Why do we have so many deplorables and nutjobs getting nominated these days?

[The Arizonan]

Seriously, we've had people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Sharron Angle get nominated for statewide office and now we could see people like Roy Moore and Marsha Blackburn in the Senate.

[ProudModerate2]

Reading all those names in your OP makes me want to ....

[The Arizonan]

Reading all those names in your OP makes me want to ....

It's only five names.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Because Republican primary voters are paranoid deplorables themselves, even more so now with "President" Cheeto. They've spent too much time in their echo chambers by the likes of Faux Noise, Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin, and talk radio who've convinced them that Democrats, liberals and the mainstream media are a bigger threat to our country than the terrorists or global warming or income inequality. Therefore, any compromising with Democrats (even just once) renders a Republican a cuck/RINO whatever and leaves room for those aforementioned deplorable insurgent candidates to throw red meat to the GOP primary base by running as "anti-establishment." It's an awfully big basket and Hillary saying that only half of them were deplorable was being far too generous to them.

[Person Man]

America must be really unpopular if even its professed greatest supporters have such anti-American values or interests.

[Inmate Trump]

The current GOP and it’s current electorate are a national security matter.  I say this as a former GOP voter.

I’ve never been so ashamed of my country.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Because the national republican party leadership decided after Obama's first election that their best path forward was to give up on trying to please the Jon Huntsmans of the world and instead seek to drive up turnout among their base. They will probably continue that strategy until and unless Texas flips.

[Person Man]

Because the national republican party leadership decided after Obama's first election that their best path forward was to give up on trying to please the Jon Huntsmans of the world and instead seek to drive up turnout among their base. They will probably continue that strategy until and unless Texas flips.

Or until they can no longer stall the Progressive Agenda. Simply stopping the alt-Right agenda isn't enough.

My guess is that if a Democratic trifecta can get reelected, the establishment will start to assert itself. That hasn't happened since 1964 or 1940.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Because the national republican party leadership decided after Obama's first election that their best path forward was to give up on trying to please the Jon Huntsmans of the world and instead seek to drive up turnout among their base. They will probably continue that strategy until and unless Texas flips.

Or until they can no longer stall the Progressive Agenda. Simply stopping the alt-Right agenda isn't enough.

My guess is that if a Democratic trifecta can get reelected, the establishment will start to assert itself. That hasn't happened since 1964 or 1940.

If you're referring to the republican party establishment, they had complete control of the party until the end of the Dubya Presidency.

[Person Man]

Because the national republican party leadership decided after Obama's first election that their best path forward was to give up on trying to please the Jon Huntsmans of the world and instead seek to drive up turnout among their base. They will probably continue that strategy until and unless Texas flips.

Or until they can no longer stall the Progressive Agenda. Simply stopping the alt-Right agenda isn't enough.

My guess is that if a Democratic trifecta can get reelected, the establishment will start to assert itself. That hasn't happened since 1964 or 1940.

If you're referring to the republican party establishment, they had complete control of the party until the end of the Dubya Presidency.

Though with steadily reduced power. Even when they had majorities, there were enough moderates to smooth everything out.

Then again, they were a "big tent" party then, too with several socially liberal urban GOP governors and then people who wanted to execute abortion doctors and ban gays from schools.

You could argue the same now.

[Cashew]

Because the national republican party leadership decided after Obama's first election that their best path forward was to give up on trying to please the Jon Huntsmans of the world and instead seek to drive up turnout among their base. They will probably continue that strategy until and unless Texas flips.

Or until they can no longer stall the Progressive Agenda. Simply stopping the alt-Right agenda isn't enough.

My guess is that if a Democratic trifecta can get reelected, the establishment will start to assert itself. That hasn't happened since 1964 or 1940.

If you're referring to the republican party establishment, they had complete control of the party until the end of the Dubya Presidency.

The establishment of the current era and the establishment of the 60's are two diffirent establishments.

[ProudModerate2]

Reading all those names in your OP makes me want to ....

It's only five names.

LOL.
I didn't literally mean the actual count (5).
What I meant was that just seeing one of those names is horrid (because they were horrible candidates and individuals), but seeing all five makes my stomach turn.
(Your reply may have been sarcasm. Sorry if I missed it.)

[bagelman]

Because the right feels it is being backed into a corner.

[YE]

Because the sane, normal center-right politicians have failed at their jobs.

[Person Man]

Because the right feels it is being backed into a corner.

They kind of are and it isn't really something that "just happened". The will keep being assholes until they are held accountable.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Seriously, we've had people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Sharron Angle get nominated for statewide office and now we could see people like Roy Moore and Marsha Blackburn in the Senate.

Angle wasn't a nutjob; she was an ideological conservative who was a poor candidate.

Mourdock and Akin are creepy and smarmy; but their creepiness and smarminess didn't come out until after they were nominated, and they began to talk about sex and rape.  (Both those guys creeped me out; I'd never vote for either one of them if Maxine Waters were their opponent.)

Moore, however, represents a simple proposition:  Do the people rule?  Or do Courts get to overturn the rule of the majority whenever they feel like it?

I visited the "Ten Commandments" monument that Roy Moore paid for and placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court.  Having visited it and seen it, I came away with the unshakable conviction that God, Himself, wanted that monument to stay.  (God, Himself, wants a lot of stuff, but he's allowed man to disappoint him on a lot of stuff, so . . .)  The Monument, itself, was not just the Ten Commandments; it had commentary on our Constitutional Liberties, and a significant part of the monument involved substantive quotes on our liberties and their source from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Black folks, as well as white folks, were visiting that monument, and black folks, as well as white folks, wanted the monument to stay.  Indeed, I believe that if you polled Alabama, over 80% of its citizens, and a majority of all races, would have voted to keep that monument there.

Roy Moore's candidacy is a candidacy that I endorse.  I don't endorse his every political position, but I endorse the underlying premise of his candidacy, which is the question of whether or not the people rule, or the Courts rule in America.  I do not advocate the Tyranny of the Majority, and I recognize the Courts' role in protecting the rights of individuals, and minorities; even minorities of one or two.  But being in the minority generally means, in a democracy, that someone else's position has carried the day.  Do the People rule in America?  Roy Moore's candidacy asks that question, and it's a valid one.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

#Winning

[TheSaint250]

Why is the US General Discussion board turning into a rage board?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Because the modern day GOP is full of nut jobs who are taught to hate the government for every personal woe they have. (Thanks Reagan)

[Deblano]

Why is the US General Discussion board turning into a rage board?

[AtorBoltox]

Seriously, we've had people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Sharron Angle get nominated for statewide office and now we could see people like Roy Moore and Marsha Blackburn in the Senate.

Angle wasn't a nutjob; she was an ideological conservative who was a poor candidate.

Mourdock and Akin are creepy and smarmy; but their creepiness and smarminess didn't come out until after they were nominated, and they began to talk about sex and rape.  (Both those guys creeped me out; I'd never vote for either one of them if Maxine Waters were their opponent.)

Moore, however, represents a simple proposition:  Do the people rule?  Or do Courts get to overturn the rule of the majority whenever they feel like it?

I visited the "Ten Commandments" monument that Roy Moore paid for and placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court.  Having visited it and seen it, I came away with the unshakable conviction that God, Himself, wanted that monument to stay.  (God, Himself, wants a lot of stuff, but he's allowed man to disappoint him on a lot of stuff, so . . .)  The Monument, itself, was not just the Ten Commandments; it had commentary on our Constitutional Liberties, and a significant part of the monument involved substantive quotes on our liberties and their source from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Black folks, as well as white folks, were visiting that monument, and black folks, as well as white folks, wanted the monument to stay.  Indeed, I believe that if you polled Alabama, over 80% of its citizens, and a majority of all races, would have voted to keep that monument there.

Roy Moore's candidacy is a candidacy that I endorse.  I don't endorse his every political position, but I endorse the underlying premise of his candidacy, which is the question of whether or not the people rule, or the Courts rule in America.  I do not advocate the Tyranny of the Majority, and I recognize the Courts' role in protecting the rights of individuals, and minorities; even minorities of one or two.  But being in the minority generally means, in a democracy, that someone else's position has carried the day.  Do the People rule in America?  Roy Moore's candidacy asks that question, and it's a valid one.

Utter garbage

[Green Line]

Because the modern day GOP is full of nut jobs who are taught to hate the government for every personal woe they have. (Thanks Reagan)

Remove your sexist sig.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

Seriously, we've had people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Sharron Angle get nominated for statewide office and now we could see people like Roy Moore and Marsha Blackburn in the Senate.

Angle wasn't a nutjob; she was an ideological conservative who was a poor candidate.

Mourdock and Akin are creepy and smarmy; but their creepiness and smarminess didn't come out until after they were nominated, and they began to talk about sex and rape.  (Both those guys creeped me out; I'd never vote for either one of them if Maxine Waters were their opponent.)

Moore, however, represents a simple proposition:  Do the people rule?  Or do Courts get to overturn the rule of the majority whenever they feel like it?

I visited the "Ten Commandments" monument that Roy Moore paid for and placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court.  Having visited it and seen it, I came away with the unshakable conviction that God, Himself, wanted that monument to stay.  (God, Himself, wants a lot of stuff, but he's allowed man to disappoint him on a lot of stuff, so . . .)  The Monument, itself, was not just the Ten Commandments; it had commentary on our Constitutional Liberties, and a significant part of the monument involved substantive quotes on our liberties and their source from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Black folks, as well as white folks, were visiting that monument, and black folks, as well as white folks, wanted the monument to stay.  Indeed, I believe that if you polled Alabama, over 80% of its citizens, and a majority of all races, would have voted to keep that monument there.

Roy Moore's candidacy is a candidacy that I endorse.  I don't endorse his every political position, but I endorse the underlying premise of his candidacy, which is the question of whether or not the people rule, or the Courts rule in America.  I do not advocate the Tyranny of the Majority, and I recognize the Courts' role in protecting the rights of individuals, and minorities; even minorities of one or two.  But being in the minority generally means, in a democracy, that someone else's position has carried the day.  Do the People rule in America?  Roy Moore's candidacy asks that question, and it's a valid one.

Utter garbage

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The situation at present is entirely one of the GOP's establishment's creation.


The Republicans do not trust and in effect, their their own politicians. This is why RinoTom's argument on trade citing the "majority of elected Republicans" to deflect the transition on trade rings hollow. Republicans do not like and in effect, hate their own elected leaders and politicians.


You have, as always people who want to benefit from a power standpoint on all sides of this equation. You can stand in the way and cause nothing to get done and be a hero in establishment circles (Murkowski and Collins). You can stand in a way and cause nothing to get done and be a hero to the base (Ted Cruz and Rand Paul).

During the Bush years, you had a very top down run Party, where Bush set the agenda and Delay enforced discipline and if you weren't a team player, you wouldn't get fundraising and you wouldn't get your pork. They were determined to get stuff done and they did, but in the process that ran rough shod over the budget, over state's rights (education) and over honesty and competence in government. The end result was a mess of corruption and incompetence (Iraq and Katrina) and the end result was the Democrats taking over, by what was a perceived abandonment of values and core principles. The Republicans have had an internal revolution occurring since 2007, when the base went to the barricades essentially to demand that the 2007 immigration bill be killed. Romney and then Trump in turn were nominated largely because of that anger and their understanding of its priority in terms of concerns.

But you have many issues and it is easy for someone on a quest for power, to then take advantage of that ride anger, or stir it up in a place where it has never existed before. You have had people essentially turn this into a business model, and that is especially the case with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Where every issue is an attempt by them to label even the slightest hint of compromise as the latest corrupt betrayal of the average joe at the hands of powerful people. But that is a dangerous game and especially so if you misunderstand your own voters and as the last election showed, many of these small government zealots do not in fact, understand their own voters. That is why Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are not President right now.

The Republican Party attracts glory hounds that seek personal aggrandizement. Many of its current officeholders are these types of people, and many of the establishment are just as bad on that score. And both sides of the equation are rife with cowardice as they will set lose pandora's box, but will never have the balls to stand up and call out the mess that it has created. The establishment was just as eager to "cash-in" as self-promoters were and they are just as, if not more responsible, for this situation coming into place.

Why do you have these people getting nominated, because there opposition sucks. Luther Strange is corrupt Southern Politics at its finest. But you see there you have the problem. There were alternatives that could have been selected. But the establishment rallied around the corrupt sleaze-ball who got his seat through shady means, the base rallied around Roy Moore, those two were the top two finishers and so you had a runoff. Criminally corrupt v. Extremism!

Kind of like MO in 2012. You had three solid conservatives running, but the socially conservative faction wanted their guy uber alles and the Dems wanted likewise. So Todd Akin got the nomination and lost by 16 points while the two alternatives probably would have won and cast a deciding vote for ACA repeal. Someone had misplaced priorities.

When the tea party first emerged, it was of course the perfect opportunity for fringe types to become relevant. To mount the horse and become the champion slaying the incumbent dragon. That is how you got Angle and O'Donnell. Because at the end of the day, the base hates their own party's officeholders.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why is the US General Discussion board turning into a rage board?

Because they lost. They're losers. Haters and losers.