• 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!

Jeb Bush Wins Nomination???

Regarding the OP question?

  • Total voters
    46
TurtleDude said:
the president almost never picks the judges. its the party
Click to expand...

Oh. That's good to know. Who in the party caused Bush to want to nominate Harriet Myers?
 
cpwill said:
:lamo

Man. That's some desperation right there :)
Click to expand...

Well at least he can justify wanting to vote for another Clinton that way. Most liberals and conservatives shriek at the concept of voting for anyone that shares the same last name, regardless of their experience and stances.
 
Fiddytree said:
Well at least he can justify wanting to vote for another Clinton that way. Most liberals and conservatives shriek at the concept of voting for anyone that shares the same last name, regardless of their experience and stances.
Click to expand...

Well, I struggle to think of an objection to voting for members of the same family that would manage to make it okay to vote for spouses. It can't be based on likely similarity, or concerns about concentrating power.
 
cpwill said:
Well, I struggle to think of an objection to voting for members of the same family that would manage to make it okay to vote for spouses. It can't be based on likely similarity, or concerns about concentrating power.
Click to expand...

It's merely a partisan talking point of his, but at least he was able to move beyond the squeamishness of his liberal colleagues.
 
cpwill said:
:lamo

Man. That's some desperation right there :)
Click to expand...

Desperate for some more of the Clinton years and more importantly... no more Bush years! Aren't we all? The 8 years of GW were some of the worst years I have seen in my 62 years on the planet. Never again. You Bushys must be masochists.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Desperate for some more of the Clinton years and more importantly... no more Bush years!
Click to expand...

Hm. Balanced budgets. Welfare reform. Reducing capital gains tax rates. I could see some of that.
 
cpwill said:
Hm. Balanced budgets. Welfare reform. Reducing capital gains tax rates. I could see some of that.
Click to expand...

And don't forget income growth ACROSS the board. Raising top income tax rates will do that.
 
NIMBY said:
It's good to see you again.
What makes you think record numbers of Sanders/Warren/Obama/libs/progs won't sit out again as the lazy turds did in 2010 and 2014?

Throwing the House and Senate to your party which is hopelessly and impotently stalemated on seemingly
all important legislative action due to their ongoing and very toxic GOP Civil War.

Maybe you missed Kamikaze Kruz yesterday. (name given to him by the conservative Wall Street Journal)
A 15-minute diatribe on the Senate floor yesterday calling McConnell a liar.

As long as your party is to remain in power,
I'd really appreciate it if they would get their **** together long enough to at least vote on SOMETHING important.
Such as the looming Transportation crisis that has NEVER been a problem until the GOPs came in to the House in 2011 .
Click to expand...


McConnell is a liar and lied straight to Cruze's face, and Cruze called him on it.

I think there is going to be throw down in the Republican party and its going to get real ugly there. The establishment has a brewing rebellion on their hands and had one since the Tea party came to fore. Trump just proved that establishment can be beaten like they were bongo drums. Just as Eric Cantors election proved it. The real question is which way is the rank and file of the party will lean. So far its been with the establishment. That seems as though that may not last much longer as the rumblings of dissatisfaction in the party grow louder everyday. I think there will be a major divide and I don't think it will be mended.

The democrats are headed down the same road just slower.
 
Empirica said:
The Question: If Jeb Bush wins the Republican Party nomination;

will significant numbers of anti-establishment Republican and Tea Party Voters stay home in 2016?
Click to expand...

SIGNIFICANT is the big question here, as is the notion of "staying home".

Significant, to me, is enough to swing an election.

I think that will depend a bit on who wins the nomination. If it's Hillary or Bernie Sander's, I think ultimately it won't significantly depress turnout. I don't think you'll have such a large number stay home that Jeb would otherwise win had they not. I think they'd hold their nose, in part because of the rancor towards Clinton or due to the extreme levels Sander's views.

If it's someone like a Jim Webb, or even a Biden, then I think there's at least a mild chance that yes, it could be a significant amount.

HOWEVER, what I think it'll have a bigger effect in is in the run up. While they may show up on election day and hold their nose, they're not going to be the people on the ground stirring up interest and excitement. A candidate without excitement hurts the ability of the campaign to generate the buzz needed to get those independent and leaning voters who are somewhat apathetic to the election process. I think you'd find very little excitement over a Jeb candidacy, which will hurt his ability to have a ground game, which in turn will hurt his hopes. Not because people will "stay home" on election day, but more because they're mouths will be shut and their excitement will be bottled up in the weeks and months leading up to it.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Hm. Balanced budgets. Welfare reform. Reducing capital gains tax rates. I could see some of that.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world in terms of being able to know the results ahead of time, but where it's a flawed realistic world in the sense that full power to a party almost always seems to muck things up...

I'd love to see someone like Jim Webb or Joe Biden win the Presidency while Republicans maintained control in the House and managed to get 58+ seats in the Senate (With one or two Joe Mancin types on the Democratic side).

A near supermajority Republican controlled Congress with a somewhat more populist, moderately left leaning Democrat in the white house.
 
cpwill said:
It's the moderates who are shrinking, not the base.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, the Democratic base is larger than the Republican base when you look at the nation as a whole. Thus a Republican (and Democrats too) must win the middle in order to win. The notion that Republicans lose because their base stays home is a myth. Republicans lose when they let their base drag them so far to the right in the primaries that they end up toxic to the middle in the general election.

To start winning again you don't need another Reagan. You need another Eisenhower.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Be that as it may, the Democratic base is larger than the Republican base when you look at the nation as a whole. Thus a Republican (and Democrats too) must win the middle in order to win. The notion that Republicans lose because their base stays home is a myth. Republicans lose when they let their base drag them so far to the right in the primaries that they end up toxic to the middle in the general election.

To start winning again you don't need another Reagan. You need another Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

I like Eisenhower. He was a good president. Hardly ever seen or heard from. That's good leadership.
 
sawdust said:
I don't understand the logic of sitting out an election. I certainly don't understand why anyone with a bone of conservatism in their body would not try to help remove democrats from the Oval Office. No candidate is ideal. Some are better than others but all are better than Clinton and Sanders.
Click to expand...


Except Jeb Bush.
 
Renae said:
That so worked in 2012 didn't it?
Click to expand...

The Republican base all showed up to vote in 2012. Romney got more of the base to show up than McCain did. Karl Rove: The Myth of the Stay-at-Home Republicans - WSJ

The problem is that yall are in this fantasy land where you think that the majority of nation fully agrees with you, thus there is no need to moderate your positions at all. As a result, the candidates are drug so far to the right in the primaries (Romney included) that they are toxic in the general election with everyone outside of the base. And this is exactly why the Republicans have won the popular vote in just 1 election since 1988. As I said earlier in the thread, the base thinks it needs another Reagan to win when they actually need another Eisenhower to win.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I agree strongly enough with all of this, that it isn't nearly enough just for me to hit the “Like” button.

As a personality, I really don't like Mr. Trump at all. He comes across to me as an arrogant, self-serving, narcissistic jackass, who is very likely to put his own interests ahead of the nation's if he becomes President. We already have that in Mr. Obama, and I think that what we need now is someone very different than that.

But really, I think you hit the nail on his head. To me, the whole of the appeal that I grudgingly must admit that he has recently come to have for me is exactly because he is not, as so many others are, someone “who [is] afraid to talk openly about serious issues, who [is] crippled by political correctness, and … [is] apologizing for America and conservative values.” He is saying things that need to be said, that other Republican candidates really need to be getting behind rather than running away from. He's catching a lot of solid digestive waste for what he is saying, and he isn't allowing himself to be intimidated into backing off. I really wish that all the other credible Republican candidates would show the courage that Trump is showing, to stand up and say what needs to be said.
Click to expand...

There's an old saying you might be familiar with. "If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen." Ain't too many Republicans of late that got the intestinal fortitude or at least have the confidence, to be able handle the heat. Trump is one of those rare birds that just eats this sort of stuff, right up. He's duck on the pond in the presidential race and it shows. He is still an ass, as you have rightly pointed out and most would agree with, but you have to give him his props as he has most definitely earned them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Be that as it may, the Democratic base is larger than the Republican base when you look at the nation as a whole. Thus a Republican (and Democrats too) must win the middle in order to win. The notion that Republicans lose because their base stays home is a myth. Republicans lose when they let their base drag them so far to the right in the primaries that they end up toxic to the middle in the general election.

To start winning again you don't need another Reagan. You need another Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

It basically comes down to how you want to judge it.

Is the "base" those who identify with the party, or is the "base" those who identify with the ideology most tied to the party.

If you're saying the "base" are those who identify with the party, then the Democratic Party has been in the lead pretty soundly since the mid 2000's. (1(

If you're saying the "base" are those who identify with the ideology tied to the party, then the Republicans have been in the lead pretty soundly since before 1992. (2)

The reality is that people tend to use either or to qualify the "base" that a particular party has to pick from, and both are legitimately viable ways to speak.

There is a significantly larger "conservative" base than "liberal" base; a chasm between the two that is far larger than the difference between "republicans" and "democrats". However, on the flip side, "Democrats" naturally tend to attract more "moderate" ideological people into their "PARTY" base.

So it'd probably be most accurate ot say Republicans have a significantly bigger ideological base, but Democrats have a bigger party base.

If we're JUST talking about ideological base (and ignoring the realities of the electoral college), the Republicans would *theoretically* need to find a way to attract about 38% of moderates onto their side. This is because there's significantly more Conservatives than Liberals as the starting points.

If we're JUST talking about party ID, it gets tough. Let's take "leans" into account. Thus far in 2015 you're looking at 42% Rep's and 45% dems. Which means there'd be about 13% of people up for grabs. There, the Republicans would need to grab 69% of those to get the win.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the key is you have to elect someone first, then worry. the most important thing a president can do is appoint federal judges. and we generally will get the same judges no matter who the GOP president is
Click to expand...
Then the key would be for voters to not shoot themselves in the foot by supporting a candidate that would likely appoint an unreliable judge!

TurtleDude said:
Sometimes GOP justices vote the wrong way on seminal issues. The Dem judges always vote the "right way" in the sense that they Always vote for their administration on seminal issues.
Click to expand...
This is because Dem Presidents are and forever more, committed to "fundamentally changing the United States" and will only appoint Justices with proven track records of sharing that commitment!

Dem president will appoint justices who are guaranteed to support more socialism and oppose gun rights. A GOP president will appoint justices WHO MIGHT support gun rights and oppose socialism
Click to expand...
Because GOP Presidents are rarely as committed to the conservative values of their unwitting electors!

Poll: John Roberts Earns Majority Approval From...Liberals? - Daniel Doherty
Poll: John Roberts Earns Majority Approval From...Liberals?
Daniel Doherty | Jul 11, 2015
After saving Obamacare twice in two separate rulings, as his critics inevitably contend, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (and George W. Bush appointee) is surprisingly well-liked by progressives, of all people.

And sometimes this lack of commitment is obvious even before a GOP candidate wins a nomination!

If I were POTUS; I would appoint the most insanely radical right wing judge I could possibly find!

This would insure that if my appointee makes an extreme ruling; it will at least be right-angle!

There is no level I would hesitate to stoop, to rid Western Civilization of the progressive plague!

And I expect the same commitment from my elected representatives___which I've yet to experience!

We need a hero; and most people suspect that such a hero will look, act and talk nothing like a politician!

shrubnose said:
If Jeb Bush wins the nomination he'll lose the election, same for Trump.

I wish both of them lots of luck, all bad.

:lol:
Click to expand...
Assuming you're right which of the two do you believe would lose by the larger number of popular votes?
 
cpwill said:
Oh. That's good to know. Who in the party caused Bush to want to nominate Harriet Myers?
Click to expand...

that was an aberration and why i said ALMOST never
 
iguanaman said:
LOL You think the party picked GW's secretary?
Click to expand...

what part of almost escapes some people?

Harriet was not a "secretary" and her qualifications were pretty strong but not as strong as someone should have to be considered for the USSC
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The Republican base all showed up to vote in 2012. Romney got more of the base to show up than McCain did. Karl Rove: The Myth of the Stay-at-Home Republicans - WSJ

The problem is that yall are in this fantasy land where you think that the majority of nation fully agrees with you, thus there is no need to moderate your positions at all. As a result, the candidates are drug so far to the right in the primaries (Romney included) that they are toxic in the general election with everyone outside of the base. And this is exactly why the Republicans have won the popular vote in just 1 election since 1988. As I said earlier in the thread, the base thinks it needs another Reagan to win when they actually need another Eisenhower to win.
Click to expand...

Over 62 million voters cast their ballot for George W. Bush in 2004. Less than 60 million voters cast their ballot for John McCain in 2008. And somewhere under 57-59 Million voters cast their ballot for Mitt Romney in 2012. The numbers from the latest election seem to indicate that the Republican Party is losing voters while America is gaining them.
Click to expand...
What went wrong in 2012? The case of the 4 million missing voters | RedState

You're free to post stuff from Karl Rove all you want, that rino can eat **** and die for all I care.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Be that as it may, the Democratic base is larger than the Republican base when you look at the nation as a whole. Thus a Republican (and Democrats too) must win the middle in order to win. The notion that Republicans lose because their base stays home is a myth. Republicans lose when they let their base drag them so far to the right in the primaries that they end up toxic to the middle in the general election.

To start winning again you don't need another Reagan. You need another Eisenhower.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, exactly. I think it could be time for a social experiment with electability, honestly.

That being said, governance requires a more centrist option, because hinging your political fortunes on getting 2/3 of the federal government is incredibly untenable for either Party.

It's just that the public doesn't recognize that.
 
Zyphlin said:
It basically comes down to how you want to judge it.

Is the "base" those who identify with the party, or is the "base" those who identify with the ideology most tied to the party.

If you're saying the "base" are those who identify with the party, then the Democratic Party has been in the lead pretty soundly since the mid 2000's. (1(

If you're saying the "base" are those who identify with the ideology tied to the party, then the Republicans have been in the lead pretty soundly since before 1992. (2)

The reality is that people tend to use either or to qualify the "base" that a particular party has to pick from, and both are legitimately viable ways to speak.

There is a significantly larger "conservative" base than "liberal" base; a chasm between the two that is far larger than the difference between "republicans" and "democrats". However, on the flip side, "Democrats" naturally tend to attract more "moderate" ideological people into their "PARTY" base.

So it'd probably be most accurate ot say Republicans have a significantly bigger ideological base, but Democrats have a bigger party base.

If we're JUST talking about ideological base (and ignoring the realities of the electoral college), the Republicans would *theoretically* need to find a way to attract about 38% of moderates onto their side. This is because there's significantly more Conservatives than Liberals as the starting points.

If we're JUST talking about party ID, it gets tough. Let's take "leans" into account. Thus far in 2015 you're looking at 42% Rep's and 45% dems. Which means there'd be about 13% of people up for grabs. There, the Republicans would need to grab 69% of those to get the win.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. However, it still remains that the Democrats do a lot better job in presidential elections of attracting more moderates. Thus they win more presidential elections than they lose. The republicans do a much worse job of attracting moderates because their base drags their candidates too far to the right, thus they lose more presidential elections than they win.

Just look at 2012. There is no doubt in my mind at all that had Jon Huntsman had enough support in the base to win the nomination, that he almost certainly would have won the general by a good margin. However, the base didn't like him because he was moderate in tone. The guy was a solid fiscal conservative, but because he wasn't an angry bomb thrower, he could not get any support in the base. The Republican base needs to figure out that a Reagan type candidate winning the presidency is a once in a century event. Most of them go down like Goldwater. Far more Eisenhower type Republicans have won the Whitehouse than Reagan Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom