Why can't the GOP find electable candidates

The democrats backstabbed Hillary before in '08, they may yet do it again.

 

How's his "reasonable and compassionate" shtick selling with the wacko birds?

No, he needs to try your "I'm f@%*#~^g unelectable!" ploy.

 

Yes Hillary and Bernie know who the candidate is going to be and get along great. She owns her little puppet Bernie but he is handy for creating the illusion of an actual alternative in the DNC. The GOP candidates are rockin and sockin and separating the wheat from the chaff while the DNC has only chaff.

 

History is on the side of the GOP as the last time the Democrats transferred power from one Democrat to another was in the 1800's. It is unwise to underestimate the GOP as Trump could very well beat Clinton who has decades of negatives to criticize. I still remember her story of ducking sniper fire in Sarajevo when she landed, but she forgot that it was televised and she was met with adoring children rather than sniper fire.

I say the above as an objective liberal.

 

No, I'll disagree, 1984 is the last time we had a conservative nominee for president.
You'll see similar results if you nominate a conservative for the GOP nomination.

In 1964, LBJ won the presidency thanks to the assassination of JFK.

 

So what you are saying Truman deserves to be ranked near the bottom than the top. I have always looked at approval ratings as an effective tool when forecasting elections and not where a president will be ranked once historians or other have had a chance to see how his policies affected this nation. Those of us today have no idea how Obama's policies will have affected this nation in the future. Whether he made more good decisions than bad. We know or have an idea from his inauguration day to today. We do not know for example if the ACA will survive, if the Iran deal will survive or its effect in the future or Libya or trying to overthrow Assad will pan out. We have the here and now.

Those 20 years in the future will know all of this.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, for the most part.

 

This, guys a kid

 

Yeah, cowboy Reagan. B movie actor. But Reagan was in a three man race with Carter and Anderson. It is only two if Trump wins the nomination. 1980 is not a good comparison if one exists. Perhaps the closest we could come is the 1968 election between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace. In 1992 although 3 men, Bush Sr. was running for re-election and that rules 1992 out. The earmarks for an Reagan landslide was there as early of February of 1980. Only we didn't know what we were looking at.

As for pundits, pretty much ignore them. Each and every even that happens is a game changer to them when in reality they usually fizzle and two weeks later everything is back to where it was. Paris is even beginning to fade now.

 

What does that say about those who support them? Hillary being the front runner is a clear signal her supporters are not that bright.

 

No, her vote to surrender to the Bush the power to initiate his multi-trillion dollar Iraq nation-building fiasco killed her chances for the nomination in '08, but you did not have the nasty sniping at one another that you can enjoy in the GOP's current melee. Is there a single challenger that media entertainer The Great Flatu has not personally attacked?

Great fun!

 

The alienated Angry White Guys like to pretend that is the case, of course. Fortunately for Clinton, Senator Sanders has never waged a negative campaign.

Personally, I've been more intrigued by O'Malley lately, but no nominee is ideal, of course.

 

From the perspective of those who experienced him firsthand, indisputably.

From our perspective, no.

I assign both their relative merit and legitimacy.

 

Maybe your right because he is f@%*#~^g unelectable with republicans. I don't think that we will fall for that shtick again.

We won 2 major landslides with a conservative nominee.

Democrats didn't even come close to Reagan when they put a left wing extremist on the ballot.

 

Here is what we are looking at. Popular liberal democrat may get 51 to 53% of the vote max.

A popular conservative republican will get the blue collar workers in the democrat party to cross over, meaning 58 to 60% of the vote.

Meaning 48-50 state victory.

 

So be it. But we know what effects Truman's policies and actions had on our nation. During his administration they did not.

 

Obama, if that is his name, personally attacks everyone. He says the entire American public is racist in their DNA.

Is The Great Flatu another one of those racist insults? I don't think that you should use racist rhetoric like that.

 

I thought the op has a legit question. Name one of the candidates who can really win. Trump included.

 

The Democrats hope that Trump will be the GOP Presidential Nominee in 2016, because if that is the case, Hillary will have a landslide election in her favor.

 

And if she loses then what will you say, Alucard?

 

I. Am. Not. A. Conservative.

I am a non-interventionist. I support open borders. I oppose all government surveillance and monopolistic police powers. In the dichotomy between liberty and security I completely abandon the latter in favor of the former.

What sort of conservative praises Jimmy Carter? Just because I wrote a post which didn't completely suck Obama off doesn't make me some war hawk social conservative.

 

I think the GOP has become a victim of its own gerrymandering. As it grew increasingly successful at winning legislative seats and changing the district boundaries in state and national districts, it diluted any political motive to offer up remotely moderate rhetoric in those races. If you can redraw a district boundary to accomplish the same goal that used to served by moving base- pleasing rhetoric and positions toward the center in the general election , then republican candidates never move back to the center and guess who becomes the kind of long term incumbents with safety and party connections, that can stash aside enough money for a decent preliminary fundraising presence for national office?

The very patterns of behavior that are winning a stranglehold on the legislative branch, are the patterns that produce a very unappetizing candidate for the executive branch ( Governors and Presidents) for which there can be no gerrymandered solution.

 

White men make up 36% of the national electorate. Whites make up 72%. You simply cannot win without the support of white men or whites in general.

No word on what percentage of the white male electorate are angry.

 

167% last count.

 

990 Top Secret/SCI documents found on Hil liar's server so far.

 

Shows how little you know about Christian end times theology.

By the way how do you square that weak in the knees feeling when Obama gives nuclear tech to an Iranian regime that believes in a far scarier strain of end time theology.