• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

a351 said:
That's mostly your own bias speaking. There's several candidates with impressive executive experience (Bush, Walker) and some good orators among the bunch as well. As of now, the GOP has far more depth in their list of viable Presidential candidates with name recognition.
Click to expand...

Which....if you noticed....were the two that I mentioned as the only two candidates that stand any much of a chance. Even there...Walker is a long shot. The rest of the group are clowns through and through.
 
NIMBY said:
He's not the only GOP who supports or who supported amnesty--beginning with Reagan.

Why do you think Walker has walked back his support of comprehensive immigration reform ?
Click to expand...

Everyone and their dog says that Reagan's amnesty failed. Obviously it did or we wouldn't "need" another round of it.

Walker is walking back his "comprehensive" reform because "comprehensive" has been negatively linked with amnesty.
 
shrubnose said:
Who will be the next president of the USA because the GOP won't run anyone who could beat her.
Click to expand...

Everyone can beat her. We could run the grand poobah of the KKK promoting cigarette sales in schools, war on Canada and the abolishing of seat belts, and Hillary would lose by a landslide.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Everyone can beat her. We could run the grand poobah of the KKK promoting cigarette sales in schools, war on Canada and the abolishing of seat belts, and Hillary would lose by a landslide.
Click to expand...
Don't count on it.

And don't count on the ability of the GOP to defeat a president who should be easy to defeat. Hint: Look at the election of 2012.
 
shrubnose said:
Hillary Clinton is 68 years old. I don't believe that many people would call her a young White woman.

She hasn't supported the GOP for quite a while.
Click to expand...
Age was mentioned against the GOP and she is the oldest candidate among those seeking the presidency. I don;t care how old a candidate is if they are competent and knowledgeable but the phrase "old White men", as used by the poster, is obviously out of place.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Don't count on it.

And don't count on the ability of the GOP to defeat a president who should be easy to defeat. Hint: Look at the election of 2012.
Click to expand...
That was the fault of the electorate, not the candidate. When people don't understand the genuine issues but get sidetracked by things like free birth control then it is the electorate who is clearly responsible. Their attention will get redirected to trivia in the next presidential campaign as well.
 
In the past 100 years worth of presidential elections:
1 - D
3 - R
5 - D
2 - R
2 - D
2 - R
1 - D
3 - R
2 - D
2 - R
2 - D

the pendulum swings back and forth. sometimes the general electorate just hears enough negative stories in a 4 or 8 year party and it's more or less "ok the other party gets a try now".

only one party since Truman/FDR have won three straight terms

the only four elections in the popular vote margin of victory was greater than double-digits they've all been R beating a D

add in the recent "shock" results in the UK, and I just have a feeling that unless the GOP nominates a complete lunatic (not an impossibility) then this one just goes back to the R candidate. it doesn't even have to be one particular issue.
 
Grant said:
That was the fault of the electorate, not the candidate. When people don't understand the genuine issues but get sidetracked by things like free birth control then it is the electorate who is clearly responsible. Their attention will get redirected to trivia in the next presidential campaign as well.
Click to expand...
It will if the candidates allow it to.

Face it: Romney should have won. Had the campaign been better run, he would have. The GOP blew it when victory was theirs.
IMO, of course. Others may think the best man did win.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It will if the candidates allow it to.

Face it: Romney should have won. Had the campaign been better run, he would have. The GOP blew it when victory was theirs.
IMO, of course. Others may think the best man did win.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct.

My god, he looked presidential. If they made a movie about Ronald Reagan it is a safe bet Romney's name would get tossed around to play the role. On the plus side he was a true family man and doubt you would find him playing with the house staff.
On the minus side his family without any male member ever serving in the military oozes the rich priviledge class. Everyone wants to be rich but everyone hates the rich which is why you often here a politician tell how he or she wore bread bags over their shoes as a kid.
 
disneydude said:
The field is "way to strong"? Who are you kidding? There isn't a strong candidate in the entire bunch. The GOP is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Click to expand...

A lot of them aren't really running to become prez. There's a lot of $'s to be made these days just running.
 
Grant said:
Age was mentioned against the GOP and she is the oldest candidate among those seeking the presidency. I don;t care how old a candidate is if they are competent and knowledgeable
but the phrase "old White men", as used by the poster, is obviously out of place.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Take a look any any gathering of the the GOP, 'old White men' describes the majority of the people there.



"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
poweRob said:
A lot of them aren't really running to become prez. There's a lot of $'s to be made these days just running.
Click to expand...

That is definitely true....and you have people like Fiorina and Carson who are simply running to get their 15 minutes of fame before they fade back into oblivion.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Everyone can beat her. We could run the grand poobah of the KKK promoting cigarette sales in schools, war on Canada and the abolishing of seat belts, and Hillary would lose by a landslide.
Click to expand...

You are either a delusional optimist or incomplete denial. Then again....being from Texas kind of explains it all.
 
Bethlehem Bill said:
In the past 100 years worth of presidential elections:
1 - D
3 - R
5 - D
2 - R
2 - D
2 - R
1 - D
3 - R
2 - D
2 - R
2 - D

the pendulum swings back and forth. sometimes the general electorate just hears enough negative stories in a 4 or 8 year party and it's more or less "ok the other party gets a try now".

only one party since Truman/FDR have won three straight terms

the only four elections in the popular vote margin of victory was greater than double-digits they've all been R beating a D

add in the recent "shock" results in the UK, and I just have a feeling that unless the GOP nominates a complete lunatic (not an impossibility) then this one just goes back to the R candidate. it doesn't even have to be one particular issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that really sophisticated analysis of US presidential elections. Perhaps you might also factor the information presented below (note the discussion of significant structural shifts in the American electorate that renders your 100 year analysis moot) and get back to us....

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch


One of the problems with the Republicans is that most of the candidates the Conservatives like are indeed, what you call, "lunatics" in the board scheme of the political spectrum..

ksu_aviator said:
Everyone can beat her. We could run the grand poobah of the KKK promoting cigarette sales in schools, war on Canada and the abolishing of seat belts, and Hillary would lose by a landslide.
Click to expand...

If she were running for governor of Texas, you would be right. But, she is running for President and most of the electorate, contrary to the Texan myopic world view, are not Texans. It's the Cons that actually have slightly better than no shot.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
It will if the candidates allow it to. Face it: Romney should have won. Had the campaign been better run, he would have. The GOP blew it when victory was theirs.
IMO, of course. Others may think the best man did win.
Click to expand...
This isn't a game decided by sides, it's a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country, and that depends on experience, integrity, and so on.

What did the Republicans really lose? Romney certainly doesn't need the money or prestige. Some GOP members may have lost Cabinet posts. But all we have to do it look at the consequences, (the scandals, Middle east, etc,) of who the electorate voted in to see that it was their fault. That would include the LIVs and those who stayed home rather then voting for the best candidate.
 
shrubnose said:
Take a look any any gathering of the the GOP, 'old White men' describes the majority of the people there.
Click to expand...
Age often brings wisdom, or at least it does in some cultures, but Hillary had better hope that age is not a factor in the election. I don't believe her age should be an issue but her competence and integrity certainty should.
 
Grant said:
This isn't a game decided by sides, it's a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country, and that depends on experience, integrity, and so on.

What did the Republicans really lose? Romney certainly doesn't need the money or prestige. Some GOP members may have lost Cabinet posts. But all we have to do it look at the consequences, (the scandals, Middle east, etc,) of who the electorate voted in to see that it was their fault. That would include the LIVs and those who stayed home rather then voting for the best candidate.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the election is "a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country." That may be what it should be, but what it is more closely resembles a partisan rumble with bull(bleep!) as the primary ammunition being shot back and forth.


And, if the winner "depends on experience, integrity, and so on," how did we elect a freshman senator with no experience?

Twice?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I disagree that the election is "a determination by the people who would be the best person to run the country." That may be what it should be, but what it is more closely resembles a partisan rumble with bull(bleep!) as the primary ammunition being shot back and forth.
And, if the winner "depends on experience, integrity, and so on," how did we elect a freshman senator with no experience?

Twice?
Click to expand...
Exactly! Once I can understand, but twice???

And how did contraception become an election issue in the last election? Contraception? Has that ever been mentioned again since Sandra Fluke first made her appearance on the national stage? You'll have to really dumb down your thinking to guess what the issue might be in the next election but it will be something so simple that the LIV will be able to understand, or at least get a feeling for. Perhaps sexism, agism, food stamps or something equally simple.

Certainly politicians and the media will try to manipulate the issues in any election but the electorate don't seem to have any idea that they are being used. Is that the fault of the politicians or a rather unsophisticated electorate? I believe it's the latter.
 
upsideguy said:
Thanks for that really sophisticated analysis of US presidential elections. Perhaps you might also factor the information presented below (note the discussion of significant structural shifts in the American electorate that renders your 100 year analysis moot) and get back to us....

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch


One of the problems with the Republicans is that most of the candidates the Conservatives like are indeed, what you call, "lunatics" in the board scheme of the political spectrum..



If she were running for governor of Texas, you would be right. But, she is running for President and most of the electorate, contrary to the Texan myopic world view, are not Texans. It's the Cons that actually have slightly better than no shot.
Click to expand...

ok then just look at the last 24 years. 8 years of clinton, 8 years of bush, 8 years of obama. back and forth.

i didn't claim it was a complicated analysis, so i don't know what your sarcasm was supposed to add to that post.

i still don't think that any one side has a "lock" on the white house, despite the "controversial analysis from a Republican analyst" that you cite as proof of something in the market watch article.

i admit the gop has a lot of fringe candidates, but when it comes down to the general election, just one party vs. the other, the margins of victory in popular vote % have been close. again, not claiming to be a political scientist, but in the last 75 years, only 5 elections have had a double digit margin of victory (4 R, 1 D). electoral college margins have been greater, but both sides have landslide wins by that metric as well in recent history

additionally, in the last hundred years, voter turnout in presidential elections has hovered between 50-60%. i get the arguments and predictions about shifts in demographics that should favor democrats, but the bottom line (and the data so far seems to support) that it's still more or less a coin flip. for all the new minorities that are coming here that are supposed to favor the D, there are 10,000 people per day retiring that should then in theory favor the R by virtue of the "old, rich, hands off my medicare" crowd.

even john judis, co author of the "the emerging democratic majority" is walking back that prediction...
 
Grant said:
Exactly! Once I can understand, but twice???

And how did contraception become an election issue in the last election? Contraception? Has that ever been mentioned again since Sandra Fluke first made her appearance on the national stage? You'll have to really dumb down your thinking to guess what the issue might be in the next election but it will be something so simple that the LIV will be able to understand, or at least get a feeling for. Perhaps sexism, agism, food stamps or something equally simple.

Certainly politicians and the media will try to manipulate the issues in any election but the electorate don't seem to have any idea that they are being used. Is that the fault of the politicians or a rather unsophisticated electorate? I believe it's the latter.
Click to expand...

Could be a little of both.
I'd forgotten about the great contraception controversy, but that one did get a lot of air time. Next time, who knows? It's unlikely to be anything of substance.
 
NIMBY said:
The word I've seen in print is that the RNC debate in August in Ohio will be limited to 12 candidates.
Maybe another network can have a debate with the other dozen or so candidates .
Click to expand...

The RNC Debate Playoffs: Con Madness. Can we have an office pool?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom