Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 202

Thread: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

  1. #101
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Again, I disagree entirely. There's a chasm between "pandering" to a segment of the base and abjectly insulting, attacking, and belittling them.
    Are you actually disagreeing that you don't need to pander to the extremists who are making up more and more of the GOP primary voters? Seriously? Did you see the 2012 Republican primaries? While I do agree there is a difference in what you say, the point still remains that Huntsman wasn't and didn't ever want to pander to the extremists. Again, he staked his last stand in a state where the GOP primary voters look very different from the rest of the GOP primary voters in the country. Huntsman was selling a different brand of Republicanism and the voters simply didn't want it.

    Huntsman didn't need to pander to that part of the base...he just didn't need to use the only significant aggressive act of his campaign to attack them.
    But if you remove his insulting of them, the point still stands that you need that part of the base to win. You cannot win a GOP primary without the hard right socially conservative, hard right Democrat hating base anymore. This is not Reagan's or Eisenhower's party anymore. Or Dole's. or even 2000's McCain's. What makes you think that the necessary amounts of hard right social conservatives would ever vote for Huntsman given his policies? Huntsman would have had to do what Romney did: Completely abandon his beliefs and former platform to say whatever he needed to say to get their votes. Romney made Clinton look principled. You can focus all you want on how Huntsman alienated parts of the base, but the it doesn't do a thing to address the core problem that they wouldn't have voted for him anyway simply because of what he stood for and what he refused to do. Gary Johnson was a bit more libertarian, but he more or less ran a similar no pandering campaign. The 2012 nomination showed you absolutely must pander to the crazies if you want to win the nomination. This is why Jeb Bush stands exactly zero chance of winning a nomination. It's embarrassingly sad that Bush Dynasty is offering the best candidate at this point.

    Which is what made him acting like a child tossing out insults towards his own side all the more ridiculous and suicide from a political sense. He was trying to run a positive campaign....and then when he finally went negative it was towards people on his own side. That's a political equivilent of kicking the ball into your own goal in soccer.
    Still doesn't address the core problem of winning a GOP primary. Even if Huntsman had maintained a positive campaign, he did zero pandering to the GOP radicals. Johnson didn't engage in the same kind of belittling as Huntsman and he ended up even WORSE than Huntsman. Fundamentally, it comes down to the ugly fact that the GOP voters didn't want a reasonable, adult candidate who actually stood for what he believed in. Romney's flip flopping made Clinton look like a steadfast wall. And that's who won the nomination.

    I know its fun for liberals to sit on the outside looking in and paint Huntsman, or his campaign, as something he wasn't. It happened the ENTIRE time throughout his campaign and it was also a factor playing into his problems. But the simple issue of his views on Evolution and Global Warming, in and of themselves, were far from the top reasons for his campaigns issues.
    As I stated before, the science is just a manifestation of the various reasons Huntsman was doomed. The GOP extreme primary voters didn't not vote for him because of that. They didn't vote for him because he wasn't willing to completely abandon all of his positions to (temporarily) adopt theirs. Romney did.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #102
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Are you actually disagreeing that you don't need to pander to the extremists who are making up more and more of the GOP primary voters?
    I've been disagreeing that "accepting science" is what "did him in", or that "he refused to pander to the crazy" is what "killed him".

    And I continue to disagree with that. Saying that singular thing, "accepting science" or "refusing to pander" to parts of the base about that science is what "killed him" or "did him in" is absolutely, positively, ridiculous and ignorant of the reality of that campaign.

    Seriously.

    As I've stated...MULTIPLE times now, clear as day...the bigger issue was not that he believed in evolution (I'd wager most Republican candidates do) or that he believed there was some merit to Global Warming (I'd wager most Republican candidats don't), it was that he was actively hostile towards other candidates/part of the republican base regarding those issues. Specifically in the midst of a campaign where he made it an absolute point to NOT be hostile towards people on the other side of the aisle.

    Had he no made his "call me crazy" quip I frankly don't think evolution would've even been an issue with his primary campaign. I believe his stance on Global Warming would've came up given his history as Governor, but could've easily been navigated around with even a modicum of political savy by pointing back to his own comments regarding his stance that action at the federal action to combat Global Warming was not an appropriate step to take with our current economic situation.

    His issue was not his beliefs with regard to evolution and global warming...his issue was with his attitude and reaction regarding those beliefs.

    But if you remove his insulting of them, the point still stands that you need that part of the base to win. You cannot win a GOP primary without the hard right socially conservative, hard right Democrat hating base anymore. This is not Reagan's or Eisenhower's party anymore. Or Dole's. or even 2000's McCain's. What makes you think that the necessary amounts of hard right social conservatives would ever vote for Huntsman given his policies? Huntsman would have had to do what Romney did: Completely abandon his beliefs and former platform to say whatever he needed to say to get their votes. Romney made Clinton look principled. You can focus all you want on how Huntsman alienated parts of the base, but the it doesn't do a thing to address the core problem that they wouldn't have voted for him anyway simply because of what he stood for and what he refused to do. Gary Johnson was a bit more libertarian, but he more or less ran a similar no pandering campaign. The 2012 nomination showed you absolutely must pander to the crazies if you want to win the nomination. This is why Jeb Bush stands exactly zero chance of winning a nomination. It's embarrassingly sad that Bush Dynasty is offering the best candidate at this point.

    Still doesn't address the core problem of winning a GOP primary.
    Actually, it does address the core problem with him in terms of winning a primary (And seriously, find me ANY politician who has won a Presidential primary by not pandering to some aspect of his parties base before. I'll be sitting here waiting). His campaign COMPLETELY misread the attitudes and expectations of the base at that point and made a multitude of calculated errors in handling the campaign. This isn't even about "pandering" but simply actually engaging in a political campaign in the most basic facets possible. There's a chasm between pandering to a particular audience and deftly/tactfully navigating around issues you disagree on without insulting said particular audience. If Huntsman had no intent on ever doing the latter than I become an even bigger critic and questioner of this judgement as it shows a reprehensible level of fiscal irresponsability to get into a major political race without any intentions of actually engaging in the basic understood tactics of a political campaign.

    You want to belittle people by accusing them of not watching the 2012 primary? Turn the mirror around on yourself with this asinine backseat hyper partisan blithering assessment you put forth here. I actively followed the 2012 republican primary from the onset and my stances regarding Huntsman, his errors and issues, have LONG been recorded on this forum dating back to the actual primary. Take your hyper partisan garbage and try to shovel it down someone's throat that is far more ignorant than mine becuase I recognize it as the bull**** and propoganda fueld droning of an anti-conservative shill that it is.

  3. #103
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    728

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    In foreign affairs Rand Paul is an irresponsible loon, and a know-nothing. If he were the Repub nominee I would support Hillary Clinton.
    I disagree, why do you say he is an irresponsible loon?

    What qualifies paul ryan that disqualifies
    Rand paul? I would vote for either in the general, but would take paul in the primary.

    And voting for hillary is the last thing i would do.

  4. #104
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    728

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Even as Senator Paul has try to wrap himself in the "Realist" label, his views remain far closer to neo-isolationism than Realism. If one examines his budget proposal, he sought to freeze U.S. foreign aid at $5 billion per year (p.46). Moreover, even as he correctly talked about some of the ineffective applications of foreign aid, absent from his discussion were conceptions of the national interest, balance of power, and strategic allies, all of which are hallmarks of the Realist school. Also absent were concrete discussions about the nation's major foreign policy challenges and opportunities. His budget discussion was largely an argument against foreign aid as a rationalization for maintaining a token amount. IMO, whether a candidate is from the Liberal Internationalist, Realist (my preference), or Neoconservative schools, that candidate almost certainly has a more well-conceived approach to foreign policy than Senator Paul.

    If one looks at Paul's proposed 2014-2023 defense outlays (p.93), one finds a cumulative figure of approximately $5.584 trillion. That's approximately 19% less than President Obama's latest budget for the same timeframe (p.8). Put another way, President Obama proposed spending approximately $1.23 on defense for every dollar Paul would spend. Recognition of the importance of power, of course, is an essential element of the Realist school.

    Paul's budget concept articulates where he stands. His recent attempts to package himself as a Realist in the tradition of many past GOP Presidents rings hollow once one examines his proposed budget allocations.
    I dont see the problem. Reducing spending is something that must be done and foreign aid is a good place to start. There are numerous countries that receive foreign aid that many would consider to be allies of our enemies.

    Paul advocates reducing spending in all areas of government. Defense is no exception.

  5. #105
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabanist View Post
    Lots of good candidates in 2016

    Jeb Bush
    Rand Paul
    Mitt Romney
    Paul Ryan
    Ted Cruz
    Ben Carson
    Scott Brown


    At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson

    I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.


    What say you
    I pretty much agree but I like Ted Crruz a lot to. Like you I would vote for any Conservative candidate and I think that any of the three can defeat "The wicked witch from the east, Hillary....I think it would be disasterous for this country if she were elected.......I am not sure we could ever recover frrom a Hillary presidency.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  6. #106
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,876
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabanist View Post
    I disagree, why do you say he is an irresponsible loon?

    What qualifies paul ryan that disqualifies
    Rand paul? I would vote for either in the general, but would take paul in the primary.

    And voting for hillary is the last thing i would do.
    RP is an isolationist who would gut the US military. PR has a much more adult view of the requirements for US power and the US role in the world. I would not vote for Hillary happily, but at least she's not irresponsible as is RP.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  7. #107
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    728

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    This. And the difference I saw between Romney and Obama in 2012 was that Romney had a proven history of working with the other party when he was top dog. There are few states if any that have such a disparity in party representation in the state legislature as Massachusetts, yet Romney managed to compromise to death in order to get things through, including that oh so famous healthcare law in that state.

    Obama, on the other hand, had no history of working collaberatively across party lines, neither before 2009 nor during the 4 years he was POTUS.

    Romney would have been another Clinton. And while Clinton wasn't my favorite President, he certainly knew how to build consensus.
    Plenty of differences in romney and obama. Romney has spent his whole life in executive positions, obama none, romney cut taxes and increased jobs as gov with a democrat congress, obama raises taxes and whines about a republican house, romney turned failing enterprises into successes such as the olympics. The list goes on

  8. #108
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I would consider voting for Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Brown, or Paul Ryan. Possibly Marco Rubio. I would not vote for Paul. I would never vote for Cruz or Carson, I don't think either is qualified to be President. Especially not Carson. If either of them were the nominee I'd actively support Hillary Clinton.

    I like Jeb Bush a lot to...............I think we have some excellent candidates for 2016.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  9. #109
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabanist View Post
    I dont see the problem. Reducing spending is something that must be done and foreign aid is a good place to start. There are numerous countries that receive foreign aid that many would consider to be allies of our enemies.

    Paul advocates reducing spending in all areas of government. Defense is no exception.
    The focus of fiscal reform should be on the large budget items. That's where the largest returns could be achieved be they through efficiency savings, reductions, or a combination of both. Foreign aid accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget. It is not a driver of the nation's long-term structural imbalances.

    The nation's defense posture should be based on the security challenges that confront it. Reliance on the good will of others simply to meet fiscal targets is a dangerous security stance. There is big concern among the nation's current and retired military leaders that the planned funding is inadequate for the security environment that confronts the nation, not to mention the context of a shifting balance of power. Rand Paul's budget would go far beyond the funding levels that have already raised concern. IMO, the funding concerns should be addressed so that military is in a good position to meet such requirements as the security environment might impose.

  10. #110
    Educator
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    728

    Re: Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    RP is an isolationist who would gut the US military. PR has a much more adult view of the requirements for US power and the US role in the world. I would not vote for Hillary happily, but at least she's not irresponsible as is RP.
    Can you back this up with some statement that paul made that indicated he is an isolationist and he would gut the military?

Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •