Conservatives Wont Care About Losing

[bobloblaw]

I think the big story both the media and pundits will be missing is how little conservatives will actually care about winning 2016. The assumption is that conservatives hate Hillary and want so badly to beat her, they will support Jeb Bush. Not so fast.

[Mister Mets]

Conservatives tend to believe that there are electoral advantages to being conservative. They're more likely to think Romney and McCain lost because they had failed to excite the base.

They still care about losing, but many will believe that the candidate they like is going to appeal to the general electorate just as much as the candidate appeals to them.

This won't necessarily prevent Republicans from nominating a strong candidate.

[Angel of Death]

In the long term, the country is probably better off if the Republicans finally nominate a True Believer(tm) just to see him or her crash and burn badly.

[bobloblaw]

In the long term, the country is probably better off if the Republicans finally nominate a True Believer(tm) just to see him or her crash and burn badly.

Just like Reagan right.

The Dems heve never been accurate is trying to decide who they wanted to face.

In 1968, they wanted Nixon, two time loser and feared Rocky.
In 1980, the wanted Reagan and feared Ford and Bush.
In 1988, they wanted Bush and feared Dole.
In 2000,. they wanted Bush and feared McCain.

Now they fear Huntsman. When in fact the candidate they should fear is Walker.

[pbrower2a]

I think the big story both the media and pundits will be missing is how little conservatives will actually care about winning 2016. The assumption is that conservatives hate Hillary and want so badly to beat her, they will support Jeb Bush. Not so fast.

Movement Conservatives would hate any opponent and vote while holding their noses for someone like McCain or Romney whose identification with them is incomplete over someone moderate-to-liberal who more fails to align with Movement Conservatives.

Passionate hatred by Movement Conservatives does not matter in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton will pick up the core Democratic vote. She will need to win a large part of the moderate vote, which will be easy enough if moderates see Movement Conservatives going too far.

[bobloblaw]

I think the big story both the media and pundits will be missing is how little conservatives will actually care about winning 2016. The assumption is that conservatives hate Hillary and want so badly to beat her, they will support Jeb Bush. Not so fast.

Movement Conservatives would hate any opponent and vote while holding their noses for someone like McCain or Romney whose identification with them is incomplete over someone moderate-to-liberal who more fails to align with Movement Conservatives.

Passionate hatred by Movement Conservatives does not matter in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton will pick up the core Democratic vote. She will need to win a large part of the moderate vote, which will be easy enough if moderates see Movement Conservatives going too far.

There isnt going to be anymore nose holding.

[King]

Sure is Damage Control in here.

[hopper]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In the long term, the country is probably better off if the Republicans finally nominate a True Believer(tm) just to see him or her crash and burn badly.

Just like Reagan right.

The Dems heve never been accurate is trying to decide who they wanted to face.

In 1968, they wanted Nixon, two time loser and feared Rocky.
In 1980, the wanted Reagan and feared Ford and Bush.
In 1988, they wanted Bush and feared Dole.
In 2000,. they wanted Bush and feared McCain.

Now they fear Huntsman. When in fact the candidate they should fear is Walker.

Remember, every election is won by appealing to the mythical moderate swing voter who always votes for the most moderate candidate. Reagan obviously went down in flames.

[Mehmentum]

In the long term, the country is probably better off if the Republicans finally nominate a True Believer(tm) just to see him or her crash and burn badly.

Just like Reagan right.

The Dems heve never been accurate is trying to decide who they wanted to face.

In 1968, they wanted Nixon, two time loser and feared Rocky.
In 1980, the wanted Reagan and feared Ford and Bush.
In 1988, they wanted Bush and feared Dole.
In 2000,. they wanted Bush and feared McCain.

Now they fear Huntsman. When in fact the candidate they should fear is Walker.

Remember, every election is won by appealing to the mythical moderate swing voter who always votes for the most moderate candidate. Reagan obviously went down in flames.

True.  Running to the center didn't help the Democrats win any voters in 2014 either.

However, I'd like to believe there are quite a few center-right voters who would be happy to vote for someone like Romney, Bush or Walker but would balk at Cruz. 

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

In the long term, the country is probably better off if the Republicans finally nominate a True Believer(tm) just to see him or her crash and burn badly.

Just like Reagan right.

The Dems heve never been accurate is trying to decide who they wanted to face.

In 1968, they wanted Nixon, two time loser and feared Rocky.
In 1980, the wanted Reagan and feared Ford and Bush.
In 1988, they wanted Bush and feared Dole.
In 2000,. they wanted Bush and feared McCain.

Now they fear Huntsman. When in fact the candidate they should fear is Walker.

Remember, every election is won by appealing to the mythical moderate swing voter who always votes for the most moderate candidate. Reagan obviously went down in flames.

True.  Running to the center didn't help the Democrats win any voters in 2014 either.

However, I'd like to believe there are quite a few center-right voters who would be happy to vote for someone like Romney, Bush or Walker but would balk at Cruz. 

Mainly suburban voters I would assume.

[pbrower2a]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

The sure loser is the one cast as a dangerous radical. A Republican nominee for President who threatens to privatize Social Security, abolish Medicare, shut down the Post Office, and end the minimum wage law is going to lose by a 60-40 margin in the popular vote. Someone who shouts "Bomb Teheran" while the President has  intricate talks attempting to restore diplomatic relations with Iran  (normalizing relations with Iran to destroy ISIS sounds like a good idea to me) will look like crass politics and dubious loyalty.

[hopper]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

The sure loser is the one cast as a dangerous radical. A Republican nominee for President who threatens to privatize Social Security, abolish Medicare, shut down the Post Office, and end the minimum wage law is going to lose by a 60-40 margin in the popular vote.

True.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They strongly believe in free market enterprise, and nominating Romney, instead of Bush, will do it for them. But, people believe in free market enterprise, but we need safety nets like Social Security and Obamacare medicaid expansion, due to the Wallstreet meltdown that blew everyone's 401K benefits.

[BlueSwan]

I think the big story both the media and pundits will be missing is how little conservatives will actually care about winning 2016. The assumption is that conservatives hate Hillary and want so badly to beat her, they will support Jeb Bush. Not so fast.

Conservatives deeply care about winning. That's why they nominated Romney and McCain in the first place, not because they loved them. The idea that Romney and McCain lost due to subdued conservative turnout is just flat out wrong. This is also why even Hillary won't be able to win a landslide unless the GOP nominates a total nutjob that scares the moderate conservatives away. The conservatives will show up on election day for most of their sane candidates. The swing in turnout is much much greater on the democratic side, because they appeal to people who aren't certain to show up. Kerry and Gore were much stronger candidates than Bush on paper, but they couldn't get voters to turn up. Obama could.

[bobloblaw]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

The sure loser is the one cast as a dangerous radical. A Republican nominee for President who threatens to privatize Social Security, abolish Medicare, shut down the Post Office, and end the minimum wage law is going to lose by a 60-40 margin in the popular vote. Someone who shouts "Bomb Teheran" while the President has  intricate talks attempting to restore diplomatic relations with Iran  (normalizing relations with Iran to destroy ISIS sounds like a good idea to me) will look like crass politics and dubious loyalty.

There has never been a GOP nominee who stood for those positions. Even Goldwater didnt. You muct be thinking of Michael Badnarik

[bobloblaw]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

Thanks but we dont need advice from a NJ GOPer. Reaganomics gave the USA 18 years of above trend GDP growth from 1982-2000 with no inflation. Yup Clinton was a Reagan Man. Udner Clinton top marginal tax rates were lower than in 6/8 years under Reagan. Clinton also reformed welfare and cut the capital gains tax in 1996-97.

[DS0816]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

Thanks but we dont need advice from a NJ GOPer. Reaganomics gave the USA 18 years of above trend GDP growth from 1982-2000 with no inflation. Yup Clinton was a Reagan Man. Udner Clinton top marginal tax rates were lower than in 6/8 years under Reagan. Clinton also reformed welfare and cut the capital gains tax in 1996-97.

Which state(s) GOPer do you, bobloblaw, find acceptable?

[OSR stands with Israel]

In the long term, the country is probably better off if the Republicans finally nominate a True Believer(tm) just to see him or her crash and burn badly.

Just like Reagan right.

The Dems heve never been accurate is trying to decide who they wanted to face.

In 1968, they wanted Nixon, two time loser and feared Rocky.
In 1980, the wanted Reagan and feared Ford and Bush.
In 1988, they wanted Bush and feared Dole.
In 2000,. they wanted Bush and feared McCain.

Now they fear Huntsman. When in fact the candidate they should fear is Walker.

The 1980 thing is completly false

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because America, has become like other European countries, a secular democracy and support centrist Democrats for president.


And conservatives have no choice but to compete eventhough they wont win.  And the tea party and establishment wing division ever since Sarah Palin VP debacle, is further widening.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Because America, has become like other European countries, a secular democracy and support centrist Democrats for president.


And conservatives have no choice but to compete eventhough they wont win.  And the tea party and establishment wing division ever since Sarah Palin VP debacle, is further widening.

If by secular you mean we don't want a theocracy, then yeah ... and we never have.  If you mean we have a largely non-religious population, you're very wrong.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah secular that has a tolerance for SSM that 2/3rds of the country now endorses despite its profound religious beliefs.

But, what I meant is that despite in 2000, when Tony blair literally changed the face of European politics by maxing out his terms by being elected to three terms, we were a center right nation, still, coming off the hills of Dubya's election.

Now, we can duplicate the same thing, having a historic 3 term democratic rule, with Hilary Clinton.

[hopper]

These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

Thanks but we dont need advice from a NJ GOPer. Reaganomics gave the USA 18 years of above trend GDP growth from 1982-2000 with no inflation. Yup Clinton was a Reagan Man. Udner Clinton top marginal tax rates were lower than in 6/8 years under Reagan. Clinton also reformed welfare and cut the capital gains tax in 1996-97.

True but that was 15-32 years ago that you are talking about. China was not the economic powerhouse in 2000 that it is today and neither was Mexico or Brazil. The only competitor to the US economically was Japan in the 80's.

[hopper]

Because America, has become like other European countries, a secular democracy and support centrist Democrats for president.


And conservatives have no choice but to compete eventhough they wont win.  And the tea party and establishment wing division ever since Sarah Palin VP debacle, is further widening.

Let me go further into your post...

Sarah Palin when she was a VP candidate was just known as "Governor Of Alaska" or McCain's running mate. She wasn't connected to the Tea Party in any way back in 2008 when she was McCain's running mate.

The Tea Party was nationally known till April of 2009 on tax day of that year.

Your post sounds like early to mid 2012 not 2014-early 2015. In my opinion The Tea Party is the Republicans version of the late 60's Dem anti-war left. It lasted a few years than ran out of steam. Usually fringe or fringe political movements last a few years and than die out. The media is usually a couple years behind on that.

[Blair]

Because America, has become like other European countries, a secular democracy and support centrist Democrats for president.


And conservatives have no choice but to compete eventhough they wont win.  And the tea party and establishment wing division ever since Sarah Palin VP debacle, is further widening.

Let me go further into your post...

Sarah Palin when she was a VP candidate was just known as "Governor Of Alaska" or McCain's running mate. She wasn't connected to the Tea Party in any way back in 2008 when she was McCain's running mate.

The Tea Party was nationally known till April of 2009 on tax day of that year.

Your post sounds like early to mid 2012 not 2014-early 2015. In my opinion The Tea Party is the Republicans version of the late 60's Dem anti-war left. It lasted a few years than ran out of steam. Usually fringe or fringe political movements last a few years and than die out. The media is usually a couple years behind on that.

Sarah Palin was from the religous right, or social conservatives. Most Tea Party candidates fall into these positions (Jindal, Cruz etc). But really Palin just showed that VP choices only matter if you pick a crap one.

I'd disagree about the tea party=anti-war left. The tea Party have had much more success than the anti-war left, and has split up it's support for 2016. That's why the Tea Party is going to fail-it can't unite around one candidate. Rubio is weak, Cruz is an extremist, Paul isn't a Hawk, Carson is Carson and Walker is too bland