Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What's wrong with him?

Wants to go back to gold standard...

Goddamn communist
put up your dukes its time for fisticuffs!

let's go!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Christie's not the answer. There's already a healthy chunk of the Republican base saying that Christie is dead to them due to his "endorsement" of Obama. He'd never make it through a primary.

He should run and find out. The Republican "base" is not the Republican party, nor the majority of the US. He's anti Second Amendment, and even I like him.

He's going to get destroyed by Booker, so it's going to be a moot point.

Booker?

 Frazzled wrote:
Booker?

Cory Booker, Democratic mayor of Newark. A guy who literally chases down criminals in the street, fights fires by himself, and shows up in snow plows to rescue stranded constituents. I believe he may be Batman. He's going to run for governor, and he's going to knock the stuffing out of Christie.

 Frazzled wrote:
Booker?

Booker T

So what we are looking at here is a Bush/Christie ticket in 2016? I need to make sure that we have a consensus before I use any of the DakkaOT Roundtable Official Recommendation Forms and Priority Mail it out to the RNCC.

Christie/Rubio actually.

Powell/Jindal?

Alternatively show me some nice conservative democrats and I'll look at them too.

I'd put money on Bush/Chirstie unless the primaries are bitter. Then the bottom of the ticket is open but I still think Jeb is THE canidate for 2016.
It almost doesn't matter. I looked in my crystal ball and no matter who runs in 2016 on either side the Dems are going to be crushed.

I just don't see the Republicans putting a governor who couldn't win reelection on a national ticket.

And if you think Christie might win the NJ gubernatorial race in (IIRC) 2013, seriously, look up Cory Booker.

Which blue states will Jeb flip to red that get the GOP from 206 to 270?

I do not think this was just happenstance that Romney lost. I believe they did this so they could put someone better in the ring next time around.

The democrats did this in 2004 with Bush Vs. Kerry. They put up, to use wrestling terms, a jobber against Bush because they knew they couldn't compete. They instead allowed the republicans have another four years and allowed them to wear out their welcome. So when 2008 came around the once reigning champs that were the republicans were too weak to hold up against the onslaught that was the democratic ticket. I sincerely believe McCain wanted the presidency but his party was too weak hold on to the spot. We now see the same game but with the roles reversed.

The republicans have a plan and just because they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a part of their plan like the democrats.

 AustonT wrote:
I'd put money on Bush/Chirstie unless the primaries are bitter. Then the bottom of the ticket is open but I still think Jeb is THE canidate for 2016.
It almost doesn't matter. I looked in my crystal ball and no matter who runs in 2016 on either side the Dems are going to be crushed.

No on Bush...

That name is poison for several decades...

Fraz gets my vote... or someone from the GW-fanboi party!

I don't think Bush is poisoned as much as some people think. Especially if the economy doesn't pick up under Obama's second term it's going to be hard to say that other Bush broke the economy so don't vote for this one (discounting the fact he's suppose to be the smarter one).

Though my brother made a fun point. I don't know where he got it but there hasn't been an election won by a Republican since the 1928 election that didn't have Nixon or a Bush on the ballot. I had to double check and it was oddly true....

 AustonT wrote:
I looked in my crystal ball and no matter who runs in 2016 on either side the Dems are going to be crushed.

Just like in 2012!

gorgon wrote:
Which blue states will Jeb flip to red that get the GOP from 206 to 270?

Any state within 5% this election. Any state with a significant Latino population. Any state with unemployment above 7% in 2015. I'd expect a Jeb ticket to bust the solidarity of New England to. The Commonwealth easily, maybe Maine, NH, and Vermont.
I'm no Nate Silver though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I looked in my crystal ball and no matter who runs in 2016 on either side the Dems are going to be crushed.

Just like in 2012!

I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that. As soon as the primaries started I pretty much figured Barry was fine. Hoping otherwise doesn't make my crystal ball any less accurate.

 ProtoClone wrote:
I do not think this was just happenstance that Romney lost. I believe they did this so they could put someone better in the ring next time around.

The democrats did this in 2004 with Bush Vs. Kerry. They put up, to use wrestling terms, a jobber against Bush because they knew they couldn't compete. They instead allowed the republicans have another four years and allowed them to wear out their welcome. So when 2008 came around the once reigning champs that were the republicans were too weak to hold up against the onslaught that was the democratic ticket. I sincerely believe McCain wanted the presidency but his party was too weak hold on to the spot. We now see the same game but with the roles reversed.

The republicans have a plan and just because they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a part of their plan like the democrats.

i think you give them far too much intellectual credit...

They lost because they refuse to adapt (or even pretend to adapt) to social/demographic changes in the U.S. and instead pandered to a shrinking aspect of their base (the nutjob/racist/sexist/homophobe brigade).
They insist on pretending it is still the 1950's and and they shot themselves in the foot as a result...

They's be smart to start grooming some more moderate republican candidates that actually understand the importance of the latino vote moving forward...

 Hulksmash wrote:

Though my brother made a fun point. I don't know where he got it but there hasn't been an election won by a Republican since the 1928 election that didn't have Nixon or a Bush on the ballot. I had to double check and it was oddly true....

Okay, that just seems weird. I need to confirm.

1932: Democrat (FDR)
1936: Democrat (FDR)
1940: Democrat (FDR)
1944: Democrat (FDR)
1948: Democrat (Truman)
1952: Republican (Eisenhower), Nixon as VP
1956: Republican (Eisenhower), Nixon as VP
1960: Democrat (JFK)
1964: Democrat (Johnson)
1968: Republican (Nixon)
1972: Republican (Nixon)
1976: Democrat (Carter)
1980: Republican (Reagan), Bush Sr as VP
1984: Republican (Reagan), Bush Sr as VP
1988: Republican (Bush Sr)
1992: Democrat (Clinton)
1996: Democrat (Clinton)
2000: Republican (Bush Jr)
2004: Republican (Bush Jr)
2008: Democrat (Obama)
2012: Democrat (Obama)



That is weird. Looks like it's gonna be a Tricia Nixon Cox/Barbara Pierce Bush ticket for 2016!

 CT GAMER wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I do not think this was just happenstance that Romney lost. I believe they did this so they could put someone better in the ring next time around.

The democrats did this in 2004 with Bush Vs. Kerry. They put up, to use wrestling terms, a jobber against Bush because they knew they couldn't compete. They instead allowed the republicans have another four years and allowed them to wear out their welcome. So when 2008 came around the once reigning champs that were the republicans were too weak to hold up against the onslaught that was the democratic ticket. I sincerely believe McCain wanted the presidency but his party was too weak hold on to the spot. We now see the same game but with the roles reversed.

The republicans have a plan and just because they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a part of their plan like the democrats.

i think you give them far too much intellectual credit...

They lost because they refuse to adapt (or even pretend to adapt) to social/demographic changes in the U.S. and instead pandered to a shrinking aspect of their base (the nutjob/racist/sexist/homophobe brigade).
They insist on pretending it is still the 1950's and and they shot themselves in the foot as a result...

They's be smart to start grooming some more moderate republican candidates that actually understand the importance of the latino vote moving forward...

No... they'd be smart to foster moderation in the party and mitigate the extremist first.

McCain and Romney are moderates. The party isn't.

 whembly wrote:

No... they'd be smart to foster moderation in the party and mitigate the extremist first.

McCain and Romney were moderates before having to move further to the right to get through the primaries. The party isn't.

Fix'd that for ya

 CT GAMER wrote:
[.

They lost because they refuse to adapt (or even pretend to adapt) to social/demographic changes in the U.S. and instead pandered to a shrinking aspect of their base (the nutjob/racist/sexist/homophobe brigade).
They insist on pretending it is still the 1950's and and they shot themselves in the foot as a result...

When you grow up you'll look back on this and realize how funny it is.

 Grakmar wrote:

Fix'd that for ya

Only if you believe that saying you'll do something to win a primary election means you'll genuinely do it once in office. That's often not the case, including with the current president.

McCain and Romney are moderates. Have been their entire political careers. Like all Republicans, they veered to the right to get through the primaries, just as Democrats are obliged to veer to the left.

 Grakmar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No... they'd be smart to foster moderation in the party and mitigate the extremist first.

McCain and Romney were moderates before having to move further to the right to get through the primaries. The party isn't.

Fix'd that for ya

sigh... so you think they're being brain washed now? They had to shift to the right in order to get past the primary... true, but that doesn't mean they'll govern as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Grakmar wrote:

Fix'd that for ya

Only if you believe that saying you'll do something to win a primary election means you'll genuinely do it once in office. That's often not the case, including with the current president.

McCain and Romney are moderates. Have been their entire political careers. Like all Republicans, they veered to the right to get through the primaries, just as Democrats are obliged to veer to the left.

^^^ ditto

There is a really terrific piece you guys may be interested in, if you participated in this thread. It addresses some structural issues with conservative media.

It has often struck me how many blatant misrepresentations have been made by conservative media and bloggers, etc.

Ultimately it is self-defeating because it makes any informed person feel that the commentators do not have any real arguments to make.

It is a preaching to the choir that turns into a kind of group think.

But perhaps I am fooling myself. Perhaps liberal commentators are the same.

 AustonT wrote:

gorgon wrote:
Which blue states will Jeb flip to red that get the GOP from 206 to 270?

Any state within 5% this election. Any state with a significant Latino population. Any state with unemployment above 7% in 2015. I'd expect a Jeb ticket to bust the solidarity of New England to. The Commonwealth easily, maybe Maine, NH, and Vermont.
I'm no Nate Silver though.

His brother is widely disliked in and couldn't win most of the 2012 blue states in 2000 or 2004. Other than Florida, I don't get what you're seeing there.

Interesting fact I just heard -- if you divide up the voters by gender and racial background, and give Romney the same percentages in those categories that George received in 2004 in his victory, Romney still loses. Like I've been saying for a while, demographics are really killing the GOP right now, and it's only going to get worse. I'm not sure how Jeb -- just by being Jeb -- solves that.

gorgon wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

gorgon wrote:
Which blue states will Jeb flip to red that get the GOP from 206 to 270?

Any state within 5% this election. Any state with a significant Latino population. Any state with unemployment above 7% in 2015. I'd expect a Jeb ticket to bust the solidarity of New England to. The Commonwealth easily, maybe Maine, NH, and Vermont.
I'm no Nate Silver though.

His brother is widely disliked in and couldn't win most of the 2012 blue states in 2000 or 2004. Other than Florida, I don't get what you're seeing there.

Interesting fact I just heard -- if you divide up the voters by gender and racial background, and give Romney the same percentages in those categories that George received in 2004 in his victory, Romney still loses. Like I've been saying for a while, demographics are really killing the GOP right now, and it's only going to get worse. I'm not sure how Jeb -- just by being Jeb -- solves that.

If, as it seems apparent you do, all you see in Jeb is George in a fat suit I'm afriad I can't help you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It has often struck me how many blatant misrepresentations have been made by conservative media and bloggers, etc.

Ultimately it is self-defeating because it makes any informed person feel that the commentators do not have any real arguments to make.

It is a preaching to the choir that turns into a kind of group think.

But perhaps I am fooling myself. Perhaps liberal commentators are the same.

yep.

 AustonT wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
[.

They lost because they refuse to adapt (or even pretend to adapt) to social/demographic changes in the U.S. and instead pandered to a shrinking aspect of their base (the nutjob/racist/sexist/homophobe brigade).
They insist on pretending it is still the 1950's and and they shot themselves in the foot as a result...

When you grow up you'll look back on this and realize how funny it is.

Thanks gramps.

Care to elaborate?

 CT GAMER wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
[.

They lost because they refuse to adapt (or even pretend to adapt) to social/demographic changes in the U.S. and instead pandered to a shrinking aspect of their base (the nutjob/racist/sexist/homophobe brigade).
They insist on pretending it is still the 1950's and and they shot themselves in the foot as a result...

When you grow up you'll look back on this and realize how funny it is.

Thanks gramps.

Care to elaborate?

It means he's old.

 whembly wrote:
sigh... so you think they're being brain washed now? They had to shift to the right in order to get past the primary... true, but that doesn't mean they'll govern as such.

Well, they still have to get re-elected, and they still have to make at least a token effort to keep the extremists voting. I could very easily imagine Romney, for example, signing anti-abortion bills he doesn't personally care about to ensure that the religious right keeps pressing the "R" button and lets him keep giving tax cuts to his wealthy friends.