Will there ever be a Republican landslide again?

[A18]

Where Republicans carry say, 44 states?



(or more)

[M]

Both Rudy and Arnold could pull it off.

[A18]

Rudy Giuliani might alienate Christians

[Pollwatch99]

I would define a landslide as 40 states.  If we defeat Kerry as I believe we will, next democratic opponent should be Hillary.  A republican strong on defense but socially moderate ( McCain, Rudy, Ridge, Colin Powell) could carry 40+ states against her.  Yes, we could alienate the more right wing part of our party with these candidates but to landslide, you need to take their base.

[A18]

If Hillary is the nominee, we should run a through-and-through Republican. It'll seriously be an easy 50-state win.

[Donovan]

Both Rudy and Arnold could pull it off.

Rudy and Arnold are Republicans?


I thought Republicans were against Abortion and Gay rights. When did their platform change? When did Arnold get the Republican nomination for something?

[Donovan]

I would define a landslide as 40 states.  If we defeat Kerry as I believe we will, next democratic opponent should be Hillary.  A republican strong on defense but socially moderate ( McCain, Rudy, Ridge, Colin Powell) could carry 40+ states against her.  Yes, we could alienate the more right wing part of our party with these candidates but to landslide, you need to take their base.

Republicans would never nominate McCain or a Black Guy for President. They have had their chance to do both and win big in 1996 and 2000 and passed it up.

If common sense was present in the Republican Party, I would be supporting the party and there would be no need for the Democratic Party.

[WalterMitty]

Both Rudy and Arnold could pull it off.

Rudy and Arnold are Republicans?


I thought Republicans were against Abortion and Gay rights. When did their platform change? When did Arnold get the Republican nomination for something?

let''s be honest.  do democrats support gay rights.

refresh my memory on the kerry/edwards position on gay marriage.  was it my imagination, or did kerry voice support for state amendments (like the one in missouri) to ban gay marriages.

what president signed the defense of marriage act into law?

dont give me this democrats are for gay rights bs.  the record shows otherwise.  they just conceal their bigotry better.

[A18]

Marriage is not bigotry

[J-Mann]

Republicans would never nominate McCain or a Black Guy for President. They have had their chance to do both and win big in 1996 and 2000 and passed it up.

If common sense was present in the Republican Party, I would be supporting the party and there would be no need for the Democratic Party.

Don't be so certain.  Powell had no interest in being president; he stated that on a lot of occasions, and I've got no reason to think that he really felt otherwise and was just being "held down by the man".  Don't forget that Republicans are a big-tent party, now.  The war on terror made a lot of people turn into hawks, regardless of their views on things like gays and abortions.  

And please don't try to turn this into a racial thing.  Democrats have also had their chances to nominate a black man and haven't done so, even though they claim to be the party of minorities.

[Gabu]

Both Rudy and Arnold could pull it off.

Rudy and Arnold are Republicans?


I thought Republicans were against Abortion and Gay rights. When did their platform change? When did Arnold get the Republican nomination for something?

let''s be honest.  do democrats support gay rights.

refresh my memory on the kerry/edwards position on gay marriage.  was it my imagination, or did kerry voice support for state amendments (like the one in missouri) to ban gay marriages.

what president signed the defense of marriage act into law?

dont give me this democrats are for gay rights bs.  the record shows otherwise.  they just conceal their bigotry better.

Kerry and Edwards both feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but want the issue left up to the states and very strongly support civil unions as legal equals to marriage.  Bush, meanwhile, wants to ban everything at the federal level.

[WalterMitty]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

[Gabu]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

They would only support a state ban if it included a legalization of civil unions.  Their main reason for supporting civil unions over same-sex marriage is because too many people dislike it when you call it a "marriage" (and that they don't personally like the idea, either).  Their idea of a civil union would basically be exactly the same as a marriage with regards to legal benefits, only not religious in nature and not called "marriage".

I would prefer that they voiced support of full same-sex marriage, but really, can you imagine what would happen if they did?

[Donovan]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

I agree actually. I also think that Civil Unions is second citizenship. It is like trying to say, we are going to free the slaves, but they still won't be equal to the rest of population.
But, civil unions are step in the right direction. Just like getting rid of slavery was a step in the right direction.

[Gabu]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

I agree actually. I also think that Civil Unions is second citizenship. It is like trying to say, we are going to free the slaves, but they still won't be equal to the rest of population.
But, civil unions are step in the right direction. Just like getting rid of slavery was a step in the right direction.

As I said in my above post, civil unions, as they want them, would be exactly the same as marriage, only not called "marriage".  Given how many Americans are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, I think that their stance makes sense, really.

[Shira]

I would define a landslide as 40 states.  If we defeat Kerry as I believe we will, next democratic opponent should be Hillary.  A republican strong on defense but socially moderate ( McCain, Rudy, Ridge, Colin Powell) could carry 40+ states against her.  Yes, we could alienate the more right wing part of our party with these candidates but to landslide, you need to take their base.

The land of fantasies and hallucinations

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Giuliani could never win the nomination, if you honestly think the GOP would nominate someone who is against banning partial birth abortion you are one deluded soul. Plus he hasn't even hinted he has any plans of running, and the fact is if 9/11 hadn't happened anyone who mentioned him as a possible candidate would be laughed out of town.

Arnold is ineligible and if he was made eligible (which won't happen), plenty would still vote against him just on priniciple.

McCain won't run again (he's too old and is not in great health), the GOP had their chance to nominate him and they went with the moron who could barely speak English instead. You blew it.

Powell has no interest, is too old (isn't he going to be 71 in 2008 or something) and is too moderate to win the nomination anyway.

So basically in the near future it would only happen if we for some reason nominated Lyndon LaRouche, which we won't, so no. In the distant future, almost certainly, but there almost certainly will be a Democratic landslide again as well.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

and I am the only person who finds that Republicans are almost 100% certain who will run in 2008 a little ridiculous?

I've seen it all the time here, "In 2008 I'll be supporting ______" before anyone's even announced their intentions.

How many Democrats in 2000 at this point did you hear saying "If Gore loses I'll be supporting Kerry/Dean/Edwards in 2004"?

[Donovan]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

I agree actually. I also think that Civil Unions is second citizenship. It is like trying to say, we are going to free the slaves, but they still won't be equal to the rest of population.
But, civil unions are step in the right direction. Just like getting rid of slavery was a step in the right direction.

As I said in my above post, civil unions, as they want them, would be exactly the same as marriage, only not called "marriage".  Given how many Americans are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, I think that their stance makes sense, really.

Separate but equal is not acceptable. Furthermore, it is not possible, that has been proven. There will be rights left out. Just refusing to call someone by the same name is disrespectful. You are saying that their love is not the same. I think that is wrong, and classifies people in society and generates social discrimination.
This is not about religion. Christians are not challenging the legitimacy of Jewish Marriages, or Atheist Marriages. This is about bigotry. Married people and single straight people think they are better, and their love is superior. It is that simple.
The reason that Kerry/Edwards take the Civil Unions stand is because Kerry would lose votes, and Edwards, I don't think gives a crap about the issue at all and was badly misinformed about DOMA, is taking his stand so he doesn't contradict Kerry as his VP.

Nonetheless, their position is 180 degrees in the direction of Bush and haters inc. of wanting to constitutionalize (not sure if that is word, but you know what I am saying) bigotry.
 

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Kerry voted against DOMA
Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment

Bush and Kerry are the same on gay rights?

[Donovan]

Kerry voted against DOMA
Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment

Bush and Kerry are the same on gay rights?

180 degrees means the opposite direction. 360 degrees would be the same direction.

[Gabu]

bush is wrong for wanting to ban it at the federal level.

kerry/edwards are just as wrong for wanting to ban it at teh state level.

civil unions?  is that some kind of consolation prize?  it reminds me a whole lot of 'separate but equal'

I agree actually. I also think that Civil Unions is second citizenship. It is like trying to say, we are going to free the slaves, but they still won't be equal to the rest of population.
But, civil unions are step in the right direction. Just like getting rid of slavery was a step in the right direction.

As I said in my above post, civil unions, as they want them, would be exactly the same as marriage, only not called "marriage".  Given how many Americans are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage, I think that their stance makes sense, really.

Separate but equal is not acceptable. Furthermore, it is not possible, that has been proven. There will be rights left out. Just refusing to call someone by the same name is disrespectful. You are saying that their love is not the same. I think that is wrong, and classifies people in society and generates social discrimination.
This is not about religion. Christians are not challenging the legitimacy of Jewish Marriages, or Atheist Marriages. This is about bigotry. Married people and single straight people think they are better, and their love is superior. It is that simple.
The reason that Kerry/Edwards take the Civil Unions stand is because Kerry would lose votes, and Edwards, I don't think gives a crap about the issue at all and was badly misinformed about DOMA, is taking his stand so he doesn't contradict Kerry as his VP.

Nonetheless, their position is 180 degrees in the direction of Bush and haters inc. of wanting to constitutionalize (not sure if that is word, but you know what I am saying) bigotry.

Well, which do you want: a candidate that stands 100% for full same-sex marriage who will therefore have no chance in hell of winning or a candidate that stands for a compromise who does have a chance of winning?

Things like this need to be done incrementally or they will fail.

[Matusleo]

and I am the only person who finds that Republicans are almost 100% certain who will run in 2008 a little ridiculous?

I've seen it all the time here, "In 2008 I'll be supporting ______" before anyone's even announced their intentions.

How many Democrats in 2000 at this point did you hear saying "If Gore loses I'll be supporting Kerry/Dean/Edwards in 2004"?

I honestly expect Jeb Bush to run and win the nomination, demonstrating that the GOP are completely without imagination.

[A18]

Jeb won't run in '08. I wouldn't be surprised to see him run for U.S. senator in 2006, though.

[Matusleo]

Jeb won't run in '08. I wouldn't be surprised to see him run for U.S. senator in 2006, though.

I honestly don't see anybody in the Bush family running for a legislative seat anymore.  It is not in their character.  They are the sort who need to run things and be in charge. 

And like I said, I think it is perfectly plausible for Jeb to run for the GOP nomination in 2008.  After all, who else is there?  Sure, folks mention Guliani, but does anybody actually expect him to get any religious conservatives behind him?  He'll go in with big fanfare, and come out with very little.