U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2015, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Where it's cold in winter.
1,074 posts, read 644,100 times
Reputation: 241

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
On the surface, that is what it looks like, but I think it goes deeper. I can't see either of them playing second fiddle, certainly not Bush.
I don't want either one of them to run. We need a strong conservative. How about Scott Walker? He has proven himself to be able to withstand leftist attacks and win. I say, "go."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2015, 05:58 AM
 
5,556 posts, read 5,031,196 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamencoFreak View Post
I don't want either one of them to run. We need a strong conservative. How about Scott Walker? He has proven himself to be able to withstand leftist attacks and win. I say, "go."
Oddly, he just may be the only viable alternative to JEB! at this point. They'll "Koch" him to death, but I think he can deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,248 posts, read 14,269,308 times
Reputation: 15741
Here is some real outside the box thinking I read yesterday…

Jeb and Mitt might have cut a deal, and Mitt will be Jeb's V.P.

At first thought, it seemed to be ludicrous, but that plan may have election advantages.
Mitt got more electoral votes than McCain in an election that had a much lower Republican turnout.
Mitt has a very solid base of supporters who will always vote for him.
Mitt is a whacking good fundraiser, better than Jeb, and better than any of the others.
Mitt's a solid member of the establishment section of the Republican party, and was active in turning out for candidates, filling candidate's war chests, and endorsing candidates throughout the 2014 election.

At 69, Mitt knows this would be his last shot at the White House. As V.P., he's one heartbeat away, and he could be the Republican party's Joe Biden.
Joe, as potential President, didn't scare the crap out of the uncommitted voters like Palin did, and Ryan never inspired much confidence in his potential abilities as President, even if he wasn't as off the wall as Sarah was. Joe had his own base of supporters in 2008, and they followed him all the way into the voting booth.

The last 2 Presidential elections, where the establishment candidate, paired with a younger, more conservative V.P. didn't play well to the uncommitted voters, who tend to land in the moderate middle. Studies may show that those voters, who make all the difference to a GOP win or loss, may not have liked the young V.P. choice enough to vote for McCain or Romney.

Trying the same combination a 3rd time in a row might be another failure in a row. Changing up and offering 2 known candidates instead of only one may be more attractive to the moderate middle in 2016. Offering 2 well known politicians was the way most campaigns were run in the 20th century; it wasn't until the 90s when that began to change, so it's not as crazy a thought as it might seem.

Voters in general may be tiring of seeing only fresh faces being offered one more time by both parties. 2016 may be the year they want familiar candidates as choices. With Mitt and Jeb, the voters know what they are getting. There's no rolling the dice to learn if the new face turns out to be a disappointment or not.

It's a radical thought, but the GOP wants to win the White House badly next year. If they don't, the Democrats could well have the White House for a total of 20 years or possibly longer. If the Democratic candidate wins in 2016, it will be the first time since 1988 that one party has controlled the Presidency for 3 terms in a row. The Democrats are going to do everything they can to get their own 3rd term of control.

Dumping money into the 2012 election didn't change the outcome a lick. Dumping even more money into 2016 won't, either, unless there is some advantage that's built into the Presidential race. Having 2 senior, well-known candidates on the same ticket may be that advantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 06:34 PM
 
5,556 posts, read 5,031,196 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Here is some real outside the box thinking I read yesterday…

Jeb and Mitt might have cut a deal, and Mitt will be Jeb's V.P.

At first thought, it seemed to be ludicrous, but that plan may have election advantages.
Mitt got more electoral votes than McCain in an election that had a much lower Republican turnout.
Mitt has a very solid base of supporters who will always vote for him.
Mitt is a whacking good fundraiser, better than Jeb, and better than any of the others.
Mitt's a solid member of the establishment section of the Republican party, and was active in turning out for candidates, filling candidate's war chests, and endorsing candidates throughout the 2014 election.

At 69, Mitt knows this would be his last shot at the White House. As V.P., he's one heartbeat away, and he could be the Republican party's Joe Biden.
Joe, as potential President, didn't scare the crap out of the uncommitted voters like Palin did, and Ryan never inspired much confidence in his potential abilities as President, even if he wasn't as off the wall as Sarah was. Joe had his own base of supporters in 2008, and they followed him all the way into the voting booth.

The last 2 Presidential elections, where the establishment candidate, paired with a younger, more conservative V.P. didn't play well to the uncommitted voters, who tend to land in the moderate middle. Studies may show that those voters, who make all the difference to a GOP win or loss, may not have liked the young V.P. choice enough to vote for McCain or Romney.

Trying the same combination a 3rd time in a row might be another failure in a row. Changing up and offering 2 known candidates instead of only one may be more attractive to the moderate middle in 2016. Offering 2 well known politicians was the way most campaigns were run in the 20th century; it wasn't until the 90s when that began to change, so it's not as crazy a thought as it might seem.

Voters in general may be tiring of seeing only fresh faces being offered one more time by both parties. 2016 may be the year they want familiar candidates as choices. With Mitt and Jeb, the voters know what they are getting. There's no rolling the dice to learn if the new face turns out to be a disappointment or not.

It's a radical thought, but the GOP wants to win the White House badly next year. If they don't, the Democrats could well have the White House for a total of 20 years or possibly longer. If the Democratic candidate wins in 2016, it will be the first time since 1988 that one party has controlled the Presidency for 3 terms in a row. The Democrats are going to do everything they can to get their own 3rd term of control.

Dumping money into the 2012 election didn't change the outcome a lick. Dumping even more money into 2016 won't, either, unless there is some advantage that's built into the Presidential race. Having 2 senior, well-known candidates on the same ticket may be that advantage.
IF there was a deal, and that's a big IF, I doubt it would be for Veep. The deal would be for Secretary of the Treasury, far more power, actually, and definitely more prestigious than a second banana position. More appropriate for Mitt, given his activity in the financial world.

Taking note of Romney's rather non-committal, "for the good of the party" capitulation message, my guess is that there isn't any deal at this time. There was no endorsement of Bush, no expressed support for him as a possible nominee, etc. He's either keeping his options open, or he got Perot-ed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 06:38 PM
 
5,556 posts, read 5,031,196 times
Reputation: 3943
Oh, and if Jeb is the nominee, look for Rubio (tee-hee) to be Veep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 06:47 PM
 
1,013 posts, read 768,366 times
Reputation: 484
If any of these neo-cons run then prepare to lose.

How about the republican party elect a real republican eh?
the old ones before neo-cons took over.
try that once in a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,238 posts, read 11,483,700 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Here is some real outside the box thinking I read yesterday…

Jeb and Mitt might have cut a deal, and Mitt will be Jeb's V.P.

At first thought, it seemed to be ludicrous, but that plan may have election advantages.
Mitt got more electoral votes than McCain in an election that had a much lower Republican turnout. ......
No, the overall turnout of that election was down, Barack Obama had 4 million less votes than he did in 2008.

The only States that Mitt Won that John McCain didnt was Indiana and North Carolina.

While i think your idea is believable, that surely isnt the reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 07:06 PM
 
5,556 posts, read 5,031,196 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen811 View Post
If any of these neo-cons run then prepare to lose.

How about the republican party elect a real republican eh?
the old ones before neo-cons took over.
try that once in a while.
Which of the Republican presidents since the turn of the 20th century would you consider a real republican?

St. Ronnie? Nixon? GHWB?

Gimme Ike or Teddy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 08:14 PM
 
36,379 posts, read 16,235,046 times
Reputation: 9768
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarc View Post
Which of the Republican presidents since the turn of the 20th century would you consider a real republican?

St. Ronnie? Nixon? GHWB?

Gimme Ike or Teddy.
I'll take Ike. Who is St. Ronnie?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2015, 08:44 PM
 
5,556 posts, read 5,031,196 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
I'll take Ike. Who is St. Ronnie?
I like Ike!

St. Ronnie is my sarcastic nickname for Reagan. Because within the party, he was elevated to a sort of sainthood that was way over the top. Don't get me wrong, I liked Ronnie in some ways, but I've never forgiven him for opening the gates to shamnasty hell. Also he was surrounded by some bad cats. Even though people made fun of Nancy, she knew who the jerks were and tried her best to protect him, but he had some misplaced loyalties. Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top