• 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!

If Republicans were Smart...

Problem is everytime the candidate that is voted because they think they will win loses, except maybe the cali governor recall election where they voted the governator, who truly tried to help the state, but messed up things worse in the process.

Kerry mcain and romney were all the most electable, and all three lost, yet gwb and obama seemed unelectable and unre-eleactable yet won. In the end the electable candidate is merely a lame stands nor opposes anything candidate, while the supposedly unelectable ones always win. So why the should follow the formula that has continued to fail and listen to people when they tell them the formula that succeeds will fail?

I guess I saw W and Obama differently. W before the Iraq fiasco was well liked by a lot of people. He had excellent cross-over appeal. Remember he was the "compassionate conservative". Obama was a bit more risky. But he was, after all, "the clean negro" (I think that's what Biden called him). Plus he wasn't Hillary. And, by the time he ran in the general, he came across as more sane than McPalin.
 
Ya for sure, "smart R Party Brain Trust" does not work....too far fetched.

Donald can fix it!

It's no accident. The GOP has been riling up the trailer park for over a decade. They should not be all that surprised to find out that the rabble figured out the game and turned their pitchforks on them.
 
I guess I saw W and Obama differently. W before the Iraq fiasco was well liked by a lot of people. He had excellent cross-over appeal. Remember he was the "compassionate conservative". Obama was a bit more risky. But he was, after all, "the clean negro" (I think that's what Biden called him). Plus he wasn't Hillary. And, by the time he ran in the general, he came across as more sane than McPalin.

But in 08 a black candidate was deemed unelectable, but he actually gained alot of support, even from my father who was semi racist and a long time log cabin republican and hardcore conservative(except the anti gay part) While bush by 04 had nonstop attack ads run against him, and every democratic candidate ran on the im not bush platform, he had low approval ratings, yet mopped the floor with kerry.

People do not want a mediocre robot who parrots public opinion with no passion, a moderate can easily win, but they need to be passionate and unwavering, not mediocre and bland as to not offend anyone.
 
It's no accident. The GOP has been riling up the trailer park for over a decade. They should not be all that surprised to find out that the rabble figured out the game and turned their pitchforks on them.

We might not be books smart but we know our ass for a hole in the ground by golly!


Who are we coming for after we get done throwing over this clown car of R POTUS pukes?


Wanna guess?




Clue:CRH
 
Last edited:
But in 08 a black candidate was deemed unelectable, but he actually gained alot of support, even from my father who was semi racist and a long time log cabin republican and hardcore conservative(except the anti gay part) While bush by 04 had nonstop attack ads run against him, and every democratic candidate ran on the im not bush platform, he had low approval ratings, yet mopped the floor with kerry.
I agree by '04 Bush lost his lovability. But, Kerry was a really bad candidate. One of the worst...second only to maybe that twit with the Mickey Mouse ears riding in a tank.

Obama was a huge risk. He couldn't even win over the working class whites in his own party. I still believe he would have lost if McCain ran a better race and picked a less obnoxious running mate.

People do not want a mediocre robot who parrots public opinion with no passion, a moderate can easily win, but they need to be passionate and unwavering, not mediocre and bland as to not offend anyone.
I get that. Hillary lost in '08 because she was the "focus group" candidate. Rubio will lose because he gets lost in the crowd...nothing about him stands out.
 
We might not be books smart but we know our ass for a hole in the ground by golly!


Who are we coming for after we get done throwing over this clown car of R POTUS pukes?


Wanna guess?




Clue:CRH

If all the angry people could get on the same page, they'd form a mighty strong coalition. The trick is to channel anger from the dissatisfied without alienating entire voting blocks. Trump burned that bridge, and Bernie has that (S) badge that will automatically eliminate his chances with at least 60% of the voters.
 
Both the Republican and Democratic establishment are pumping up Rubio...but for different reasons.

The Republicans want to pump up Rubio so that Rubio can drop out and endorse Bush...the same reason they are pumping up Cruz right now. Ultimately, they want Bush to be the Republican candidate.

The Democrats want to pump up Rubio because they see him as the best candidate for Hillary to run against...and have the best chances to beat.

Vetting a candidate is a process of deep research into the history, activity, associations, affiliations and prior background of a political candidate. Marco Rubio is the least publicly vetted candidate in the race, and there’s a very good reason for that.

Whenever the media are not deep into a GOP candidate’s background, it’s generally because the information therein holds more value for their ideological use at a later date.

The days of reporters actually doing the legwork of research are in the rear view mirror. Modern political vetting is done by private entities, private investigative teams, generally outside the official campaign administration of opponents. That type of research is called opposition research, or “Oppo-research”.

Opposition research is then passed along to the lazy media through liaisons, sources, or random campaign operatives always giving the source campaign plausible deniability.

Every current indication is the Democrats WANT TO go up against Marco Rubio in the general election, just like they WANT TO go up against Jeb. The Democrats have a very weak frontrunner in Hillary Clinton. Clinton carries a mountain of baggage, and is a representative image of all that is corrupt, vile and wrong in Washington DC.

Hillary Clinton does not project a positive, optimistic or inspiring message in the base of the democrat party. If she is to win, she needs an edge. James Carville and the Clinton political machine would like nothing more than to have a Hillary -v- Marco Rubio contest.

That explanation is specifically why we are not seeing a full vetting of Marco Rubio in the media through the GOP primary. The Dem operatives, and the water-carrying ideologically aligned media, are intentionally holding back negative assertions about Rubio in the hope he can gain traction.

Democrats are nothing if not predictable in how they run their side of the campaigns as it relates to the opponent’s primary. The Dems always dump opposition research DURING PRIMARY races against the candidates they prefer not to face in the general. Conversely they stay silent against the candidates they are comfortable running against.

The Establishment’s Last Hope – An Unvetted Marco Rubio… | The Last Refuge

Neither Party establishment want Trump to be the candidate.
 
Neither party is worth trusting.

The site is a perfect example of people going loggerheads over parties that have both equally destroyed the unity of the American people.

Very good. I've said that very thing before. It's a real good example of why the right should not be in executive positions.
 
Very good. I've said that very thing before. It's a real good example of why the right should not be in executive positions.

Yea, because Obama and the Democrats haven't been devisive at all.

Let's be honest, divisive identity Politics is ALL the left has left after 8 years of Obama's failures.

Democrat candidates can't run on the economy, they cant run on ObamaCare and they can't run on Foreign Policy.

So what's left ? Divisive and toxic rhetoric meant to pit one class against another. Yea, that's how to build a stronger America.

Tell people their helpless victim's and their only hope is to rely on Government.

Sanders is actually trying to create two classes and then appeal to the naive, the vulnerables, the " victim's " for support
 
Obama would be a BAD example. " Vote for Bernie because Obama was supposed to lose too "

Democrats in recent elections have been avoiding him and his policies like their lives depended on it and not because the GOP convinced everyone that he was a failure.

Because their lives have been substantially impacted in a negative way one way or the other.

Sanders message is even more Progressive than Obama's and his initaives would crush what's left of a already weak US economy.

There is no ambiguity about what Sanders stands for.
 
Both the Republican and Democratic establishment are pumping up Rubio...but for different reasons.

The Republicans want to pump up Rubio so that Rubio can drop out and endorse Bush...the same reason they are pumping up Cruz right now. Ultimately, they want Bush to be the Republican candidate.

The Democrats want to pump up Rubio because they see him as the best candidate for Hillary to run against...and have the best chances to beat.



Neither Party establishment want Trump to be the candidate.
Well over 60% of the country doesn't want Trump to be president. You'd think people who support him would take that into consideration. Smh
 
Well over 60% of the country doesn't want Trump to be president. You'd think people who support him would take that into consideration. Smh

I think that's a kind of dumbass statement from you. I mean, why should people who support Trump take that into consideration? They all have their reasons for supporting him regardless what 60% of the country wants.

Heck, the Democrats in Congress and the President didn't consider that a majority of the country didn't want Obamacare. Why should anyone else be different? Just because YOU think so?

In any case, that statement from you is irrelevant to what I said in my post. I hereby ask you to keep your responses relevant when you quote me. I'm not interested in your desire to express your opinion just because you like to see your thoughts in text...but when you address your thoughts to me by responding to a quote of mine, you are indicating that what you are saying is relevant to what I said. You failed at that, so please try harder.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a kind of dumbass statement from you. I mean, why should people who support Trump take that into consideration? They all have their reasons for supporting him regardless what 60% of the country wants.

Heck, the Democrats in Congress and the President didn't consider that a majority of the country didn't want Obamacare. Why should anyone else be different? Just because YOU think so?

In any case, that statement from you is irrelevant to what I said in my post. I hereby ask you to keep your responses relevant when you quote me. I'm not interested in your desire to express your opinion just because you like to see your thoughts in text...but when you address your thoughts to me by responding to a quote of mine, you are indicating that what you are saying is relevant to what I said. You failed at that, so please try harder.

Like I said earlier. It makes no sense to select a nominee for president who stands zero chance of winning the general election. So, the kooks get their guy and showed the GOP "establishment" who's boss. So what? It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face...literally actually.
 
If the current Obama economy is what you call bad, and if Sanders economy would be even badder, then we should all support Sanders.

Image...that was one of the sharpest remarks made in this thread. That hit the nail so squarely on its head...there is no need for a second hit.
 
I stopped watching the news a long time ago. I usually wait a few days before making a personal opinion on recent matters. I can't stand the so called hired experts, and other talking heads.

The facts usually make fools out of all of them when they eventually come out.


I think you and Calamity (to whom you were responding)...are both well-informed...and my guess is you both keep up with the news a heck of a lot more carefully than the average person in America.

Democracy is NOT an easy thing. It gets messy.

In the end...it works out.

I notice that Donald Trump did not attend last night's debate...and the world did not come to an end. The campaign is still on...and the outcome is still very much in doubt.

We still are working on "keeping it"...which is how it should be.
 
Well over 60% of the country doesn't want Trump to be president. You'd think people who support him would take that into consideration. Smh

I don't think that matters. Six months ago something like 75% of republicans said that under no circumstances would they support Trump, now that's down to something like 25%.

I suspect that there are enough democrats and centrist who love "Make America White Again" that they will make up any republican vote deficit.
 
So?



I doubt that.

People who are into politics tend to always vote. The non-voter or occasional voter or swing voter really doesn't give a crap about politics and votes just on a whim. They are unlikely to have a very strong opinion of Hillary, probably don't watch the news, or really care about partisan politics. Somehow I just cant see Hillary being in the race enough of a motivator for people to vote just to vote against her.

If anything, Hillary haters, regardless of party, may tend to have a large turnout in the dem primaries to vote against Hillary, so I have a hunch that Sanders may do better than the polls are showing, though I doubt he will win the nomination.

Trump in the race is another story though, and the opportunity to vote for trump will likely bring out lots of Trump voters. Trumps going to get lots of dem votes and swing votes and maybe even some of those occasional voters. That's why I think he will probably win the nomination and also the presidency.

"They are unlikely to have a very strong opinion of Hilary". I would have thought that pretty well every American over the age of 35, say, had an opinion of Mrs Clinton if only in the character of the 'wronged wife' in a lurid melodrama. Whether this will translate into votes, for or against from habitual non-voters, I do not think anyone knows.
 
"They are unlikely to have a very strong opinion of Hilary". I would have thought that pretty well every American over the age of 35, say, had an opinion of Mrs Clinton if only in the character of the 'wronged wife' in a lurid melodrama. Whether this will translate into votes, for or against from habitual non-voters, I do not think anyone knows.

You would think so, but half of America doesn't even know who is running for president, or that there is an upcoming election.

I'm going to be vacationing with a group of people during the week that my state holds it's primaries. A few weeks ago I mentioned to the group that they could vote early at the county administration office, the only responses that I got was "why bother" and "who cares".
 
You would think so, but half of America doesn't even know who is running for president, or that there is an upcoming election.

I'm going to be vacationing with a group of people during the week that my state holds it's primaries. A few weeks ago I mentioned to the group that they could vote early at the county administration office, the only responses that I got was "why bother" and "who cares".

Voter turnout is quite high in Sweden. Mainly I think because in a nation of conformists it is seen as the 'right thing to do'. Saying 'why bother' here would attract frowns of disapproval from your aunts and everyone else's.
 
Like I said earlier. It makes no sense to select a nominee for president who stands zero chance of winning the general election. So, the kooks get their guy and showed the GOP "establishment" who's boss. So what? It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face...literally actually.

shrug...

Regardless your opinion, there are a lot of people who think Trump stands a VERY good chance of winning the general election.

But tell me...are you REALLY that concerned about Trump that you'll bad-mouth all those people who support him? I know I'm not.
 
Voter turnout is quite high in Sweden. Mainly I think because in a nation of conformists it is seen as the 'right thing to do'. Saying 'why bother' here would attract frowns of disapproval from your aunts and everyone else's.

Americans are pretty apathetic to politics. Most Americans feel powerless and feel that we have two groups, the first is "the people" and the second is "the government" - they don't realize that the government is "We the People".

It's ashamed.
 
shrug...

Regardless your opinion, there are a lot of people who think Trump stands a VERY good chance of winning the general election.

But tell me...are you REALLY that concerned about Trump that you'll bad-mouth all those people who support him? I know I'm not.

Well...no one ever accused Republicans of being smart. So, I get that.
 
Americans are pretty apathetic to politics. Most Americans feel powerless and feel that we have two groups, the first is "the people" and the second is "the government" - they don't realize that the government is "We the People".

It's ashamed.

Nothing to add. Just want to repeat it!
 
Well...no one ever accused Republicans of being smart. So, I get that.

shrug...

Republicans are just as smart (or dumb, depending on your point of view) as the Democrats. After all, the Democrats elected Obama TWICE. Can't get much "smarter" than that, eh?
 
Did they broaden their party's appeal in the 2014 midterms when the handed the Democrats their asses on a platter ?

It's not the GOP who needs to worry about the next election.

The Democrats have one candidate that's a avowed Socialist and the other's currently at the center of a FBI Criminal investigation and neither one of them can run on the " Successes " of the Obama administration

What are they going to do ? Brag about the economy ? ObamaCare ? His Foreign Policy ? Nope, nope and nope

The GOP just has to stand aside and let the Democrat party continue its descent into self destruction.

If you know for a fact that she is the center of an FBI investigation then you or your source broke the law.
Just saying.
As for the Republicans just need to stand around with their thumbs in their back trousers I don't think its that cut and dry but that's just me.
Hillary, Donald, we the people lose either way.
 
Back
Top Bottom