Why can't the GOP find electable candidates

In 2008 it was McCain/Palin and in 2012 it was Flip Flopney, NOW in 2015 their front runner is Donald Trump. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)! all you want about Barack Obama, but when Republicans put up these kind of Candidates to be President of the United States, they only have themselves to blame when they get stomped in the General election. Next year when you Gripe! about President Hillary Clinton, first go to a mirror and point at yourself that is to blame for supporting such morons as The Donald, Cruz, Bush or Carson

 

You ask this question when the democrats only offer a serial liar involved in who knows how many scandals and corruption, and an antique commie. Get real.

 

At least the Democrats put forward people who don't think the earth is 4000 years old.

Half of W's cabinet were on record as believing in End Times Theology, which is slightly concerning when these people have the nuclear codes.

 

Oh Logical One, All Stuff you and your croonies accused President Barack Obama of and guess what, he still waxed your GOP Ass's for 8 years and your Candidates are even worse this time, what's that tell ya. The GOP is Begging Flip Flopney to enter the race, because they know they have absolutely no chance with their current line up of NUMNUCKS.

 

Why couldn't the Dems find electable candidates in 84/87? Sometimes the candidate just isn't there and you have to pick a Mondale.

Personally I very much liked Paul Ryan in the 08 election. Not so much as a libertarian of course, but as someone looking for a decent GOP candidate.

 

well it would seem nationwide republicans have picked up more seats under Obamas watch than at any point in history... thats boggling... so are you trying to tell me, republicans didn't find electable candidates, and it was merely the fault of democrats who didn't bother trying to win all those elections that republicans took seats from? governors, senators, representatives, national, local... I would think that means they have found a vast array of candidates nationally to gain so many seats? no?

I wouldn't vote for Trump, but I think he's actually the most dangerous one... because he'll appeal to angry americans, on both sides, not just the republican side... and since he's a former raging liberal himself, with a lot of his views center and many of them left of center, he's actually got a lot of appeal to folks who probably never would have considered crossing over before... so while the polls may indicate he's not the best matchup in some scenarios, I think he's the one most likely to disrupt democrats if he locks up the republican nomination, you will see him pull out many of his old stances, and he'll steal Hillary's "evolved position" mantra to swing left and steal her voters...

I'm still shocked these are the best candidates the democrats had... why on earth was Warren not running? what dirt do the clintons have on her to keep her out? I mean you could name a dozen other democrats I'm sure, better than Hillary, but it amazes me that people were begging and pleading Warren and she just sat back quietly...

 

That's not a good example. Gary Hart would have been a much better candidate in 1984 (but the Democrats had no reasonable chance of winning either way).

 

In 2008 it didn't matter whom the Republican ran, they were going to lose. To put it simply, America was just plain tied of GOP rule and wanted someone else. In 2012 Romney basically bought the nomination, he won every state in which he outspent his combined opponent anywhere from 5-1 to 10-1 and in the states where the money was relative even, Romney lost. 2012 the Republicans had a very weak field to choose from. Romney may have been the best of that weak field. Certainly not Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum et. al. I think their best chance exited early, Tim Pawlenty and the other good candidate that may have beaten Obama, Daniels of Indiana choose not to run.

Also timing is very important, if the 2012 election was held in November of 2010, Obama sat at a 44% approval rating and any president or candidate who had an approval rating of 45 or worst has lost. In November of 2013 Obama approval rating was at 43%, he would have lost there too. But in November of 2012, the only year that counts the president was at 53%. He received 51% of the vote. In 2013 the president was at 40%, in 2014 he was at 42%.

Romney's approval rating in November of 2012 was at 46% and he received 47% of the vote. That's history.

This year or for next year's election, Trump probably would be the easiest of the candidate for Hillary to beat. Both right now have near a 60% unfavorable rating with the electorate as a whole. Hillary is loved in the Democratic Circles but not by independents and Trump right now is like by around 30% of Republicans. He like Hillary is not liked by independents.

How do independents view the candidates, they make up approximately 43% of the electorate as of 11 November 2015 per Gallup. The below figures are for independents and independents only.

Clinton 35% favorable 57% unfavorable
Trump 42% favorable 53% unfavorable
Carson 53% favorable 20% unfavorable
Sanders 38% favorable 33% unfavorable
Rubio 39% favorable 21% unfavorable
Cruz 36% favorable 34% unfavorable
Christie 33% favorable 36% unfavorable
Bush 21% favorable 60% unfavorable

The thing is with Trump and with Clinton over 90% of the electorate has decided whether they like them or not. No growing room. Carson and Sanders are in the 70's which give each some growing room among the undecided or don't know enough about them, Rubio, Cruz and Christie in the 60's which leaves quite a bit of growing room among the undecided or don't know enough about them to form an opinion. Then there is Bush, at only a 20% approval rating, half that of Clinton or Trump, what the heck is he still doing in the Republican nomination race. Time for him to go.

It is also interesting to note out of the big four Republican candidates, Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Clinton is only ahead of Trump. But all of this is dynamic and there will be tons of changes. But I will say this, if I were a Democrat and a Hillary supporter, I sure would want her to go up against Trump. Trump looks like the weakest candidate in a head to head match up with Hillary.

 

The DNC and the Democratic Party leaders decided she would be their nominee before the 2012 election. Warren and everyone else knows this. This is why 136 out of 188 currently Democratic House members have already endorsed her. 37 out of the 46 Democratic senators have endorsed her, Sanders hasn't yet. 13 of the current 17 Democratic governors have also endorsed her. Sanders has the endorsement of only 2 Democratic House members, probably from Vermont and New Hampshire. O'Malley only one Democratic House member from Maryland.

No other candidate in history has had as many endorsement this early as Hillary. The fix was in a long time ago. Letting Socialist independent Sanders run as a Democrat against her was to give the Democratic nomination a show of legitimacy.

 

hopefully Hil LIAR y will be locked up where she belongs !

 

Also that the Pyramids were built to store grain.

 

Stick around. If being Speaker of the House doesn't do him in, he may be the GOP candidate in 20.

That is, if the GOP can figure out a way to put the Palin genie back in the bottle and dissuade the crop of con men, vanity candidates and TV preacher types from making their primary process into yet another "Clown Car".

 

And look what we got for the idiots that voted for him just because he was black. The worst president in the history of the the nation.

 

One can, just as blithely, note that he was twice elected with popular majorities despite the idiots who would not vote for him just because he was Black, of course. The reality is that, in the wake of the Bush/Cheney experience, a chartreuse nominee would have been highly likely to defeat another Republican.

That is the mindless refrain of the alienated, of course, but the empirical reality is that Americans who elected and re-elected him consistently assess him as being mediocre, a dozen points higher in approval and over a dozen points lower in disapproval than his hapless predecessor.



.

 

Well! that's your opinion Logical one, I personally believe that Barack Obama is one of the BEST! Presidents ever considering what he inherited from GW Bush and what he had to work against in Congress where Republicans decided on his Inaguaration Day that they were going to work against him in every way to make him a One Term President. Funny! how you Pubbies choose to ignore that fact. I can only look at my own personal situation and during the GW Bush years everything was going to Hell in a Hand basket, then Obama came in and the Republicans decided to play Dirty pool with him, but he kept his nose down and got America back on Track. I'm going to be able to retire EARLY, because of my success in the Market and I owe a lot of that to Barack Obama, because the market was at roughly 6500 when he came to office and look at where it's at now and America's Economy is vibrant again and it will get better, just as long as we don't put another awful Republican in there to mess it all up. You don't like Hillary, find a GOP candidate who can beat here, simple as that. You pubbies put two awful opponents up against Obama and they got waxed, that's not Obama's fault, it's yours and every other Pubbie out there that get's behind these idiots, but I guess some people just have to learn THE HARD WAY

 

It is simply because all of the republicans running for office are simply too much for the REPUBLICAN LEADERS, their views are so extreme that in my opinion they need to create a new party for the ultra right wing.

-Side note: Why do american politics interest me, a french man so much? Answer: They are the funniest.

 

you didnt read the first post did you?

 

its not so much the candidates but rather the opinions and attitudes these guys represent, thats the unelectable part; that the candidates seem bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy to every sane person is quite obvious - there must be something wrong with u if u push these opinions and attitudes on national tv

 

Two old white men, Bernie and the Beast are choice candidates?

 

Approval ratings, which simply means we have had two bum presidents in a row. But what exactly do presidential approval ratings mean when judging a president? Take a look at them going back to Truman.

Approval rating Historical
End of presidency Ranking
Truman 32%.................7th
Eisenhower 59%...........8th
JFK 58%.........................11th
LBJ 49%.........................14th
Nixon 24%.....................32nd
Ford 53%.......................26th
Carter 34%....................27th
Reagan 63%...................17th
Bush I 49%.....................22nd
Clinton 65%...................20th
Bush II 34%....................35th
Obama 44%...................??? As of today.

The president with the 2nd lowest approval rating when he left office, Truman is now ranked the highest since approval ratings started to be kept track of. The president with the highest approval ranking when he left office, Clinton is ranked 20th.

Then too what exactly does getting elected twice really mean, G.W. Bush did it along with Obama. Grant did it also and he is ranked 36th. Nixon also accomplished that and he is 32nd.

 

Well, when someone opines that the twice-popularly-elected Obama is "the worst president ever" despite his predecessor having markedly lower public approval and higher disapproval numbers at the comparable point in the respective administrations, it means that the American people do not deem him "the worst president ever" at the time that hyper-partisan aspersion is being cast - regardless of all their predecessors.

Might the President's numbers yet plummet, soar, or remain mediocre? Of course.


.

 

I find it odd that you think all politicians aren't trying to make the other guy a one term President, that's sort of the aim of the game. Rather, you think that the means of the GOP are ill suited to their ends. Does this not serve your own - that they fumble and elect the Democrat in their stead?

You seem to live in an alternate reality where Obama repealed the PATRIOT Act, closed Guantanamo, withdrew bases from around the world, seriously reformed the banking system, etc, etc.

The economy went "to Hell in a hand basket" because banks were permitted to malinvest credit in risky ways, through the monopoly they've achieved via collusion with the state. Banks want the interest on whatever credit they can loan out, the state sets the leverage requirements and the such. They ought to administrate their cartel more effectively - but this sort of thing is commonplace as (*)(*)(*)(*). It happens under every government - these issues are not new to Bush, nor have they been alleviated under Obama.

Your position that the rise in the stock market means Obama is doing something right is a correlation-causation fallacy. Observe: the stock market was (*)(*)(*)(*) as f[*][*][*] during and after Jimmy Carter's administration, but he did remedy the situation (for a while at least) by appointing Paul Volcker Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Doing the right thing is advisable no matter the response of the stock market. Due to the nature of monetary policy, it's not always clear which recession is attributable to which action and by who.

I don't agree with much of what Romney was proposing, but he had a realistic chance of winning, he wasn't some hopeless candidate as you pretend. McCain was a bad choice because they needed a contrast to Bush, Romney likely would have done quite well in 2008.

You're also forgetting that the GOP won record victories in 2014 and 2010. The largest change in House seats since 1948, largest Republican majority since 1928, etc. Obama hasn't changed the equation as he promised - he has been an extremely pro-establishment President.

 

I find it very odd that so many coservatives cite the Patriot Act and Guantanamo as reasons to dislike the President.

In fact, it was conservatives who championed the Patriot Act in the first place, and conservatives who have fought to keep Guantanamo open.

Hypocricy is a conservative value.

 

The GOP won't find itself with a truly electable candidate until it does something about conservative media.

Right wing media plays to the very far right because that's where it's audience is.

This audience does not reflect conservatives in general and does not reflect core American values at all. The far rigth is the haven for bigots, fearmongers, and all the backward thinking common to natists in this country.

They showed up on cue at tea party rallies. They were the Bush dead enders. And they split their support between Trump, Cruz and the now fading Carson.

In all instances, they have never polled over about 25% of the electorate.

Yet this is the audience that Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and blogs like Daily Caller, Breitbart, and WND all pander to.

And it is the first place that the carletans and con men that have arisen in the last three election cycles run to,

Why? Because they can get a lot of attention very fast (as Trump did with his announcement and his Mexican baiting).

Because the right wing crazy narrative is compelling to its audience and either entertaining or disgusting to everyone else, it dominate the campaign "silly season" (hence the name).

But it also elevates a host of fringe candidates, vanity candidates, con men, and televangelical sorts to national prominence.

And since the target audience is more interested in having their belief systems validated by a national figure than they are by considering what kind of person really ought to be the leader of the free world, the crazies get all the early polling numbers.

And their extremist and vitriolic rhetoric makes reasonable and experienced people look weak.

So, when the smoke clears, and the New Hampshire primary and Iowa Caucus are over, the crazies begin to exit the stage, and the real candidates look damaged and deminished by the whole process.

Fox meanwhile, rakes in record profits, and a lot of far right wing blogs do well.

That isn't good for the GOP (and it wouldn't be good for Democrats if the dynamic were playing out in their party), but it's making bloggers, Roger Ailes, and a lot of direct mail scam artists a lot of money.

 

Basically all I am saying is approval ratings, good, bad or indifferent are not a good indication of how good or bad a president is as proven by the names and approval numbers I posted earlier. What a person thinks of any president while in office is very subjective to partisan interpretation. Democrats think Obama is the best president ever and Republicans think he is the worst. For quite a lot of them anyway.

Now historians grading a president 20 or so years after he left office is less subjective as they have the results of that presidents policies, actions, non-actions to base their rating and rankings on. Still there is some partisan slant no matter what. But 90% of so have been eliminated.

Are President Bush and Obama deserving of a top 20 ranking today, I wouldn't put them there. Although 20 years from now when one had the opportunity to see how each presidency affected this nation, that could very well change.