Republicans tickets that could challenge Hillary

[moda0306]

... Same with NM governor Susana Martinez. Both of them are genuine, down-to-earth moderately conservative hispanics ...

Susana Martinez? The far right can't stand a black brother in the white house, but a female hispanic would be tolerable? They get upset when a hispanic boy sings the national anthem at a basketball game...

I'd call this the "racist right."  Not necessarily "far right."  They sometimes even like government benefits when people that look like them are getting them.

And I don't doubt that they are a pretty big chunk of the population.

But the character flaw that is "racism" isn't necessarily tied in with conservatism, so I'd be a little careful about over-correlating the two.

[Jan Van]

But the character flaw that is "racism" isn't necessarily tied in with conservatism, so I'd be a little careful about over-correlating the two.

Of course, but this is about a republican ticket, so conservatives are the first who will be able to torpedo anyone trying...

[Ad Orientem]

I think Chris Christie has been badly, maybe irreparably, damaged. The GOP has few people that I now see who are going to be able to challenge the Clinton Restoration.

[Reub]

How do you feel about the mainstream press eliminating viable candidates to help their chosen one?

[Ad Orientem]

How do you feel about the mainstream press eliminating viable candidates to help their chosen one?

I didn't realize the Gov. Christie had members of the mainstream press serving in high positions on his staff.

[Pointedstick]

Viable candidate? Hah! I still can't see how Christie could drum up any possible enthusiasm for himself in a national election, except perhaps  among moderate northeastern republicans who like their politicians to have a thuggish, bullying streak. And if we're talking about getting past the primary elections: No foreign policy experience to satisfy the warhawks… not conservative enough on social issues to satisfy the religious right… too much of a weak waffler on guns to satisfy the NRA… publicly critical of libertarianism to offend the growing libertarian bloc within the party. And then of course there's his weight, which, let's be realistic, is an issue, especially for women. I really don't see how anyone could see him as a sensible candidate.

[Reub]

You're right. He looked a lot better before the mainstream liberal press on direction from higher up decided to take him out. How much more press has this gotten (without a shred of evidence) than the IRS debacle or the Benghazi catastrophe?

As far as the "libertarian" block goes, I like libertarians as much as the next guy does. I just don't want them influencing our foreign policy. I did notice recently that Rand Paul has started explaining that he is strong on national defense, so at least he can see his own weaknesses.

[Benko]

So the top two would have to be Ryan and Paul, I suppose. 

Dark horses might include Bobby Jindal and Jeb Bush?

"the top two would have to be Ryan and Paul, I suppose."

Who are both actively for "immigration reform" which the people do not want.  Anyone smart would just keep hammering these two on that issue.

Not sure where Jindal stands on immigration, but a quick search leaves me nervous he is no better than those two after reading his comments.

Reub makes an important point.  The left (e.g. see JournoList) is quite skilled at turning up dirt (real or imagined e.g. see Dan Rather)/turning Rs into villains.  Would that they were as skilled at governing.

[Ad Orientem]

How about Enoch M. "Nucky" Thompson? Here is a Republican who knows how to get things done. He knows when to cut a deal (and occasionally a throat) and above all stands for law and order...

http://youtu.be/seewFj-zybQ (Caution: Violence)

But best off all, he seems like the kinda guy that would win irrespective of the polling data.

[Benko]

They may be just giving lip service to the idea, in order to increase their chances of getting elected. 

Since the public does not want this, but the DC establishment does, I'm not sure I understand how your comment makes sense i.e. how does saying they are for something help them get votes when the voters don't want this?  Rubio put a lot of energy/credibility into try to get it done, only to see his poll numbers drop a lot from the attempt.  Rubio knows this and so does Ryan (and everyone paying attention). 

[Benko]

The point I was trying to make is that they could be giving lip service to immigration reform in order to win hispanic states (CA, FL, etc.).  They would lose other votes in the process, but the effort could be a net positive.  I'm just proposing a hypothesis - I don't know if it would in fact result in net positive votes for a Republican candidate or not.

What you are stating is the reason given by the republican establishment why "immigration reform" AKA amnesty is important.  One can speculate as to their real reasons, but it is not reality to think this will lead to more votes.  This is why a number of conservatives have publicly pointed out that this is suicide.

"Let's say we enact it, comprehensive immigration reform, I don't think it gains a single Hispanic voter." -- John McCain

Ronald Reagan received 37% of the Hispanic vote in 1984, signed an amnesty in 1986, and then in 1988, George H.W. Bush got 30% of the Hispanic vote. Chances are, we wouldn’t even do that well in 2016 since Presidents tend to get the credit for legislation that’s signed on their watch. Who got credit for welfare reform and balancing the budget in the nineties? Bill Clinton or the Republicans in Congress who forced him to do it? Bill Clinton. Here’s an even better example: Who got credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? LBJ, who was known to drop the N-word from time to time or the Republicans in Congress who voted for it in greater numbers percentage-wise than the Democrats? Lyndon Johnson got all the credit.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... /page/full

[Benko]

TenPa,

"Romney didn't lose in 2012 because Obama lied, or because of the media.  He lost because more voters thought that Obama, far more than Romney, was someone who "cares for people like me"."

Yes, and why do you think that is?  It is an obvious lie (speaking about reality).  So how did an obvious lie get widely accepted? 

[RuralEngineer]

It certainly helps when a candidate expresses said care in a visible and tangible way (benefits).

[Pointedstick]

Because winning an election, especially a Presidential election, is about selling.  And Obama was good at selling the idea that he 'cares for people like me'.  Romney (Mr. "I figured the 7-foot tall gentleman had to be in sport") sucked at it.

In other news, we live in an era where style is often at least as important as substance. Republicans would do well to stop fighting this reality of the era and embrace it.

Unless, of course, they are happy remaining whiny losers.

[Benko]

Agreed.  Many/most of the republicans suck at the sales thing.

But the bigger prolem (IMHO) is not the sales thing, but the Karl Rove problem i.e. listening to consultants and not offering the voters what they want e.g. the ever popular immigration suicide.  An articulate conservative and not a RINO e.g. Christie has the chance of doing well.  In this respect the Republican establishment is in the way as well.

And whoever runs should have Newt tutor them on dealing with the media.

I would argue that style is more important than substance, but that is pervasive in our culture, and I don't know that it favors one party or the other.  Skilled use of the BIG LIE is relevant to elections.  Probably both parties do it, but the left is more skilled at it and has more media outlets to spread the lie (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR...). 

That is not an excuse, because if the Rs can't cope with it, they deserve to lose, but it is reality. 

And it is very worth noting that Obama did a great sales job and got elected and yielded the Obamacare rollout.  Romney (not that I liked him particularly) was a businessman who ran sucessful businesses and (I think) helped the olympics get their act together.  If the country continues to make this kind of choice, it deserves what it gets.  If you like your unemployment....

[Benko]

Never figured out how to imbed images but:

http://www.isidewith.com/poll/403337781

64% would not vote for Hillary, 34% would. 

[Benko]

TennPA,

Why all the attention to Christie? There are at least 5 republican candidates (probably more).  So why did you feel the need to post 2 articles on Christie (and negative ones at that)?

[Reub]

Methinks that the "moderator" might be showing his true colors.

[Mountaineer]

Methinks that the "moderator" might be showing his true colors.

You mean the five blue squares?   

[Xan]

Methinks that the "moderator" might be showing his true colors.

TennPaGa has graciously volunteered to help keep the forum running smoothly.  I don't think that means he has to surrender his ability to participate in the conversation.  Clearly here he's wearing his participant hat (which is the case virtually all the time) and he only puts on the moderator hat to move a topic to another board, or split a thread out of one topic into its own.  Boring administrative stuff that helps the conversation.  He's never abused his power.  I really don't think he expects those five blue squares to add any additional weight to his arguments.

[Mountaineer]

Methinks that the "moderator" might be showing his true colors.

TennPaGa has graciously volunteered to help keep the forum running smoothly.  I don't think that means he has to surrender his ability to participate in the conversation.  Clearly here he's wearing his participant hat (which is the case virtually all the time) and he only puts on the moderator hat to move a topic to another board, or split a thread out of one topic into its own.  Boring administrative stuff that helps the conversation.  He's never abused his power.  I really don't think he expects those five blue squares to add any additional weight to his arguments.

Xan, seriously, I completely agree with you.  I hope everyone realized I was just kidding with my comment about the five blue squares. 

Now, let's discuss your lone star and my WV logo.  Since I used to live in the lone star state, do you think I should have a combo of the star and the WV logo?  Perhaps an armadillo and a road-killed possum? 

... Mountaineer

[Reub]

So I guess with Obama being so slight that he will mostly evade your radar? And with Hillary being so teflon there will be little chance of her showing up either? And with Biden being so greasy........

[Benko]

Who would you say the top 5 are at this point? 
Paul, Ryan, Christie ... who else?
Thanks.

I had to pick some number.

Paul, Ryan, Rubio, Christie and the only real conservative Cruz.  But of course a conservative would never get elected.  We have to choose a moderate because that has worked so well in the past (is there a sarcasm smiley?).

Interesting that no one has mentioned Cruz  in this thread recently.

Christie has a spine, but is toast now (and a RINO). 

[Benko]

I could be wrong, but I wonder if Paul would be the hardest one for the left to demonize, which is probably worth at least 5 points.  He comes across as super reasonable when you hear him talk which is a plus.  Hopefullly he will not introduce amnesty.

I suspect I'd rather have Cruz (given that I am more conservative then libertarian), but he is very easy to demonize, and thus may not have a chance.

I suppose the left could try to demonize Paul on foreign policy, but seeing Ms Bengazi try would be amusing.