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.
The GOP in general is solution oriented, unlike the wishy washy dems, so don't think there will be a problem when the time comes to choose their guy if it comes to that. They need to look cohesive so probably won't dilly dally on a choice.
Starting to read articles that are talking about the possibility of a gridlocked Republican convention, since it is looking more and more that this could be a 3 or 4 way equal division all the way.
How much would that help the Democrats and hurt the eventual Republican candidate, since that eventual winner would not really have the support of a large portion of the Republican base?
Historically, the party that takes the longest to decide upon a nominee is at a greater disadvantage (campaigns have to spend and raise more money just to get the nomination, there's less time to heal wounds amongst the party faithful, etc.). We may very well see that the Democratic case will come down to the wire, as well, but it appears that most of the Democratic base would be happy with either Clinton or Obama, while each of the Republican candidates carries substantive concerns with different factions of the party.
My take on this, speaking as a libertarian Republican, is that the party needs to be more concerned about getting a nominee that will attract independents as opposed to shoring up the base if it wants to realistically win. As much as the conservative base might have serious reservations against someone like McCain, at the end of the day, those voters are most prevalent in Southern states that the Democrats will almost certainly not win no matter what. It's the interior Western states such as Nevada and New Mexico that the Republicans have to worry about the most, and those states are where independents will determine the winner as opposed to turning out the base. The Electoral College is what matters, so who is best suited to win the swing states is an extremely important question - winning as many evangelicals as possible in South Carolina doesn't matter as much as getting swing voters to come out for you in New Mexico. I know that people on this board are pretty passionate in their viewpoints and see their votes as made purely in the vacuum of their own minds without any thought to electability, but the reality is that it takes real political strategy to win an election in a country of 300 million people (and it's really 50 separate state elections that happen to all vote on the same day), so you ignore that fact at your own peril.
The Republicans will have an easier time getting the base into line behind any candidate if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton - the prospect of her being president probably would outweigh a typical conservative's concerns about candidates such as McCain and Giuliani (I know that there are certain people on this board that will disagree, but I'm just talking generally). If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, however, I think it's going to be very tough for any Republican to win in a general election because the independent voters are very drawn to him.
I'm trying to address this from a political strategy point of view as opposed to saying one candidate is better than the other - we can argue all day (and people do on this board) about what we personally think of certain candidates or political issues, but I think this is an interesting topic and I hope that the conversation can be kept to objective political strategy viewpoints instead of a bunch of flames talking about how "so-and-so is the only candidate for me" or "this guy should be kicked out of the party because he's not a true conservative/liberal".
McCain would lose just as many regular republican voters as independents he might pick up.
I think the best solution is for the Republicans to nominate Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter. The McRudahuckney 4 are a bunch of pandering jokes. The are part liberal, part neocon. Most of my family has long been Republican voters, and right now I don't know any of my family that will vote for any of those 4.
Its not about who can beat the Dem. Its about restoring the Republican party that has lost its way. Throwing out a pandering "double talk express" candidate like McCain will doom the Republicans regardless of whether its Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. If I was physically forced to vote for either McCain or Hillary, I would choose Hillary as she is more respectable than McCain.
McCain would lose just as many regular republican voters as independents he might pick up.
I think the best solution is for the Republicans to nominate Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter. The McRudahuckney 4 are a bunch of pandering jokes. The are part liberal, part neocon. Most of my family has long been Republican voters, and right now I don't know any of my family that will vote for any of those 4.
Its not about who can beat the Dem. Its about restoring the Republican party that has lost its way. Throwing out a pandering "double talk express" candidate like McCain will doom the Republicans regardless of whether its Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. If I was physically forced to vote for either McCain or Hillary, I would choose Hillary as she is more respectable than McCain.
I don't get how people think duncan hunter can win a general election when he can't even get 2 percent of the republican primary voters. Maybe someone can explain to me how that's possible.
McCain would lose just as many regular republican voters as independents he might pick up.
I think the best solution is for the Republicans to nominate Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, or Duncan Hunter. The McRudahuckney 4 are a bunch of pandering jokes. The are part liberal, part neocon. Most of my family has long been Republican voters, and right now I don't know any of my family that will vote for any of those 4.
Its not about who can beat the Dem. Its about restoring the Republican party that has lost its way. Throwing out a pandering "double talk express" candidate like McCain will doom the Republicans regardless of whether its Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. If I was physically forced to vote for either McCain or Hillary, I would choose Hillary as she is more respectable than McCain.
Can we keep this to political strategy as I stated before? I understand everyone has their personal opinions about various candidates, but let's try to look at this objectively as opposed to the colored glasses of their own personal biases. The states that matter are places such as New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado - places that voted for Bush in '04 but turned heavily toward the Democrats in the '06 midterm elections. Can you objectively say that the old hardcore conservatives that the Republican Party base seems to always crave really will do well in states that just rejected the party in clear terms only 2 years ago (and the Republican Party is probably more unpopular now than at that time)?
Tell me why someone such as Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson would win in those states if they cannot (or only barely break) the 10% barrier in Republican primaries? Your argument is that someone such as McCain would lose as many Republican votes as he would gain independent votes, yet none of the candidates that you say you will support are close to competitive among REPUBLICANS ONLY, much less the general electorate. It seems as though you have a pretty narrowly defined view of what the Republican base really thinks since it obviously isn't voting that way. I understand your personal viewpoints and they are noted, but I want an objective discussion about how can someone in the GOP actually win in November, instead of the million other threads about "so-and-so is the only guy I'll vote for" or "this Republican is really a crazy liberal". That's a much more interesting and thought-provoking topic than just parroting personal views that we can all argue about but ultimately not change.
I know it's not popular on a message board where you're more likely to get extreme views on both sides of the aisle as opposed to a middle-of-the-roader, but electability DOES matter on the Republican side. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the 2006 midterm election was a pretty clear statement by the American people that they do not like much of what the hardcore conservatives in the Republican Party have to say right now, so to just ignore what happened two years ago is pretty ignorant from a political strategy standpoint.
Frank I enjoy your posts.. I honestly am having a hard time trying to think of a Republican candidate that independents would be drawn to.
McCain if the Iraq War goes well and the troops start coming back, maybe?
Gulaini would be screwed because without Terror he has no platform.
Romney if he tried to pull back from his recent Hard Right Conversion and try to present a more palatable image in the general electorate, he might be able to sweet talk enough of the masses? That is the only scenario I could picture.
I could see if Hillary won on the Dem side that might turn off some independents and even some Dems and could change the equation somewhat.
It looks like a lot of uphill sledding for the Republican party though. I just can't see it.
Starting to read articles that are talking about the possibility of a gridlocked Republican convention, since it is looking more and more that this could be a 3 or 4 way equal division all the way.
How much would that help the Democrats and hurt the eventual Republican candidate, since that eventual winner would not really have the support of a large portion of the Republican base?
Frank I enjoy your posts.. I honestly am having a hard time trying to think of a Republican candidate that independents would be drawn to.
McCain if the Iraq War goes well and the troops start coming back, maybe?
Gulaini would be screwed because without Terror he has no platform.
Romney if he tried to pull back from his recent Hard Right Conversion and try to present a more palatable image in the general electorate, he might be able to sweet talk enough of the masses? That is the only scenario I could picture.
I could see if Hillary won on the Dem side that might turn off some independents and even some Dems and could change the equation somewhat.
It looks like a lot of uphill sledding for the Republican party though. I just can't see it.
It's definitely going to be an uphill battle for any of the Republicans because the battleground states have pretty much all trended to the Democratic side over the past 4 years. I can't think of any state that would considered to be more conservative than it was in the 2004 election - there are even some formerly pretty safe red states such as Virginia that don't look very safe at all this year.
From a purely policy view, the Romney that was the Governor of Massachusetts would have fit in very well with the current American electorate. However, in his insistence of pandering to the social conservatives by changing his views on abortion, he (1) chose a view that is unpopular with the majority of Americans, who are pro-choice and (2) doesn't get credit from pro-lifers since he seems to have conveniently switched his views just in time to run for the Republican nomination. That's just one issue, but this isn't a matter of admitting that it was a "mistake", as his campaign has tried to characterize it. It's one thing to change a policy position based on objective data that the prior position didn't work, but people are going to be automatically untrustworthy of someone that has changed his position on what most people consider to be a very personal issue. At the same time, he's just not a great campaigner (at least in comparison to a lot of the other candidates) - if someone can come off as too polished and too prepared, it would be him. Romney is obviously a very smart guy (I'd put him against anyone in terms of intellect), but that doesn't always translate into being a great politician or campaigner (case in point, George W. Bush, whatever you may think of him, ran two of the tightest and most organized political campaigns in history - to say that it was all Karl Rove would be a mistake since the most brilliant campaign strategist in the world can't do anything if the candidate isn't effective).
McCain's appeal to independents is due to the fact that he does have a track record of bucking the establishment (as much as someone such as Obama talks a great game about "change", we'll have to see whether he's able to show that he really does offer something different from the standard Democratic Party platform). As you pointed out, how the war is going will have an impact as to how he will do in the general election. It seems as if the general electorate is shifting its focus to economic issues as opposed to Iraq. It's hard to tell if this helps or hurts McCain - his strength is his national security experience, so one might argue that if Iraq is at the forefront of the issues in the minds of voters, whether it's going well or badly, then McCain would benefit. Of course, if it's going particularly badly, then McCain would be assailed for being an unabashed supporter of the war.
Giuliani is an interesting case. Even though he's probably the most liberal out of all of the major GOP candidates (at least on social issues), I think that the Republican establishment would actually be most comfortable with him at the helm. Despite the arguments that you see on the message boards here that the Republican base would never support him, whenever a Republican in danger or losing his or her congressional or Senate seat needed to raise a boatload of money, guess who was the person that they called to draw in people? It was Rudy, who was the biggest fundraising draw outside of Bush himself for Republicans during this decade - which means there are a lot of Republicans that owe him a lot of chits. At the same time, he won two landslide elections in one of the most hostile environments for a Republican anywhere, so he has demonstrated crossover appeal. I think the key for Rudy is that suburban voters like him a lot, which is where a lot of independents are found, particularly in swing states such as Ohio. The problem, though, is what you pointed out - can he get past just being a national security candidate? I think that will dog him even more than it will for McCain since he has tied his image so much to 9/11. I don't think his drop in the polls over the past month has much to do with Republican voters all of the sudden finding out his views on abortion or gay marriage - as mayor of NYC, he was pretty much the most scrutinized politician in the country outside of the President - but more with his election strategy of the skipping the early states to concentrate on Florida and the Super Tuesday states, meaning that he's been out of the news (we'll see if that strategy actually has a chance).
By the way, if people really want to see less emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire in future elections, they ought to want to see Rudy win the Republican nomination. The only way that those two states will be seen as not important in the future is if someone is actually successful in skipping both and still win the nomination.
Can we keep this to political strategy as I stated before? I understand everyone has their personal opinions about various candidates, but let's try to look at this objectively as opposed to the colored glasses of their own personal biases. The states that matter are places such as New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado - places that voted for Bush in '04 but turned heavily toward the Democrats in the '06 midterm elections. Can you objectively say that the old hardcore conservatives that the Republican Party base seems to always crave really will do well in states that just rejected the party in clear terms only 2 years ago (and the Republican Party is probably more unpopular now than at that time)?
Tell me why someone such as Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson would win in those states if they cannot (or only barely break) the 10% barrier in Republican primaries? Your argument is that someone such as McCain would lose as many Republican votes as he would gain independent votes, yet none of the candidates that you say you will support are close to competitive among REPUBLICANS ONLY, much less the general electorate. It seems as though you have a pretty narrowly defined view of what the Republican base really thinks since it obviously isn't voting that way. I understand your personal viewpoints and they are noted, but I want an objective discussion about how can someone in the GOP actually win in November, instead of the million other threads about "so-and-so is the only guy I'll vote for" or "this Republican is really a crazy liberal". That's a much more interesting and thought-provoking topic than just parroting personal views that we can all argue about but ultimately not change.
I know it's not popular on a message board where you're more likely to get extreme views on both sides of the aisle as opposed to a middle-of-the-roader, but electability DOES matter on the Republican side. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the 2006 midterm election was a pretty clear statement by the American people that they do not like much of what the hardcore conservatives in the Republican Party have to say right now, so to just ignore what happened two years ago is pretty ignorant from a political strategy standpoint.
Sorry to dissappoint, but I was discussing the issues of how we got to the point where a brokered convention is being discussed. If you would prefer to discuss how the Reps can pull out a win out of the current situation, may I suggest you start another thread. The issues I see is that there is no one who is a leader in the Republican party, only those with long records of flip flopping to pander when it suits their interest, which is why I narrowed out the 3 I feel are the most reliably positioned as true conservatives. The other 4 are trying their best to put on a big act to pander for votes, and it is the reason the field is so wide open still. The problem with the Republican race right now is no one seems to know which direction for it to go. And quiet honestly, there are a lot of people who are tired of being pawns in the game of "beat the Dems in November". I happen to be one of them. I've never voted for a Dem president or state official, although I've voted for local and count Dems when they were clearly the better candidate. So in general, I consider my views to be pretty important as I have become disgusted with the current crop of Republicans who have sold their supporters down the river. You mentioned 2006 was a pretty clear statement to the Republican party. I'm one of the ones who share the sentiment of those who did not care if their Rep got voted out. Many citizens consider their votes to be very important and worthy of EARNING, rather than holding their nose while they go vote down the party line.
I do believe the initial post asked what happens if the Republicans can't choose. The answer is a brokered convention and a good chance of a weaker campaign. I chose to discuss the "why" reasons we may be headed that way. If you want to discuss the how do we deal with it and win, go right ahead and I won't ask you to only discuss what I want to talk about.
In that case, Newt Gingrich will offer himself as the party's "savior".
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.
What happens if the Republicans can't choose?
