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.
Hillary Clinton = low Democrat voter turnout = Republican victory regardless of who is nominated. I am so excited for GOP White House and Congress because America can finally heal, clean up Obama's mess, and move forward.
To believe this, my best friend would have to be a CRACK PIPE.
This sounds like the usual, hopeful, desperation, blowhard rhetoric from the Right that has no basis in reality. Because of Republican behavior during the Bush years, and the 8 years thereafter, Republicans are going to be annihilated in 2016. Dems keep the WH, take back the Senate, and the Right continues its free-fall.
I don't know. I don't think it'll be easy for the GOP nominee, whoever he or she is, but the Democrats who are crowning Hillary now are delusional as well. Hillary's problem is that her record doesn't stand up to much scrutiny (as was shown in 2008, when she was defeated by a relatively unknown in the Democratic Primary). As Carly Fiorina points out, Hillary has done a lot, including traveling hundreds of thousands of miles as SOS, but has few accomplishments to show for her activities, for all that travel. And being a woman doing that traveling isn't an accomplishment either, but rather a point of biology.
When most of the country believes that she isn't trustworthy (look at recent polling, especially following the home-server stuff . . . heck, not even Nixon destroyed the evidence ), she has a problem. The up side for the GOP is that the candidates likely to get the nomination (and, despite his belief, Jeb Bush isn't one of those candidates . . . the grassroots aren't going to vote for him . . . he won't win Iowa as he's not a favorite among social conservatives and he won't win New Hampshire over someone like Paul or Walker . . . expect him to drop out shortly after South Carolina) aren't completely known/defined. Hillary can work that to her advantage if she defines them negatively before they can define themselves, but she's not guaranteed to do so. We've seen what those numbers have done to her standing in states like Colorado, where she is either tied with or losing to GOP candidates. That's not good.
The bottom line: if the GOP didn't think they had a path to victory, we wouldn't see such a strong field.
OP what makes you think democrat turnout will be low if Hillary is the candidate? A chance to elect first woman president will make turnout a record high I think.
OP what makes you think democrat turnout will be low if Hillary is the candidate? A chance to elect first woman president will make turnout a record high I think.
I don't know. If that history/gender didn't help increase turnout in the Democratic Primary to help her win the nomination in 2008 over Obama (and, let's remember, Hillary went into that nomination fight as the huge favorite), don't cross your fingers that it'll happen in the 2016 general as well (that's if she gets the nomination).
I am curious how the GOP plans to make it to 270....that seems to be the mystery they can't figure out. Maybe they could take some more time to think about it when a Democrat wins in 2016.
I am curious how the GOP plans to make it to 270....that seems to be the mystery they can't figure out. Maybe they could take some more time to think about it when a Democrat wins in 2016.
You may well be right, the Republicans may have to dump the idea of "fiscal conservatism", sooner rather than later, as the number of government beneficiaries continues to rise and the number concerned about ideas like taxes and living within one's means falls in too many states.
But its too early to throw in the towel yet, the 2014 election results can give the GOP hope that they still have relevancy, and Mrs. Clinton is such old news and been around so long, that a lot of people are just tired of the old lady.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,386 posts, read 54,643,744 times
Reputation: 40877
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam
You may well be right, the Republicans may have to dump the idea of "fiscal conservatism", sooner rather than later, as the number of government beneficiaries continues to rise and the number concerned about ideas like taxes and living within one's means falls in too many states.
Especially since it's only an idea as they're perfectly willing to spend like drunken sailors when it suits their agenda.
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.
), she has a problem. The up side for the GOP is that the candidates likely to get the nomination (and, despite his belief, Jeb Bush isn't one of those candidates . . . the grassroots aren't going to vote for him . . . he won't win Iowa as he's not a favorite among social conservatives and he won't win New Hampshire over someone like Paul or Walker . . . expect him to drop out shortly after South Carolina) aren't completely known/defined. Hillary can work that to her advantage if she defines them negatively before they can define themselves, but she's not guaranteed to do so. We've seen what those numbers have done to her standing in states like Colorado, where she is either tied with or losing to GOP candidates. That's not good. 
