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.
Does the GOP harm themselves by having so many Candidates? I ask because we keep getting more and more names being thrown into the ring and I would think that with the funding being spread out over such a large field does that not reduce the chances of the major candidates by limiting them being able to get out their message? Not to mention that we know that there are still some major players that have not even declared yet. understand it is always good to have a choice but too many choices could also reduce the ability of the best candidate to win against their opposite number. Can't the GOP come up with a few really good alternatives or is the GOP not as tight knit as many assume?
People like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee make things worse, but the current field is actually very diverse and well-regarded (Paul, Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina).
The biggest single propblem for the GOP is the shallowness and knee-jerk mentality of its largest single component -- the Religious Right. And unfortunately, just as all the Democrats have to pander to a core clientele who can't wean themselves away from dependence on the public sector, the Republicans now have a "captive embarrassment". Until the principal Republican strategists recognize that their future depends upon capturing the libertarians (capital or small 'l' it doesn't matter) and deeper-thinking independents, and telling the Bible-thumpers that the vast majority of Americans don't want them running the show, the GOP's dilemma will continue.
And the marginal candidates will drop out as time goes on. They'll do so when they have a buck and a quarter in the campaign account and draw 4 people to their massive rallies.
Now, I pose this question, does Bernie Sanders validity claims that many Democrats in congress embrace socialist ideologies?
When this question has been posed in the past, Democrats have scoffed at that very notion. However, from what I've been seeing out of Hillary Clinton and posters on this very forum, they seem to be embracing many of Sanders's socialist ideals.
It isnt the amount of candidates that hurt, it's the type of candidates. As of right now only two aren't TEA Party favorites (Carly Firiono and Mike Huckabee) and both aren't electable nationally. Jeb is their only shot right now but hasnt thrown his name in the hat yet and Marco Rubio is maybe the only other as a conservative dark horse.
It just shows the world what a big tent and how all inclusive the Republican party really is.
"Give us your Poor, your weak, your downtrodden, your Blacks, Hispanics and all will be made to feel welcome next to the rich, mighty and powerful in the republican fold."
It isnt the amount of candidates that hurt, it's the type of candidates. As of right now only two aren't TEA Party favorites (Carly Firiono and Mike Huckabee) and both aren't electable nationally. Jeb is their only shot right now but hasnt thrown his name in the hat yet and Marco Rubio is maybe the only other as a conservative dark horse.
What happened to Cruz? I thought the Tea Party was going to anoint him Saint Raphael of Texas.
What happened to Cruz? I thought the Tea Party was going to anoint him Saint Raphael of Texas.
Yeah, about that... he isn't electable nationally. Rubio COULD be. Paul isn't due to his flip-flop and the fact the youth don't register Republican enough to create the impact needed for him to be electable.
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.