What Republican could possibly run for President next?

I lost a long reply. So I will make it short. All your congress members have the stain of the 850 billion free cash giveaway ACA and other Obama efforts which are massive really and mostly for nothing. Hagen and Feinstein has a long history of nutterism even before.

Crist is a scorned republican. I guess that makes him a moderate sore loser.

Brown is less crazy then before I will grant you that but the jury is still out.

Landrau is a cultural Marxist. Remember Katrina.

 

Actually, I agree that this is one of his strengths as a politician. I think more GOPers need to focus on the dire problems facing our country.

First, I would say that Romney lost, because he actually was closer to beating Obama then McCain was in 2008. Obama is the first two term president to win his reelection by a smaller margin then his initial victory.

Second, where the hell did you come up with this idea that Ronald Reagan wouldn't beat Obama? Can you imagine them on the debate stage? Obama can't even finish a sentence without a teleprompter!

Besides, this poll found that 58% of American would have choose Reagan over Obama:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3055489

Do you have a contrary poll or something?

First, newsflash: Those are all minority groups. They don't make up the majority of the electorate. Sure, some of them are significant, and that's why we need people who can articulate the conservative message to those groups of people. For example, in the case of blacks, we need somebody to show them how the liberal worldview has put so many of them into this inner city cycle of poverty, with government and handouts and the like. Call it out for what it is: slavery, and show them how they've been put on a vote plantation. It'd take a bold conservative candidate, but we can do it. The media would go crazy, but in the end if Romney had done that he'd have won.

Second, you did nothing to debunk my assertion that far more Americans are conservatives then liberals. Like it or not, it's true. Here's a Gallup poll to back it up:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71385.html

Do you have a poll that says otherwise?

Uh, yes, we do, and that's why we need to get the conservatives in those states out to vote.

Could you please back that up with something?

It was originally supposed to be a blowout, and it ended up being close. I'm really not familiar with that race. Was his opponent a conservative or more moderate?

What makes Christie any different the Romney? If Obama is such a great politician, and Romney couldn't beat him, don't you think we need to try something different?

 

I agree, we need somebody like Cruz.
The only problem I see with this, however: wasn't Cruz born in Canada?

 

Well your reply met my expectations.

Ta

- - - Updated - - -

His mother was an American citizen at the time- he qualifies as a natural born citizen, and is eligible to be elected.

 

Chris Christie. He's starting to rag on Obama again making it sound like he's scouted the terrain and decided to go for it. Except for a scant one or two others, all the Republicans have are clownies.

 

not if you pick a far right fanatic as a vp, no, there is a chance that vp could become president

 

Good we are in agreement.

Romney ran a better campaign then the disaster that was McCain. I take your point though.

These internet polls are inaccurate. Every major polling agency had Romney winning the 2012 election. How did that one turn out? The groups that vote for Obama don't go on the internet and participate in these insignificant polls.

And that is why conservatives will continue to lose. Your math doesn't check out. That is roughly 30% of the electorate. If you think you can win the election with that much of the electorate going the direct opposite way of the conservative platform so be it. Conservatives will need to win almost 80% of the remaining mainstream white American vote to win without minorities. Sorry, that just won't happen. With an rapidly browning population, the prospects get more grim each day.

I'm glad only some of us minorities matter to conservatives. Maybe before minorities are the majority in 2050 will the conservative movement (or what's left of it) attempt to appeal to us.

Quite frankly, I am highly offended at my political support for the Democratic party as being analogous to slavery. I know about the history and realignment of the parties and none of the conservative candidates have a clue when it comes to social issues. Here is a tip - focus on the economy and leave the social bull(*)(*)(*)(*) at home, conservatives.

That poll says 40% of Americans consider themselves "conservative" and 21% consider themselves "liberal." In reality, most Americans consider themselves centrist. Most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Conservative politicians are incapable of separating the two, which is why the GOP is in shambles.

They did. You need to keep the women, gays, and minorities at home. They turned out to vote for Obama. They will turn out even stronger for Hilary Clinton in 2016. Maybe ante up the voter ID laws?

Cuccinelli is a tea party neoconservative. Despite Obamacare's horrific rollout, he lost. McAuliff is a weak democratic candidate at best, too.

Romney lacked authenticity. The 47% comment didn't resonate too well with a lot of middle class Americans, especially coming from a man with a $100 million illegal IRA.

 

How many hundreds of billions can they waste and still be fiscally moderate? How many industries do they have to socialize or dictate outcomes too before the have drifted from the mainstream?

 

Alas, at my age it's doubtful that I shall live long enough to enjoy another major epiphany where politics and politicians are concerned. But then again, hope springs eternal. You never know.

 

We are of an age, and I tell you that you are wrong, and so where does that leave us except at loggerheads? Thus it would be which one of us is the better writer and willing to put the most time and effort into persuading anonymous readers of our differing point of view. Bah! Too much like work for my tastes in regard to a mere hobby. But I will point out that had racism been any sort of sticking point then neither Colin Powell -- before he turned against the Party -- or Condoleezza Rice would ever have been promoted as names within the GOP as possible presidential contenders and then again Herman Cain would never have been so popular on the Right. Finally, had racism really been an issue on the right then there WOULD have been rioting in the streets when Obama won election in 2008.

Racists! Racists! Leftwingers see them everywhere . . . and yet usually they turn out to be phantom imaginings of paranoid leftwingers. How sad.

 

"So you, like them . . ." Ah so you grasp that if each separate organization of socialists have their own variation of what it means to be socialists as operational guidelines than the dictionary definition is worthless except for ignorant people to use as a claim that they know what socialists are? I am so happy that we are in agreement! Or were you instead going with "Anyone not using the dictionary definition for their organization cannot therefore be socialist?"

But of course! You are correct, and so these people must be what? They call themselves socialists and yet do not accept a dictionary definition, and so they are what in reality, the chess club, a union of riveters, or perhaps they are merely Communists who have somehow lost their way and their true identities?

 

Lawl.

The GOP is doomed.

 

No argument there. (see I call em like I see em)

 

Great, now I think you guys should run Biden.

 

The racism isn't all inclusive, but the element is not chased from the party either. They are grudgingly accepted as a necessary part of a dwindling coalition. They have made themselves very visible at rallies and to deny them as a significant presence within the party is pointless.
No one sways anyone here. They may reveal poor argumentation to others, but they will never reveal it to the arguer.
What I find sad is ignoring the obvious, and creating a defense around the idea that racism is universal. You are certainly a member of a group.
Now refer to your signature.

 

Oh aye, I know where you are coming from. I for instance had a great deal of trouble tolerating the pandemic racism (or ethnic bigotry) on blatant display for the entire world to see during the recent Zimmerman case when the leftwing of the nation cynically reclassified a brown-skinned, half indigenous population Peruvian-American citizen as White merely in order to artificially create a White versus Black racial issue when none, in fact, existed.

I considered that to be very much disgusting, but then again I also understood that until the Left renounces all forms of racism and bigotry then a strong strain of it will always be with them, filtering throughout the Democratic Party.

 

Your discomfort is obvious here. I don't think most of these folks call themselves socialists. You do. The fact that it matters very little to you what the word actually means is very telling. The attitude of sarcasm and dismissiveness are not arguments, they are attitudes.
Communism is a form of government. Socialism is an economic system. To relate them is revelatory. It also shows why you feel you can make up your own definition of words and then make ideological grand stands based on your own faulty understanding of concepts.
You have been influenced by groups.
See your signature.

 

Care to address my post and how the Tea Party is supporting their racial element, or are you happy to simply ignore it?
Show me the racist signage at the Democratic rallies. They should be easy to find.
You know full well I can provide plenty of evidence to prove my point.

 

Translation: People who have signed up with socialist organizations when said organizations use definitions of socialism different from a dictionary definition . . . do not call themselves socialists and do not think of themselves as being socialists. Brilliant!

 

Damn near every leftwinger commenting on the Zimmerman case demonstrated their racisms (or their ethnic bigotry depending on how you want to look at it) and so -- again -- where racism and bigotry is concerned I believe that when millions upon million of leftwingers displayed who and what they really were for all the world to see . . . they win the contest of loathsomeness hands down.

 

What are the name of these organizations?

 

Hey! Herbert Hoover's brother was a very impressive bloke!


Donald Trump. Herman Cain, Mike Huckabee. Alan Keyes. Rudolph Giuliani. George Zimmerman.

So hard to choose!

 

He will continue to ignore it. Part of being a conservative is blaming any remnants of racism on the "evil" left, or refusing to acknowledge it exists at all.

 

Well The New Party for one:

 

The Zimmerman case is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. The case had everything to do with racism, and nothing to do with black and white. Mostly it was progressives that understood that racism can exist beyond the readily recognizable racism of the black/white schism that is so apparent in the Tea Party. That has nothing to do with the passive acceptance of the militant racist that have done nothing to hide themselves in the Tea Party.
Care to address the subject?