ADVERTISEMENT

What is an "electable" Republican?

T

Tax Guy

I.T.S. Sophomore
Dec 5, 2003
569
29
28
In the "Palin was right..." thread it was said that, "Palin is a nut job. If the Republicans truly want to win back the White House they need to put together an electable team." That is like saying, "If this team wants to win this game they need to score more points than the other team." Thank you for that pearl of wisdom. I did not want to ask this in that thread because old_goat_23 was giving a lesson there that didn't need this distraction,

Besides Reagan, who at the time was depicted as a nut job (even now to some, but that is not the point), since 1972 the Republicans have put up.

Ford - Lost
H.W. Bush - Won (nut job Reagan carryover?)
H.W. Bush - Lost
Dole - Lost
W. Bush - Lost popular election
W. Bush - Won (Barely, and by that time was a called a nut job)
McCain - Lost
Romney - Lost

Dole, McCain, Romney were all to be the "electable" reach across to Dems kind of Republican. Ford had to be confirmed to be VP, hand picked by Democratic controlled congress. H.W. Bush was the safe pick when he ran against Reagan. W. Bush ran the first time on a "works with Democrats in Texas" platform. All of them lost without the nut job factor.

So what does this elusive "electable" not a nut job Republican look like that actually wins an election?
This post was edited on 3/8 6:37 AM by Tax Guy
 
Here's what the perfect electable cadidate needs to have IMO

1. Good looks with a lot of professionally applied makeup

2. Nice smile

3. Lots of camera time

4. Crowds that applaud often and on command

5. A teleprompter that works

6. In a debate, a moderator that has been "scripted" to ask the right questions

7. A vice president so dumb, he makes the POTUS look smart

8. A loosy goosy demeanor

9. A lack of knowledge so great that he doesn't confuse the "American Idol" generation

10. A party so radical that they make him/her look moderate
 
Tax Guy...

If I spoiled the whole thread for you I apologize. Also if calling me a moron and an idiot makes you feel better then you may call me those names any time you wish.

Sincerely,

TU Sepp
 
TU Sepp,

It is I that owe you an apologiy sir. I assure you that my comments were not directed at you, but at the valgur comments later. My poor use of the English language did make it sound as it was directed at you, for that I am sorry. I have edited and removed. I would appreciate any input on this subject.

Respectfully,

Tax Guy
 
Originally posted by Tax Guy:
In the "Palin was right..." thread it was said that, "Palin is a nut job. If the Republicans truly want to win back the White House they need to put together an electable team." That is like saying, "If this team wants to win this game they need to score more points than the other team." Thank you for that pearl of wisdom. I did not want to ask this in that thread because old_goat_23 was giving a lesson there that didn't need this distraction,

Besides Reagan, who at the time was depicted as a nut job (even now to some, but that is not the point), since 1972 the Republicans have put up.

Ford - Lost
H.W. Bush - Won (nut job Reagan carryover?)
H.W. Bush - Lost
Dole - Lost
W. Bush - Lost popular election
W. Bush - Won (Barely, and by that time was a called a nut job)
McCain - Lost
Romney - Lost

Dole, McCain, Romney were all to be the "electable" reach across to Dems kind of Republican. Ford had to be confirmed to be VP, hand picked by Democratic controlled congress. H.W. Bush was the safe pick when he ran against Reagan. W. Bush ran the first time on a "works with Democrats in Texas" platform. All of them lost without the nut job factor.

So what does this elusive "electable" not a nut job Republican look like that actually wins an election?
This post was edited on 3/8 6:37 AM by Tax Guy
Click to expand...
Good question Tax Guy I ask myself that a lot. If the economy takes off which I suspect it will, then the Dems should win again very easily in 2016. The Dems have won the culture war for now, and the Repubs turned off a lot of the younger folks with long protracted wars. Putin could actually be the best thing that happens for the Repubs. Cold War stuff sometimes makes the Dems look weak. The country might elect a Repub if Putin starts annexing have of Eastern Europe. But I really think the Dems are in very good shape for now.

But with all due respect the Dems really haven't fared much better than the Repubs over the time span that you have mentioned.

Carter was destroyed in his re-election
Clinton won with 43% Two Repubs against one Dem. (suicide by any party, I still think their must of have been some bad blood between Perot and Bush)
Clinton won again with less than a majority. As above.
Obama was legit both times.

GO TU!!!
 
Originally posted by Tu Geo:




Originally posted by Tax Guy:
In the "Palin was right..." thread it was said that, "Palin is a nut job. If the Republicans truly want to win back the White House they need to put together an electable team." That is like saying, "If this team wants to win this game they need to score more points than the other team." Thank you for that pearl of wisdom. I did not want to ask this in that thread because old_goat_23 was giving a lesson there that didn't need this distraction,

Besides Reagan, who at the time was depicted as a nut job (even now to some, but that is not the point), since 1972 the Republicans have put up.

Ford - Lost
H.W. Bush - Won (nut job Reagan carryover?)
H.W. Bush - Lost
Dole - Lost
W. Bush - Lost popular election
W. Bush - Won (Barely, and by that time was a called a nut job)
McCain - Lost
Romney - Lost

Dole, McCain, Romney were all to be the "electable" reach across to Dems kind of Republican. Ford had to be confirmed to be VP, hand picked by Democratic controlled congress. H.W. Bush was the safe pick when he ran against Reagan. W. Bush ran the first time on a "works with Democrats in Texas" platform. All of them lost without the nut job factor.

So what does this elusive "electable" not a nut job Republican look like that actually wins an election?



This post was edited on 3/8 6:37 AM by Tax Guy
Click to expand...
Good question Tax Guy I ask myself that a lot. If the economy takes off which I suspect it will, then the Dems should win again very easily in 2016. The Dems have won the culture war for now, and the Repubs turned off a lot of the younger folks with long protracted wars. Putin could actually be the best thing that happens for the Repubs. Cold War stuff sometimes makes the Dems look weak. The country might elect a Repub if Putin starts annexing have of Eastern Europe. But I really think the Dems are in very good shape for now.

But with all due respect the Dems really haven't fared much better than the Repubs over the time span that you have mentioned.

Carter was destroyed in his re-election
Clinton won with 43% Two Repubs against one Dem. (suicide by any party, I still think their must of have been some bad blood between Perot and Bush)
Clinton won again with less than a majority. As above.
Obama was legit both times.

GO TU!!!
Click to expand...
The Republicans need to have a smarter approach imo. They need to emphasize reality over hope and change. I think the problem with them is that they are being run by people who know the problems our country faces, but can't overcome the built in bias and prejudice of the media. And they either aren't smart enough or mean enough to take on the bad guys on the radical left. For instance every time the dems say the republicans are the party of "NO", the repulbicans should just say "Oh yeah, well with an 18 trillion dollar debt, it appears the democrats are the party of TOO MUCH "YES". In that way, they simply turn the argument around and back to reality, So why don't the Reps do this? See the above.

Here's another. Remember the democrat add that ran trashing Ryan throwing grandma off the cliff for suggesting we need to get some form of control on entitlement spending? Well, why didn't they do this? Have a comeback commercial where it looks once again like Ryan is pushing that wheelchair up the hill, but when its time to give her the final push, just morph Ryan into Obama and grandma's wheelchair into a baby carriage with a cute little child in it. Then off it goes over the edge.

You see, the Republicans that are in control are so intimidated or so dxxn nice, they won't play real hard ball with these radical socialists. Until they are willing to really take on the bad guys, they will keep losing. They are the problem imo. They are why the Republicans need to reform their party and get the deadwood out. And they need to quit letting polls run their strategies - they need to reset their own agenda and it isn't becoming more moderate. You didn't see the democrats do that did ya? They need to take on the bias of the media first and intimidate the intimidators. This is a battle of minds and mind control in the same way it was used it Hitlerian Germany and the communist block.

The Republicans ran two moderates against the radical Obama machine and came up short both times. Einsteins theory suggests that they need a different approach.






This post was edited on 3/8 3:05 PM by rabidTU
 
rabid...

I have a different thought...

I thought what got Bush II elected the fist term was having a strong VP in Cheney...

Likewise I thought that both Palin and Ryan were very weak candidates, however they were greatly loved by the Tea Party sect of the Republican Party.

I still feel that Palin cost McCain the election and that Ryan cost Romney the election...

Palin and Ryan both bring the Republican vote that would never vote Democrat under any circumstance. So bringing a vote they already control does nothing to help the candidate. The Republican Party needs to put together a team that will steal the moderate vote from the Demos. That will also lead to trying to take back the Senate, that way they can control the oval office from both the House and the Senate.

With more minorities and poor voting the Republicans are going to have try a different approach and putting a Tea Party candidate on the ticket is not going to help secure the moderate vote.

These are just some thoughts!
 
Originally posted by TU Sepp:
rabid...

I have a different thought...

I thought what got Bush II elected the fist term was having a strong VP in Cheney...

Likewise I thought that both Palin and Ryan were very weak candidates, however they were greatly loved by the Tea Party sect of the Republican Party.

I still feel that Palin cost McCain the election and that Ryan cost Romney the election...

Palin and Ryan both bring the Republican vote that would never vote Democrat under any circumstance. So bringing a vote they already control does nothing to help the candidate. The Republican Party needs to put together a team that will steal the moderate vote from the Demos. That will also lead to trying to take back the Senate, that way they can control the oval office from both the House and the Senate.

With more minorities and poor voting the Republicans are going to have try a different approach and putting a Tea Party candidate on the ticket is not going to help secure the moderate vote.

These are just some thoughts!
Click to expand...
I see what you mean and it has merit, but the TP didn't exist when Palin ran, Ryan is a Tea Partier only in terms of fiscal responsibility and traditonally Vice Presidential candidates do little for the ticket anyway. But, with the media the way it is in their attempts to humiliate one party and promote the other on a regular basis, it seems very unfair from my POV. For instance, the republicans should have compared the TP to the "lawless" occupiers, but didn't. What fair minded american would support the lawless occupiers over the grandma and grandpa Teapartiers who pick up the park after they have legally protested their intrusive govt, and against the party and interest groups who rob from the very kids you have in class and people who are being persecuted by the IRS as we speak, with impunity. The only way you can overcome the media bias/propaganda machine that does this is to reveal them for what they are, not accept it.

Propaganda is propaganda, it worked in Germany and it works here too. This is why we need more conservative moderators and hosts who are openly so - to keep the scales from tilting against those wonderful kids and their future.

IMO









This post was edited on 3/8 3:00 PM by rabidTU
 
The Republicans seem to want to make the Bible the law, and the Democrats want to make the Communist Manifesto law.


I want neither.
Just fix the economy!
 
rabid...

Granted the "Tea Party" did not exist with McCain and Palin. However, the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party did exist and it was this branch that morphed into becoming the Tea Party. It is also this branch that would never vote anything but Republican. So by adding Palin, McCain did zero to enhance his base of voters. I always thought if McCain would have picked someone from the mid west or even the south he might the outcome might have been different. These were just some of my thoughts. Also, in no way am I a political expert. I just know the qualities that I like to see in a candidate.
 
Originally posted by TU Sepp:
rabid...

Granted the "Tea Party" did not exist with McCain and Palin. However, the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party did exist and it was this branch that morphed into becoming the Tea Party. It is also this branch that would never vote anything but Republican. So by adding Palin, McCain did zero to enhance his base of voters. I always thought if McCain would have picked someone from the mid west or even the south he might the outcome might have been different. These were just some of my thoughts. Also, in no way am I a political expert. I just know the qualities that I like to see in a candidate.
Click to expand...
I have to completely disagree with your view of the TP. What I see of the TP is not a conventional party at all. They are a mixture of disenfranchised voters that believe in small govt and fiscal responsibility instead of the radical idea that govt solves every malady of everyday life. Most see themselves as a barrier to tyranny, oppression and loss of liberty. Many are what you call libertiarians - fiscally sound small govt folks that could care less about abortion rights, a strong military and whether you smoke dope or not. Libertariansm grew at the same point in time that the TP did and are welcomed in that organization.

If you'll notice, some of them wear clothing and carry flags that are representative of the founding fathers and founding documents - flags that say "dont tread on me" for instance. It makes them come off sometimes as a little wacky, but IMO no more than smoking pot in the park is unconventional, the occupiers doing what they do etc.

Palin isn't my idea of a good candidate either as a VP, but look at who the present one is. You can't tell me that Biden is anything but inept and embarrassing. And as far as the TP being called "ultra" conservative as if it is more radical than the left wing of the dems just isn't so imo. Both parties sometimes have "ultra (wing) views" - there has to be somwhere for them to go.

No, from what I've seen, the vast majority of the TP are just moms, pops and grams worried about the direction of the country, the enormous debt, the breakdown of american society and the future of their kids - thats something we all should be concerned with. The liberal press - and it admttedly IS liberal, always chastizes them as extreme, but the press are unable to see their own extremism.

I'm going to confess that, like Reagan, I was once a mainstream liberal myself. But I began questioning things I'd learned in school. Things just didn't add up. Things that just seemed wrong and harmful. All liberals like myself had a kind of uppity intellectualism that they were always right and the opposition was always wrong and because they were wrong were bad people.

Believe it or not, one night in college, I went to bed, couldn't sleep and began pondering all the things I'd been politically wrong about. Call it an "awakening'. So, you see, I understand liberals better than some. I know that you have to sometimes play their game and use their own tactics against them.

I know one thing, as you grow older and mature, you sometimes "swtich" and view the world differently than when you grew up and didn't understand what was coming.

Now don't get me wrong, there is a place for govt in our lives, but only where its absolutely necessary. But if govt becomes too big it becomes too powerful and cannot be stopped wo harm done to innocents. Like the invasion of Iraq. Like Obamacare. Unintentional consequences.

As I've said, I went to a TP rally a few years ago just to see what it was all about and there wasn't a single Nazi slaute, burning cross or communist flag . If there had been, the people would have left because that would have been the antithesis of what they believe in. They want more freedom, not less and since the constitution is a document that prevents govt from limiting our rights, they should be in the mainstream. If you look closely the TP IS the mainstream but because of the media, can't get the message out.

imo


This post was edited on 3/22 7:32 PM by rabidTU
 
I too have many friends that are Tea Party supporters. When I think of the ultra wing I think of the politicians and the big money backers not so much the rank and file mom's and pop's.

You have read my posts and know that I am not a supporter of Obama and Biden, as I think their views and agenda are way to liberal for me. We differ on way to many issues that are important to me.

I would prefer a candidate that looked strongly at the middle class, as that is the backbone of American. When you break the backbone, you paralyze the the body. And today, both parties cater to the extremes which I believe is detrimental to America.
You know from my previous posts that I am politically fiscally conservation and socially moderate. So you can see why both parties are frustrating to me!
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:
The Republicans seem to want to make the Bible the law,
Click to expand...
Believing that marriage is a husband and wife exclusively and being Prolife and going as far as believing that husband/wife families and protecting children should be the foundation of a society is hardly wanting "to make the Bible law"

If you're saying that to be elected a Republican must ignore those issues, good luck with that.
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:
Condoleezza Rice!
Click to expand...
No.

Why?
1. She is in the same vein as McCain, Romney, Dole, etc. In other words, millions will either stay home or throw their vote away on a 3rd party. (increasingly libertarians are getting serious looks)
2. In the same way Palin is damaged goods from the mud splattering slobbering hatred of the left and the media, Rice is damaged good from the W. Bush shadow. (In both cases rightly or wrongly is not the point.)
3. It would look desperate of the Republicans. "Oh look at us we have a black person too! And a woman!"
4. She doesn't appear to want to run. I would think at least in part because she is smart enough to see 1 - 3.

All of this could be mitiagated if by 2016 the Obama fatigue is enough that it doesn't matter who is running on either side. The Republicans were counting on that in 2012 and we see how that turned out.
 
One of the things I disagree with many Republicans about (and dems too) is their consisitancy of opinions. For instance (as I've said) I'm a registerred independent (if I could register Conservative I would). But I always try to be politically consistant. For instance, I have stated I am pro-life primarily because noone CAN scientifically or religiously "prove' when life begins and therefor we MUST err for life or it "may be" murder of innocents. And conversely, since I am against the possible killing of humans in the womb, I must be against the death penalty and cannot justify killing an existing human (even if guilty of murder), but against killing one "ready" to be human. At least that is my belief.

I hold a persons right to exist in the highest regard. It is up to God to decide their guilt - as far as ending a life. Of course there must be exceptions. Self preservation is one. Another is to protect the innocent. My stance on guns is an example of that.

What I would prefer from of the Repubs is that they envite differing points of view for discussion, but still have their basic principles intact - the constitution, Judeo-Christian ethic, tradtional american values that have lasted for centuries and provided peace and prosperity throughout the world. Those are things that must not be triffled with.

So I think the Repubs are too apt to swing with the polls, which means they really do not adhere to their true principles. They have a difficult fight, but it is winnable. They must portray themselves as the victims because their beliefs are under attack and their beliefs hurt noone since they are tried and true throughout our history. And they must also reveal the media for what it is, an attempt to "disinform" the american people through an ideology that can harm them when the debt money runs out.

IMO
 
No.

Why?
----------------------
She has a whole lot less dirt on her than HRC, and she is MUCH more qualified!
 
Believing that marriage is a husband and wife exclusively and being Prolife and going as far as believing that husband/wife families and protecting children should be the foundation of a society is hardly wanting "to make the Bible law"
---------------
I hope that our Pres has religious conviction. But people interpret the Bible differently. Who is right?
Making them law is what the Muslims do with Shira law.
 
In the above poll, I look for Arkansas to elect a Republican for a variety of reasons. But sometime in the very near future with BHO in the WH, there is a good chance Joe Manchin (WV) will switch over to the Republican caucus. This would give the Reps a 54-46 majority next year if the poll plays out as I think it will.

But I heard Charles K mention why this won't matter whatsoever under BHO. His reasoning was that since Obama doesn't follow the constitution anyway by consulting and getting congressional approval, he will simply ignore that body and do whatever he wants. In effect, Obama has done away with the other two branches of govt and appointed himself dictator with all his "executive orders". He'll abide by the law/constitution as long as it satisfies him and the radicals in control, otherwise he elects himself as american emporer.
 
Someone who sounds like they care; benevolent. And then when it doesn't happen blame someone else.

It works for the Dems.
 
Originally posted by rabidTU:










Lets hope we never ever elect this person---------------------again.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder


So who is it? Take a guess.






----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A better idea of who this person is, can be revealed by clicking "symptoms". It breaks down the personaltiy and how it can effect others around them as well as themselves.

Can you name a president, Vice President or congressman (senator/representative) who mirrors these traits? Are there more than one?
Click to expand...
Bump







This post was edited on 8/9 12:12 PM by rabidTU
 
Originally posted by voetvoet:


Originally posted by rabidTU:



Lets hope we never ever elect this person---------------------again.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

So who is it? Take a guess.

This post was edited on 7/30 9:31 PM by rabidTU
Click to expand...
Frank Underwood?
Click to expand...
Possibly.
3dgrin.r191677.gif
 
Actually I'm pretty sure who it wouldn't be.

From the end of WWII that "No-Narc" list would be Eisenhower, probably Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and Bush1 and 2 for sure. The others need to be psychologically "evaluated" imo.
alien.r191677.gif
 
all the Dems are running from all things Obama.
only 38% of Dems want HRC to run.

I sure hope the Reps dont screw up this opportunity.


This post was edited on 8/13 11:25 PM by aTUfan
 
Memo to Republicans;

Keep it simple.

Focus on what the government is susposed to do based on the CONSTITUTION!
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:

Memo to Republicans;

Keep it simple.

Focus on what the government is susposed to do based on the CONSTITUTION!
Click to expand...
Not a huge Obama fan but crying about the Constitution cuts against both parties.

Obama unilateral decisions on immigration, etc.

Bush Guantanamo

GO TU!!!!
 
Originally posted by noble cane:

Originally posted by rabidTU:


Lets hope we never ever elect this person---------------------again.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder

So who is it? Take a guess.

This post was edited on 7/30 9:31 PM by rabidTU
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
We can't... he term limits out in 2016...



This post was edited on 8/14 8:55 AM by noble cane
Click to expand...
Question: If a President can ignore the constitution on a continual basis, can't he just ingore the election laws and appoint himself his own successor? You know like they do in Central America, Africa and Asia? Places like that.
flush.r191677.gif
 
Well, as crazy as this sounds, I think the Republicans could get anyone elected as long as he was able to kick Putin's ass in a Judo Match. Thats just the sort of thing the Majority of Voters go for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C

Being a fan

Replies
3
Views
360
TU Football
Hurricane Drummer II
Hurricane Drummer II
loca2874

GAMES OF INTEREST 11.09.23 - INAUGURAL POST (I know a couple days late)

Replies
34
Views
665
TU Basketball
Gmoney4WW
G
Bill Lowery

Cross Country

Replies
0
Views
153
Hurricane Alley
Bill Lowery
Bill Lowery
C

Guys (and Gals) I hate to admit

Replies
1
Views
303
TU Football
Babe the Blue Ox
Babe the Blue Ox
J

Auburn fan here. What was the major reason Montgomery got fired.

Replies
95
Views
2K
TU Football
TulsaGrad07
TulsaGrad07
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back