Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christie will survive Bridgegate but he won't survive his own personality. Being an arrogant blowhard who publicly insults anyone who questions him won't play well in most areas of the country.
Being an arrogant blowhard didn't hurt Obama much.
No, he doesn't - he's a Republican in Texas. No Democrat has won statewide office in Texas since 1994. Not losing as a Republican in Texas in the 21st Century is not remarkable. I'm not saying Perry isn't a good politician in Texas - he clearly is. But his winning streak is most assuredly not remarkable.
But, he was a Democrat when he was first elected to the Texas House of Representatives.
Ben Carson
No, your favorite surgeon and Fox News' pet black-guy-who-rails-against-Obama isn't going to be the nominee. Don't embarrass yourself by suggesting otherwise.
Dr Carson wasn't JUST a surgeon. He was the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery and Co-Director if the John Hopkins Craniofacial Center. That means he has more executive experience (difficult decisions, budget preparation and implementation, crises handling) than a few of the other candidates with Senator and Representative in front of their names.
One thing has come to pass since my original post. The Republicans have taken the Senate and the House. In my original post, I thought if that happened Obama and his personal freedom-grabs would seem less threatening and that would negatively impact Rand Paul the most. Instead the defeated Obama (with his policies on the ballot) has come out of the mid-terms swinging for the fences. So, that's one prediction down the drain.
But that does bring up unforeseen events happening in the US and the world during the Republican primary voting period and which candidate the voters think would be best equipped to handle that type of event. You know, if there is some type of financial meltdown, voters may go one way. If there is some type of terrorist attack on US soil, voters may go another way. If there is some big civil unrest upheaval here in the US, some large scale natural disaster, some mass contagion, some big political scandal, some new war, voters may decide that a different type of candidate than the one they were planning to vote for is the right person for the job. I see that as a probable negative for the Capitol Hill candidates and a plus for the governors and anyone else that has had to deal with some large scale issues. You know, writing laws, voting on laws, raising money and schmoozing lobbyists and constituents, would not be the skill set I'd be looking for during a crisis.
If the police, criminals, looters, vandalists, protester, border jumper illegals things happened about a year from now, I'd expect a law and order type candidate to win the Republican primary.
There was a great article, in our local paper today, mentioning how diverse the Republican party has become. A majority of the possible candidates are not lilly white old guys. They are all colors, and from all walks of life and anything but old. The top names are in their 40s and 50s. BTW, the article was written by an Associated Press reporter, certainly not a media that leans right.
In practical terms, I don't think the Republican nominees are as diverse as they are in ethnic terms. While Cruz and Rubio are Hispanic, they're Hispanic in the same way Clarence Thomas is black; they're milquetoast personalities whose positions don't appeal to most Hispanic voters. The same is true for Ben Carson, who almost certainly won't be the nominee. Sure, he's obviously highly intelligent, but has little (any?) political experience, isn't well known, and doesn't resonate with most voters (only some core Republicans).
The Republican situation is certainly more wide-open than the Democrats. I can't confidently hazard a guess who the Republican nominee the way I can with the Democrats (Hilary). Bush, Christie, and Ryan seem the most plausible, but each have liabilities. Rubio and Cruz are also somewhat plausible, but probably less so. So, five truly viable Republican candidates? That's pretty wide-open.
In practical terms, I don't think the Republican nominees are as diverse as they are in ethnic terms. While Cruz and Rubio are Hispanic, they're Hispanic in the same way Clarence Thomas is black; they're milquetoast personalities whose positions don't appeal to most Hispanic voters. The same is true for Ben Carson, who almost certainly won't be the nominee. Sure, he's obviously highly intelligent, but has little (any?) political experience, isn't well known, and doesn't resonate with most voters (only some core Republicans).
The Republican situation is certainly more wide-open than the Democrats. I can't confidently hazard a guess who the Republican nominee the way I can with the Democrats (Hilary). Bush, Christie, and Ryan seem the most plausible, but each have liabilities. Rubio and Cruz are also somewhat plausible, but probably less so. So, five truly viable Republican candidates? That's pretty wide-open.
What a bunch of borderline racist bilge. So unless a minority parrots the liberal line and appeals to "most" in their ethnic group, they are "milquetoast."
Why don't you just say that any minority who doesn't agree with your liberal claptrap is an Uncle Tom? That's all you're really arguing in your inane, incendiary, and insulting post.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230
What a bunch of borderline racist bilge. So unless a minority parrots the liberal line and appeals to "most" in their ethnic group, they are "milquetoast."
Why don't you just say that any minority who doesn't agree with your liberal claptrap is an Uncle Tom? That's all you're really arguing in your inane, incendiary, and insulting post.
Thats not actually what he is saying.
What he said is that None of those candidates are diverse in their ideology AND that their ideologies do not conform to the ideals of people who are of the same ethnicity. Those are facts not opinions and there are plenty of polls to back that up.
To make the uncle tom claim, he would have to say it was a negative in and of itself to be ideologically different from those ethnic groups and he did no such thing.
But to your point, if you do believe it is wrong to call someone an Uncle Tom, why do you then support those who use the term " plantation " , "House N*****" in reference to Democrats who are black ?
they are all racial epithets within the same contextual frame, and yet you view one as more favorable than the other, why is that ?
As foul as the taste he leaves in my mouth is, Jeb Bush will be the nominee and he does have the capability of defeating any of the democrats running, including Clinton. I can't support him and won't support him, but he could well win the primary as well as the election..
In practical terms, I don't think the Republican nominees are as diverse as they are in ethnic terms. While Cruz and Rubio are Hispanic, they're Hispanic in the same way Clarence Thomas is black; they're milquetoast personalities whose positions don't appeal to most Hispanic voters. The same is true for Ben Carson, who almost certainly won't be the nominee. Sure, he's obviously highly intelligent, but has little (any?) political experience, isn't well known, and doesn't resonate with most voters (only some core Republicans).
The Republican situation is certainly more wide-open than the Democrats. I can't confidently hazard a guess who the Republican nominee the way I can with the Democrats (Hilary). Bush, Christie, and Ryan seem the most plausible, but each have liabilities. Rubio and Cruz are also somewhat plausible, but probably less so. So, five truly viable Republican candidates? That's pretty wide-open.
We're going to see a lot more of this as we approach 2016--liberals decrying Republicans based upon skin tone. '[Mi]lquetoast, whatever that means, will doubtless be among the milder of slurs thrown.
Expect a major tantrum from the left as people such as Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Susana Martinez espouse conservative ideas.
In practical terms, I don't think the Republican nominees are as diverse as they are in ethnic terms. While Cruz and Rubio are Hispanic, they're Hispanic in the same way Clarence Thomas is black; they're milquetoast personalities whose positions don't appeal to most Hispanic voters. The same is true for Ben Carson, who almost certainly won't be the nominee. Sure, he's obviously highly intelligent, but has little (any?) political experience, isn't well known, and doesn't resonate with most voters (only some core Republicans).
The Republican situation is certainly more wide-open than the Democrats. I can't confidently hazard a guess who the Republican nominee the way I can with the Democrats (Hilary). Bush, Christie, and Ryan seem the most plausible, but each have liabilities. Rubio and Cruz are also somewhat plausible, but probably less so. So, five truly viable Republican candidates? That's pretty wide-open.
I certainly agree with most of what you are saying. My point simple was, we keep hearing the left, including the media talk about how closed the party is; the article was pointing out, this is not the case. Both parties have ideas most of their candidates share, otherwise we wouldn't have 2 parties. There are degrees of conservatism and liberalism. There are those in both parties that stray on some views from the party platform.
It does look like Hillary, at this point, those of us who don't like her would like to think otherwise, but I am beginning to think it is reality and yes, the Republican field is wide open. You mention 3 candidates that seem to be in the lead, all having liablitlies; wouldn't you say, Hillary does as well?
Where I do not agree with you is the 3 most plausible: I don't think Ryan will come close and I am not sure what the future holds for Christie. Time will tell. The next 18 months or so are going to be very intereesting. I also question why you posted a comment about candidates not appealing to hispanics. Do I sense a bit of racism in your statements or just someone that doesn't want to admit, the Republicans could offer a candidate that is electable? Only the most racist voter would not vote for someone who is a minority and a Republican.
What he said is that None of those candidates are diverse in their ideology AND that their ideologies do not conform to the ideals of people who are of the same ethnicity. Those are facts not opinions and there are plenty of polls to back that up.
Thank you very much for reiterating my point. I was just pointing out the probable realities based on the polling data I've read. The simple fact is Republicans like Carson and Clarence Thomas don't appeal to most African American. Similarly, Cruz and Rubio probably won't appeal to most Hispanics. Again, this is just based on polling data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
...Do I sense a bit of racism in your statements or just someone that doesn't want to admit, the Republicans could offer a candidate that is electable? Only the most racist voter would not vote for someone who is a minority and a Republican.
Many Republicans won't acknowledge this, but a significant portion of their electorate is racist; some openly and unapologetically. They simply won't want to nominate a minority for this reason. Cruz and Rubio might have a chance because their appearance and personalities are more typical of white conservatives (milquetoast) than most Hispanics. But even if someone like Cory Booker's personality were solidly, sincerely conservative he'd never get the Republican nomination because he's too 'black'; I think you know this even if you won't admit it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just pointing out the probable realities based on the polling data I've read. The simple fact is Republicans like Carson and Clarence Thomas don't appeal to most African American. Similarly, Cruz and Rubio probably won't appeal to most Hispanics. Again, this is just based on polling data. 
