise of “if it feels good, do it” social libertinism. The order once established by the family and the social network that it was a part of had to be replaced with something. Enter the welfare state.
[/quote]

Why don’t you just call it freedom? Is your solution to have the government decide what is good? And control anyone who does something they deem as not feeling good?

Social libertarianism sounds like letting people make their own choices to me. Your going down the road that leads to the soda tax. Why let people make their own decisions? [/quote]

I tend to agree with social libertarianism in theory; however, there are instances (poor health choices for example) where individual choice effects the collective and in so doing effects other peoples ability to make individual choices.

As a more moderate conservative (best way to describe me I suppose) I think there’s a balance that needs to be struck between the two and it is lacking at the moment (favors the collective to much in some ways and favors the individual to much in some ways).

My .02 cents anyway.

Edit: To clarify, In general I’d say the balance is tipped towards the collective.