One of the reasons we won't see a republican president in our lifetime

1. 59

   mio cidposted 9 years ago

   One of the reasons we won't see a republican president in our lifetime is because Democrats recognize the fact that in order to win the presidency the democratic candidate has to be a " Republican Light "  but the republican base is not willing to accept a " Democrat Light " as their candidate .

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hmm... I think a strong Republican candidate with wide popular support, (maybe an amalgamation of Rubio, Christy, and Jeb Bush), may force the party to "see the light."
      
      But if their playbook stays the same as the last two elections, I think you could be right.
      
      I am optimistic that there is enough new blood in the party to force some of the needed changes.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 59

         mio cidposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Even though I am a Democrat , I see no benefit for the country in having the republican party limited to being an obstructionist opposition party rather than a party capable of winning elections.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The GOP serves as purpose a counterbalance to the Dems. But they have to be rational and stop talking about the modern world in terms of JP Morgan, whalebone corsets and gunboat diplomacy.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               mio cidposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Can they do this while the base is still in denial ?

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I doubt it, when it comes to stubborn, the political hard right, is a good synonym. They have to get that faction to heel if they are ever going to have a chance, and the left and all of its factions are no where near as menacing

                  replyreport
      2. 65

         Coolpapaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         What is it that anyone sees in Marco Rubio?  The man will tell a lie when the truth fits him better!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            mio cidposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            He is a new face in a party of old white men. He is hispanic in a party that is losing the hispanic and minority vote more and more with every election .

            replyreport
         2. 62

            bBereanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Wow.  Sounds like you're aware of Rubio telling a lot of lies.  Let's hear the exact quotes with reference to where the context can be found to verify they are viable examples of him actually putting forward as truth something he clearly knew was not, for your top five examples.  Personally I am not aware of any but here's your chance to back up your statement and edify those of us who never knew.

            replyreport
      3. 79

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I doubt it, the GOP movers and shakers indicated that they lost the last time because of moderates. With contentious social issues in the mix, take your pick of the three that represent differing wings of the party; Santorum, (Christy, Jeb Bush), Senator Paul, do you think they will find common ground enough to agree among themselves to put forth a viable candidate for the general electorate this time.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You are probably right for 2016 - still too many of the old guard left. But, I see most glasses as half-full, so there is always hope.
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think we'll see a Republican in 2016. You have to remember that Obama was an anomaly - and that even during the Iraq war, the Dems could not beat the GOP.
      
      Hillary - the Dems top choice - won't pull in the voting block Obama pulled in to put her over the top. Historians are quite clear that being able to draw in more than 95% of the black vote was instrumental in Obama's two wins.
      
      The GOP has a number of strong contenders, but if Hillary drops out, the Dems have no one. Warren is a good choice for them but she comes with too little name recognition.  Hillary comes with a lot of baggage on foreign policy that has contributed to the rise of ISIS.
      
      Dems aren't going to take 2016. I'd bet my favorite hat on it.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The reason we won't see a Republican in the White House in the near future can be summed up with two words. Tea Party. Whether you can get behind their rhetoric or around their reputation there is a danger in accepting extreme anything. Throwing the economy into a tailspin seems to be what they are aiming at with shut downs and austerity measures. The only people they hurt are those they are plying for support.

      replyreport
2. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 9 years ago

   I think if Obama only won by pulling in his minority as a voting block, Hillary ought to have a good shot at winning if she pulls in her voting block - women.  Women are not, and never have been, a minority in the U.S.  I read somewhere that women decide the presidency most of the time, because they are the largest group of voters in every election.  Can't confirm that but I remember reading it more than once.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Sad, isn't it, when a person's vote is determined by sex, or skin color, or religious affiliation?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         HowardBThinameposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It really is sad, Wilderness. I get a kick out of the interviews they do before an election, making it obvious that a good percentage of the population don't take the time to find out who's running - and what their platforms are.
         
         Everyone wants to "get out the vote," but when people are voting based on race or sex, the integrity of our electoral system is skewed.
         
         Maybe it's time for a voting test!  LOL

         replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Women tend to vote their party - not so much just for another woman. And women - dare I say this - are not always nice to candidates that are female. Think how they destroyed Sarah Palin!  That was seriously vicious. 
      
      Democrat women would love Hillary for the most part, minus her part in destabilizing the Middle East, but will Democrat men feel the same way?
      
      Plus, I for one am tired of the family dynasties. In a nation of more than 250 million people, why do we continue to elect members of the same family to the highest office in the land. Surely, we can find someone else. No more Bushes - no more Clintons. Please.
      
      Let's get some fresh faces and ideas in the White House.

      replyreport
3. 65

   innersmiffposted 9 years ago

   Die-hard Republicans would disagree with you strongly, seeing Obama and the like as closet commies, But I think we all have the tendency to see our opposition as the extreme ideologues. Personally I don't think there's a principled representative of either party.

   replyreport