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'm an avid fan of analyzing trends, especially when I dislike how they are going, as I do not espouse "burying ones head in the sand, ignoring reality".
I also think, given the above, the Southern strategy and TP/had-line mindset has crushed the GOP chances at POTUS until, like a phoenix, mainstream Repubs rise up.
So what would you prefer (if not rooting for Dems to win POTUS):
(1) A Jeb Bush or similar type nominee, with Romney 2012 type results. 200-210 ECs, loses, but limits Dems 2016 Congress to 55 Senate seats, 210 House seats.
(2) A Ted Cruz nominee. GOP is crushed in 2016, 150 ECs for GOP, we end up with a Democratic Senate Supermajority, and Dems retake House with 225 seats.
Pros/cons
(1) Allows delusional right wing lunes to think "If only we ran a crazy enough fruitcake for POTUS"
(2) Eliminates above pro/con, but gives Dems same power that allowed ACA to become possible..the critical Senate supermajority which effectively creates one party control.
I'd pick choice one, although 2 is tempting as the toxic brew the party truly needs to eventually realize the TP 19th century mindset is self-destructive.
Prefer no, Trace21230, but it will happen . Its simply a matter of what would be best, long-term, for the party.
I accept in any scenario the GOP will lose in 2016. I would hope they regroup in future races, and position themselves to be more attractive to high density EC states. Without them, they CANNOT get to 270. My thread is simply about discussing is a "thrashing a better way to force internal changes GOP needs", even if it widens Democratic power for a few years?
Why do you prefer the scenario in which a Democrat wins and we have a continuation of the disastrous Obama presidency?
Some people never learn.
Obama's policies will largely depart with him when he retires, just as Bush's did. Those that remain will be administered as the new president sees fit, just as it always happens.
This post is representative of the Republican's biggest problem. The party is still trying to run against everything Obama and is creating no viable plans of it's own as alternative and responsible solutions to our big common problems.
If the GOP was actually able to present something more thoughtful and attractive than just "Hell NO!" and a couple of over-simple block charts, they might actually have a chance at winning over some independents in 2016, but that would require the party losing it's obsession with Obama, and he seems to the the addiction they just can't give up.
I agree with Bob. Choice #1 is the only way the GOP will have the time to finally become a party that proposes positive, not negative, realistic changes and programs that are needed by all of us. Choice #2 will only continue the GOP's civil war for at least another 4 years after 2016, and will make things even worse for them as it will grow ever more divisive.
If the GOP was actually able to present something more thoughtful and attractive than just "Hell NO!" and a couple of over-simple block charts, they might actually have a chance at winning over some independents in 2016, but that would require the party losing it's obsession with Obama, and he seems to the the addiction they just can't give up.
Well, while not exactly part of your target audience for this thread, were I a more mainstream Republican, the type who prefers George H. W. Bush to George W. Bush, I'd choose the second option, because I believe the party won't begin to move back towards the center until they accept that the majority of Americans reject the fringe right, and I don't think that can happen until the fringe gets to nominate one of their own for the big job, someone they can't call a rino after a brutal defeat. Only then I think will reality take hold and the party can move back towards the center.
I'm not part of your target group but I must commend you on speaking on a subject using logic instead of opinion. At this point a crushing defeat for the Republican party with a far right nominee would be the best for them in the long run. Admitting you have a problem is the first step and far to many of my conservative friends refuse to believe there is a problem. I will keep a eye on your thread.
As a republican, I would select option 2 because the outcome of that scenario 5/10 years down the line would be 15-20% unemployment, over 60% on some form of government assistance, 1/3 of the rich either no longer rich or have long since moved off shore. And a bankrupt treasury with hyper inflation. Whereas, option 2 would only be 2/3 as bad. Like I said in another post, I am 50. If the political atmosphere has devolved into either of the 2 country-killing scenarios you have listed, let's just get it over with so I am still just young enough to rebuild, when the survivors go to pick up the pieces.
As a republican, I would select option 2 because the outcome of that scenario 5/10 years down the line would be 15-20% unemployment, over 60% on some form of government assistance, 1/3 of the rich either no longer rich or have long since moved off shore. And a bankrupt treasury with hyper inflation. Whereas, option 2 would only be 2/3 as bad. Like I said in another post, I am 50. If the political atmosphere has devolved into either of the 2 country-killing scenarios you have listed, let's just get it over with so I am still just young enough to rebuild, when the survivors go to pick up the pieces.
Exactly. The far left extremists running the Democrat Party and the country don't have the first clue about how to run anything. They have no plan for our neverending fiscal crisis, long term unemployment, and unsustainable entitlement programs.
Democrats attain and hold power because of popular items and propaganda, like gay marriage, the "war on women" and pot legalization. They have no idea how to address any of the actual problems we have, all of which stem from a bloated ever expanding and out of control government.
So, maybe it's just better to give the Democrats total power for about 10 years so the destruction of the country can be completed more quickly.
I'm an avid fan of analyzing trends, especially when I dislike how they are going, as I do not espouse "burying ones head in the sand, ignoring reality".
I also think, given the above, the Southern strategy and TP/had-line mindset has crushed the GOP chances at POTUS until, like a phoenix, mainstream Repubs rise up.
So what would you prefer (if not rooting for Dems to win POTUS):
(1) A Jeb Bush or similar type nominee, with Romney 2012 type results. 200-210 ECs, loses, but limits Dems 2016 Congress to 55 Senate seats, 210 House seats.
(2) A Ted Cruz nominee. GOP is crushed in 2016, 150 ECs for GOP, we end up with a Democratic Senate Supermajority, and Dems retake House with 225 seats.
Pros/cons
(1) Allows delusional right wing lunes to think "If only we ran a crazy enough fruitcake for POTUS"
(2) Eliminates above pro/con, but gives Dems same power that allowed ACA to become possible..the critical Senate supermajority which effectively creates one party control.
I'd pick choice one, although 2 is tempting as the toxic brew the party truly needs to eventually realize the TP 19th century mindset is self-destructive.
Since your scenarios are based in bias you only spout hate rather than spur honest discussion
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.
