Why can't the GOP find electable candidates

If nothing else, we Americans have the most immature political viewpoint. It must be bizzare, funny and sad from the European perspective.

 

I'm going to bump this thread next year after the election if you turn out to be wrong. Just to remind you of what you said.

 

And almost all of Obama's Czars are muslims.

 

And how many atheist and democrats believe there is no God. That is far worse.

 

I think the liberals should be more worried about why they can't find electable democrats all across the country.

 

Of course Obama did. His supporters believe he is santa clause. I knew the minute that Romney said "jobs, jobs, jobs" he lost the election.

 

I thought they accused the Republicans of being the party of old white men. Well look see, Democrats got Bernie, a 60's throwback who's as old as the hills and pantsuit Hillary who too old to answer the phone when the red phone rings. omg, and look at congress, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, one can barely talk loud enough for you to hear and the other shakes like she's on something. And they call R's the party of old white men? They better take a closer look.

Democrats: The party of OLD FARTS!

 

Boooooooooooosh! How original.

7 years later and they still can't find a new excuse for Obama's failure.

 

Obviously, there is no ultimate "best" or "worst", no ultimate arbiter, and no designated point at which any assessment is ever settled.

I don't believe any but hyper-partisans would rate Obama either the best or worst ever. I deem his steady public evaluation as mediocre - better than Bush, not as good as Clinton - is as accurate an objective assessment as any that are possible.

Historic comparisons are distorted by intervening events and shifts in priorities. In that sense, comparisons of scientific polls that signify actual, contemporaneous democratic perceptions are more reliable.

Historians' relative assessments in the aggregate certainly have merit but the length of time that will have passed will always differ, and I am certain that there are distortions induced by intervening events and shifts in priorities. In that sense, contemporaneous democratic assignment of grades is more dependable.

No, I think a comparison of the American public's real-time scoring for them in office has as much merit as any other metric. When Obama has been out of office for 20 years, Bush will have been out of office for 28. In addition to that inescapable temporal differential, the consensus of presidential historians is never static. I.e., Eisenhower's standing has risen in recent years (as I feel is proper) but there is nothing to prevent it from falling or rising again in the future based upon changed perceptions, priorities and events that take place between a president's leaving office and his being evaluated.

"History will judge" is a convenient ploy to defer judgement, but "History" never issues a final verdict.

 

Jeepers, looks like Landslide Willard! will ride again!

​

 

We need to stop nominating "electable candidates" (Dole, McCain, Romney) and nominate someone like Reagan who is unelectable =

 

By definition, all atheists, whether Republican, Democrat, or neither, believe there are no gods.

The only member of congress who says she is not religious is Kyrsten Sinema, from Arizona. The vast majority of politicians say they are religious, for whatever that's worth.

 

That is what I mean by history. Recently a lot of stuff was released to the public about Eisenhower and it reflected a lot of what he did behind the scenes and even giving credit to others. This has enhanced his standings as you put it, rightly so. Now if one goes by contemporary approval ratings, Truman is down among the worst presidents ever.

So each system or whatever has its flaws. Does Bill Clinton deserve as ranked among his contemporaries as the best president since approval ratings begin during FDR? Clinton at 65% vs. 63% for FDR and Reagan. Truman would come out the worst president from FDR to Obama.

 

BushCo purged your party of everyone with even the slightest shred of sanity in the Great Eight Year Plan of 2000-2008. Unfortunately, he was too stupid to carry off his takeover of the US and bring about the end of Freedom in America, so the President-For-Life had to exit as ignominiously as any other failed Dictator. Having hauled all his opposition off to Abu Texas it remains to be seen if any remain with the stomach for politics after years of constant torture by Hot Air Boarding in the dreaded RINO cellars of the Prairie Chapel "Reeducation" Compound

 

Back when the National Review was reporting Gerald Ford calling Reagan "unelectable", I really wasn't paying much attention to him.

Maybe Jeb ! will next try proclaiming himself, "Unelectable!"

 

GOP has a long list of good candidates while the DNC has one ordained candidate who is definitely not qualified

 

What really cost him was his disdain for 48% of America.

being the candidate of the rich just doesn't play like it used to.

 

Polls from 1980

February/March Carter 40 Reagan 34 Anderson 21
April/May Carter 40 Reagan 32 Anderson 21
June/July Reagan 37 Carter 34 Anderson 21
August/September Reagan 39 Carter 39 Anderson 14
October/November Reagan 47 Carter 44 Anderson 8
Actual Results Reagan 51 Carter 41 Anderson 7

Notice that the final results were within the MOE of plus or minus 4 points. Reagan plus 4, Carter minus 3 and Anderson minus 1

Also note both Reagan and Anderson were Republicans although Anderson ran as an independent. From February on the combined total of Reagan and Anderson was over 50%. Early in the year Anderson was taking votes away from Reagan. Carter was in trouble from the beginning of the year. Only the addition of Anderson in a three man race prevented the polls from showing that.

 

Votes. The fear that the religious voters will scorn them and vote for someone else.

 

The United States has changed a lot since 1984.

I know you see the future through your rear view mirror, but a 32 year old chart is hardly relevant today.

But if you want to live in the past, this one, is probably more relevant.

View attachment 39443

 

We can and often do differ with those who were actually experiencing a presidency, but he's their president, not history's, so, even as we differ, we need to respect and defer to their uniquely first-hand estimation of him and not presume our opinion, at whatever temporal remove, to be superior to theirs.

 

It's probably safe to assume that all politicians are lying atheists, and to hope that none is a genuine religious fanatic.

 

Are you kidding? Jeb is the most electable of republicans because he is not xenophobic and all those Hispanic people will be voting for him over Hillary.

 

Sniveling about the "other" aside, the vicious backstabbing within the GOP is certainly far more entertaining than the boring amicability of Democrats.

 

Yeah, but I remember the pundits, Reagan was a cowboy, an B actor, a warmonger, too conservative, a right-wing extremist and unelectable. He too was supposed to flame out like they have been predicting for Trump.