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 does that statement have to do with anything?
Get real, Laura. Neither party has any control over who chooses to run or not. Both try to find candidates who have appeal both to their base and to the uncommitted voters.
It's been a recognized fact since women and minorities were allowed to vote that failure to find someone with some appeal to the other side is a loser in the Presidential elections. it is increasing becoming a loser in all the Representative and Senate races as well in many states.
Better put that smack smiley away, Laura. It seems that you have beaten your forehead too much with it already.
You get real, BJmike if you think candidates decide to run in a vacuum. And I don't vote for candidates because I'm a woman or white. Anyone who picks their candidates that way is sexist and racist.
You get real, BJmike if you think candidates decide to run in a vacuum. And I don't vote for candidates because I'm a woman or white. Anyone who picks their candidates that way is sexist and racist.
You alone don't decide elections, Laura. Neither do I, or any single voter. You do not represent all white women, just as I don't represent all white men.
High number of voters vote for who appeal to them. That's a long observed fact. Sexism and racism is part of it, both positively and negatively. There is never a vacuum; one side or the other will always be either negative or positive with a lot of voters. Both sides always have their committed base support who will not vote for the other party.
Every election is decided by the voters who go to one party then the other in swings. Gratuitously serving a shrinking base by alienating the swing voters is a losing strategy and always has been.
They'd be smart to nominate him. People like me, who lean left overall but are generally centrist, would vote for him. I would take him over Clinton.
Sadly, he will probably be crowded out by the loonies. I really do feel sorry for the sane conservatives, who have to put up with Tea Party.
ok, so you are thinking it is smart to nominate someone just because they can win, not because you agree with their views. I hope I never vote that way. This is not saying, I would not support him, I didn't last time but if I thought he was the best candidate and I shared enough of his views I would. I just don't see this happening and no, I am not a Tea Partier. I am a partier though or was in my younger days.
ok, so you are thinking it is smart to nominate someone just because they can win, not because you agree with their views. I hope I never vote that way. This is not saying, I would not support him, I didn't last time but if I thought he was the best candidate and I shared enough of his views I would. I just don't see this happening and no, I am not a Tea Partier. I am a partier though or was in my younger days.
If I was a head honcho of the GOP, yes, I would be looking for the candidate who has the best chance at winning. If I were a Republican, I would at least give him quite a bit of consideration, regardless of whether or not he is conservative enough for me (assuming I am rather conservative, being a Republican). I'd rather have someone a centrist Republican (some consider RINO) as president than a full-on Democrat, if I were a Republican. If the party nominates an overly conservative candidate, particularly socially conservative, the Democrats will win 2016.
If I was a head honcho of the GOP, yes, I would be looking for the candidate who has the best chance at winning. If I were a Republican, I would at least give him quite a bit of consideration, regardless of whether or not he is conservative enough for me (assuming I am rather conservative, being a Republican). I'd rather have someone a centrist Republican (some consider RINO) as president than a full-on Democrat, if I were a Republican. If the party nominates an overly conservative candidate, particularly socially conservative, the Democrats will win 2016.
And as a Republican I think a good fiscally conservative candidate with some charisma and not too socially conservative is what we should be looking for, not a liberal one. Heck if we are going to have a centrist Republican, running against a centrist Democrat who gives a darn who wins. One thing that made Reagan so popular was his stand against Communism, and his desire for small government (whether it happened or not) plus his ability to work with both sides, or take his argument to the public. Someone like Huntsman, I don't think can accomplish that. I could be wrong, maybe we will learn more about him, if he does decide to give it a whirl, but my guess is, we have tried the less than conservative candidates thwice and what has happened? I mean twice recently.
I just read that Huntsman is starting up a radio show that will be broadcast on Sirius, the satellite radio outfit.
I think he took a cue from Reagan on this; Reagan did the same thing after his convention loss in 1976. His daily radio show allowed him to present his thoughts and positions for the next 4 years while keeping him on the public radar at the same time. By 1980, everyone who had ever listened to his show knew all about him.
A one-year free Sirius subscription is now standard on a lot of new cars, and the no-advertising programming, along with the niche music stations Sirius has, are becoming increasingly popular. Sirius is making a profit these days, in comparison to the financial hemorrhaging of Clear Channel and Cirius.
Since it's his show and he is not beholden to the big radio conglomerates or anyone else, it's going to be interesting to see how much this added visibility will do for Huntsman.
He could well become the voice of the moderate Republicans by 2016.
I just read that Huntsman is starting up a radio show that will be broadcast on Sirius, the satellite radio outfit.
I think he took a cue from Reagan on this; Reagan did the same thing after his convention loss in 1976. His daily radio show allowed him to present his thoughts and positions for the next 4 years while keeping him on the public radar at the same time. By 1980, everyone who had ever listened to his show knew all about him.
A one-year free Sirius subscription is now standard on a lot of new cars, and the no-advertising programming, along with the niche music stations Sirius has, are becoming increasingly popular. Sirius is making a profit these days, in comparison to the financial hemorrhaging of Clear Channel and Cirius.
Since it's his show and he is not beholden to the big radio conglomerates or anyone else, it's going to be interesting to see how much this added visibility will do for Huntsman.
He could well become the voice of the moderate Republicans by 2016.
I read about it as well, but not much detail. It will be interesting to see if it makes a go and what we can find out about it?
If Huntsman does run, he will be smeared and attacked by the same liberals pining for him to run, just as they smeared and attacked Romney.
Liberals really are dishonest pigs, don't you think?
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.
