Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 02-25-2015, 12:32 PM
 
5,347 posts, read 7,203,652 times
Reputation: 7158

Advertisements

Why do you guys keep doing this to yourselves, it only makes the GE losses hurt more
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2015, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,371,777 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Walker will not be the nominee. It will be Jeb Bush. The GOP has the fix in for him to receive the nomination. I'm not sure he would be much better than Clinton, but he certainly has the name recognition that would be required to beat her handily.
Who is putting in the 'fix' and what is the evidence? People go to their primaries and caucuses, The candidate who gets the most votes wins. It's a competitive, merit-based process. There is no wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

I can't support Jeb Bush right now because just don't think that he can beat Hillary in the general. The low info voter will link him with W Bush and vote for Hillary. If I thought he had a chance, I'd give him consideration but for now I like the new blood candidates: Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, along w/ Jindal and Martinez should they decide to get in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 07:49 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,419,872 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Who is putting in the 'fix' and what is the evidence? People go to their primaries and caucuses, The candidate who gets the most votes wins. It's a competitive, merit-based process. There is no wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

I can't support Jeb Bush right now because just don't think that he can beat Hillary in the general. The low info voter will link him with W Bush and vote for Hillary. If I thought he had a chance, I'd give him consideration but for now I like the new blood candidates: Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, along w/ Jindal and Martinez should they decide to get in.
I think Jeb Bush is on track to raise something like $100 million dollars by the end of March of this year. I suspect he is going to utterly devastate any other viable Republican hopefuls in Iowa and New Hampshire with an endless barrage of negative ads and I suspect he will buy a half decent field team as well and while not a fix it will likely be pretty rough for any opposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,371,777 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
I think Jeb Bush is on track to raise something like $100 million dollars by the end of March of this year. I suspect he is going to utterly devastate any other viable Republican hopefuls in Iowa and New Hampshire with an endless barrage of negative ads and I suspect he will buy a half decent field team as well and while not a fix it will likely be pretty rough for any opposition.

Fair point, but remember that money does not always translate to victory. There are numerous examples of this, but from the top of my head Steve Forbes outspent everyone in the 1996 GOP primary but never gained traction. Overall I do not disagree. The big money often wins--but not always.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2015, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,219 posts, read 22,385,232 times
Reputation: 23859
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Fair point, but remember that money does not always translate to victory. There are numerous examples of this, but from the top of my head Steve Forbes outspent everyone in the 1996 GOP primary but never gained traction. Overall I do not disagree. The big money often wins--but not always.
That's the truth. Much to the consternation of Karl Rove in 2012.
Nontheless, I expect 5016 to be another Most Expensive Election In History. I wish the wealthy would throw their money someplace where it would actually help out the Americans who could really use a little bit of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2015, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,470,546 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Nontheless, I expect 5016 to be another Most Expensive Election In History.
I doubt we'll ever find out.

As to the rest of your post, I think the Obama campaign actually had more money in 2012 than Romney's campaign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2015, 07:58 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,419,872 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Fair point, but remember that money does not always translate to victory. There are numerous examples of this, but from the top of my head Steve Forbes outspent everyone in the 1996 GOP primary but never gained traction. Overall I do not disagree. The big money often wins--but not always.
1996 is a bit different since the sheer amount of money in campaigns was much less and while money doesn't necessarily mean a candidate will win, it is pretty clear that if targeted it money can pretty much devastate an opponent especially in a primary. If you remember 2012 when Gingrich and Romney were in a primary they basically went nuclear on each other due to the vast amounts of money they had. Romney carpet bombed Iowa airwaves with anti-Gingrich ads which crippled his campaign there and Gingrich responded with a full length anti-Romney documentary which defined him as "vulture capitalist" right out of the gate. Romney won, but he was crippled from that mess.

This is not meant to be a prediction on who will win, but rather a statement that I have faith in the destructive power lots of money has when applied to a negative campaign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,651 posts, read 18,249,084 times
Reputation: 34522
I'm not reading very much into the polls at the moment as we are too far out and don't have full campaigns running to fully influence voters. Seriously, though, did anyone with a brain serious think Hillary was up by 12-15 nationally (and in several battleground states) against ALL of her GOP competitors? Give me a break.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,651 posts, read 18,249,084 times
Reputation: 34522
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
I doubt we'll ever find out.

As to the rest of your post, I think the Obama campaign actually had more money in 2012 than Romney's campaign.
Right, and I think that leftist third party groups actually outspent right-wing third party groups that cycle, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 12:03 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,663,022 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egbert View Post
1996 is a bit different since the sheer amount of money in campaigns was much less and while money doesn't necessarily mean a candidate will win, it is pretty clear that if targeted it money can pretty much devastate an opponent especially in a primary. If you remember 2012 when Gingrich and Romney were in a primary they basically went nuclear on each other due to the vast amounts of money they had. Romney carpet bombed Iowa airwaves with anti-Gingrich ads which crippled his campaign there and Gingrich responded with a full length anti-Romney documentary which defined him as "vulture capitalist" right out of the gate. Romney won, but he was crippled from that mess.

This is not meant to be a prediction on who will win, but rather a statement that I have faith in the destructive power lots of money has when applied to a negative campaign.

And then there was Ron Paul, chugging right along.
Doing what he did without wall street bankers and the money they sread to keep their power over the people.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top