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.
First off, I want to say that I am no fan of LZ Granderson, because of his far-left views and because he often sees America as a place that "persecutes" blacks and gays. Yet I do agree with assessment that the GOP should give up on 2016 & focus on winning the WH in 2020:
Let's be honest: the 2016 race is hopeless for the GOP (unless the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Sanders). In the most likely scenario, Trump wins the nomination & gets crushed in the general election. Yet if somehow Trump is denied the nomination, the GOP still loses because (1) Trump's voters will be very p*ssed and (2) the Democrats will still "tie at the hip" the GOP nominee to the unpopular comments that Trump has made.
I believe that GOP's better option (at this point) is to nominate Trump, because doing otherwise would make it very hard to repair the party in time for 2020. Apart from this advice, I think that the only thing that the GOP should focus on (for 2016) is retaining the House (because sadly, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will cost them the House). While the Senate is a lost cause (I am guessing that the GOP will lose seven or eight seats), the GOP has an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2018 (because if you look at the seats that are up in 2018, there are many vulnerable Democratic incumbents in states that Romney won). Most importantly, the GOP should nominate a strong candidate in 2020--somebody such as Nikki Haley or John Kasich--who will come across to swing-voters as the "anti-Trump."
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dole-McCain Republican
First off, I want to say that I am no fan of LZ Granderson, because of his far-left views and because he often sees America as a place that "persecutes" blacks and gays. Yet I do agree with assessment that the GOP should give up on 2016 & focus on winning the WH in 2020:
Let's be honest: the 2016 race is hopeless for the GOP (unless the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Sanders). In the most likely scenario, Trump wins the nomination & gets crushed in the general election. Yet if somehow Trump is denied the nomination, the GOP still loses because (1) Trump's voters will be very p*ssed and (2) the Democrats will still "tie at the hip" the GOP nominee to the unpopular comments that Trump has made.
I believe that GOP's better option (at this point) is to nominate Trump, because doing otherwise would make it very hard to repair the party in time for 2020. Apart from this advice, I think that the only thing that the GOP should focus on (for 2016) is retaining the House (because sadly, there is a reasonable chance that Trump will cost them the House). While the Senate is a lost cause (I am guessing that the GOP will lose seven or eight seats), the GOP has an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2018 (because if you look at the seats that are up in 2018, there are many vulnerable Democratic incumbents in states that Romney won). Most importantly, the GOP should nominate a strong candidate in 2020--somebody such as Nikki Haley or John Kasich--who will come across to swing-voters as the "anti-Trump."
Nominating Sanders would hurt Republicans more than Hillary would.
the main reason Trump is the republican nominee is because of "Trump Democrats", those people's second Choice isnt ted Cruz, its Bernie Sanders. It wont take much to flip them to Sanders if he is the nominee.Part of the reason they support him is because they believe Bernie cant be the nominee.
Just look at the polling compared to Hillary. Sanders doesnt just win the independents, he is actually taking away trump voters.
Nominating Sanders would hurt Republicans more than Hillary would.
the main reason Trump is the republican nominee is because of "Trump Democrats", those people's second Choice isnt ted Cruz, its Bernie Sanders. It wont take much to flip them to Sanders if he is the nominee.Part of the reason they support him is because they believe Bernie cant be the nominee.
Just look at the polling compared to Hillary. Sanders doesnt just win the independents, he is actually taking away trump voters.
With all due respect, polls that show Sanders ahead of the GOP candidates are meaningless, because the GOP has spent virtually zero resources attacking him. If Sanders were the Democratic nominee, he would get crushed by Kasich or even Cruz. If it was a Sanders vs. Trump race, we would face a rather unprecedented situation in which both major parties were having meltdowns at the same time. Were such a situation to occur, a third-party candidate would have a reasonable chance of getting elected.
However, because the Democrats have superdelegates, they are in a position to make it extremely difficult for an unelectable outsider to get the nomination. The GOP, of course, doesn't have superdelegates, and thus they are much for vulnerable to this sort of party meltdown. As I mentioned in another thread, the "lesson" that the GOP establishment will learn (after November) is that they too need to put in place superdelegates.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dole-McCain Republican
With all due respect, polls that show Sanders ahead of the GOP candidates are meaningless, because the GOP has spent virtually zero resources attacking him. If Sanders were the Democratic nominee, he would get crushed by Kasich or even Cruz. If it was a Sanders vs. Trump race, we would face a rather unprecedented situation in which both major parties were having meltdowns at the same time. Were such a situation to occur, a third-party candidate would have a reasonable chance of getting elected.
However, because the Democrats have superdelegates, they are in a position to make it extremely difficult for an unelectable outsider to get the nomination. The GOP, of course, doesn't have superdelegates, and thus they are much for vulnerable to this sort of party meltdown. As I mentioned in another thread, the "lesson" that the GOP establishment will learn (after November) is that they too need to put in place superdelegates.
I never argued Cruz or Kasich vs Sanders. Simply Trump vs Sanders. And yes, polling does matter. As I said, the second choice of trump Democrats isnt Ted Cruz or John Kasich, it is Bernie Sanders.
They are basically supporting Trump because he can be the nominee of a major party, but would flip to Sanders if he gets the nomination. These arent undecideds we are talking about which is where the whole amount of attacks and resources argument would come in. Their vote isnt going to change because of that.
And a 3rd Party candidate isnt going to be viable. They either wouldnt be able to get on the ballot or would come from the current pool of 3rd party people, none of them could take votes away from Sanders, you would more likely just hurt Trump.
Superdelegates dont stop someone else from getting the nomination either.
Every Democrat's wet dream, an uncontested election.
I say that because in 30 years of being involved in elective politics the only people I've heard say that someone from the other Party should drop put of a particular race (or that the Party shouldn't even field a candidate) because of health/family situation/the fact they drive an old car (yes, that was stated as a reason)/whatever have been Democrats concerning Republicans. Every single election since 1986.
I agree with one caveat. The GOP should concede the 2020 election too and focus on 2024. Four years won't be enough time to clean up the mess.
As I indicated earlier, the only way that the GOP would not be able to repair itself in time for 2020 would be if the party bosses stripped the nomination from Trump, greatly p*ssing off his supporters. If Trump gets the nomination and loses, their voters will learn the hard way that the GOP establishment was right all along (when they said that Trump would be a disaster in the general election).
It would be an incredibly stupid for the GOP to concede the 2020 election. Such an election will be a referendum on Hillary Clinton, who is already deeply unpopular. And after 12 years of Democratic rule, many votes will be hungry for a change.
If anything, the GOP may have a considerably tougher time winning in 2024 than in 2020 (even though--should Hillary Clinton win re-election--the Democrats will obviously have held the WH for 16 years, meaning that the voters would be even hungrier for change). That is because Hillary's VP will likely be more popular than Hillary herself. And if Hillary's VP is somebody like Julian Castro (who, unlike Hillary, is adored by the far-left), he would be running in 2024 as somebody who could be the first Latino president.
The first woman president, then the first Latino president -- after having the first black president.
What about the poor Jews, Asians and gays?
I mean, if you want competence....
And what about the Native Americans?
All this "social justice" and "wisdom" from the Left.
Too funny...Julian Castro -- another pretty boy fake like Obama, this time to coddle the illegals.
Well, this is a major reason why I think that Castro will be Hillary's running mate. The Democrats will be playing this identity politics game for as long as it works for them. Many on the far-left indeed want to set up Castro for 2024 so that he can "make history" and be the first Hispanic president. (And Castro, in particular, really scares me, because although he is very far to the left, he has an Obamaesque ability to deceive voters by pretending to be a moderate.)
As much as conservatives (understandably) don't want to hear this, the GOP's best bet to recapture the WH is to start playing the identity politics game as well. That is why Nikki Haley may very well be the best possible nominee for the GOP in 2020.
I wish that people wouldn't care about things like race and ethnicity when choosing their POTUS, but the evidence sadly indicates that this is not the case. The GOP needs to face this reality if they are to recapture the WH.
It would be an incredibly stupid for the GOP to concede the 2020 election. Such an election will be a referendum on Hillary Clinton, who is already deeply unpopular. And after 12 years of Democratic rule, many votes will be hungry for a change.
I was being facetious in my first post. I agree. I think Hillary is pretty much a shoo-in at this point, but I can't see her being a two-term president. Back-to-back two-term presidents from the same party are exceedingly rare. If the Republicans can get their act together and put up someone in decent in 2020, they'll probably win.
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.
