Civil War!

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Treason?

The Hildabeast is a private citizen. Damn dback, you sure do put your false idols on a mighty high pedestal.

Not if she is POTUS.

She will never be POTUS

[CID1990]

Yes. Republicans like Christopher Columbus are what's wrong with the GOP!

Well, considering he and his successors raped and pillaged their way across Hispaniola enslaving or killing most of the native population in the name of god and country...it's safe to assume he was somewhat of a conk.

Well how else are you supposed to clear the way for civilization? Surely not by giving the natives the vote. They'd just make you leave.

[houndawg]

Well, considering he and his successors raped and pillaged their way across Hispaniola enslaving or killing most of the native population in the name of god and country...it's safe to assume he was somewhat of a conk.

Well how else are you supposed to clear the way for civilization? Surely not by giving the natives the vote. They'd just make you leave.

Smallpox.

[JohnStOnge]

I saw some discussion about that on the Fox News Special Report show tonight. Bill Crystal, of all people, launched into a defense of the Republican "insurgents" and made a lot of sense.

He talked about this thing where Republican establishment types turn on people they don't perceive as having a chance to win the general election. He pointed out that the Republican establishment said that about Marco Rubio when he was running in the Florida Republican primary. He named other "insurgent" candidates who similarly proved the establishment to be wrong. He also pointed out that most of the Senate and House races lost by Republicans this past election cycle were lost by establishment candidates. Overwhelmingly so (he had numbers and though I don't remember them they WERE overwhelming).

He talked about how, in 2010, there was an insurgent movement in the Republican Party and the Republican Party made a bunch of gains. Then, he said, the establishment got involved in 2012 and the Party lost ground. He's right. He made a really good case challenging the conventional wisdom that it's the "insurgents" that are the problem in the Republican Party.

He talked about how the establishment controlled things with Mitt Romney as Presidential candidate and how they were going to avoid social issues and other things that get the conservative base fired up and just focus on the economy. And he basically asked, "How'd that work out for you?"

And it really surprised me to see Bill Crystal do that because I've always perceived him as being in the Republican Party estabishment.

[UNI88]

I'll wager a UNI hat vs. a NAU hat that Hillary will not be President in 2016.

Deal! - Elected in 2016

Deal!

[houndawg]

I saw some discussion about that on the Fox News Special Report show tonight. Bill Crystal, of all people, launched into a defense of the Republican "insurgents" and made a lot of sense.

He talked about this thing where Republican establishment types turn on people they don't perceive as having a chance to win the general election. He pointed out that the Republican establishment said that about Marco Rubio when he was running in the Florida Republican primary. He named other "insurgent" candidates who similarly proved the establishment to be wrong. He also pointed out that most of the Senate and House races lost by Republicans this past election cycle were lost by establishment candidates. Overwhelmingly so (he had numbers and though I don't remember them they WERE overwhelming).

He talked about how, in 2010, there was an insurgent movement in the Republican Party and the Republican Party made a bunch of gains. Then, he said, the establishment got involved in 2012 and the Party lost ground. He's right. He made a really good case challenging the conventional wisdom that it's the "insurgents" that are the problem in the Republican Party.

He talked about how the establishment controlled things with Mitt Romney as Presidential candidate and how they were going to avoid social issues and other things that get the conservative base fired up and just focus on the economy. And he basically asked, "How'd that work out for you?"

And it really surprised me to see Bill Crystal do that because I've always perceived him as being in the Republican Party estabishment.

Bill Kristol is in the establishment. He is desperately trying to reinvent himself because he is one of the few establishment conks that has a clue as to just how badly they are perceived these days, and that it isn't going to get better for quite a while. Unfortunately for him he hasn't a clue. Firing up the base with the traditional social issues would have made the azz whuppin even bigger in the general.

[AZGrizFan]

You may be upset with 8 years of Hillary, but the rest of the country will prosper.

I'll wager a UNI hat vs. a NAU hat that Hillary will not be President in 2016.

I'll wager him a UM hat vs an NAU hat that Hildabeast won't even be ALIVE by Election Day 2016.

[D1B]

I'll wager a UNI hat vs. a NAU hat that Hillary will not be President in 2016.

I'll wager him a UM hat vs an NAU hat that Hildabeast won't even be ALIVE by Election Day 2016.

I'll take that one, you perpetual loser of wagers.



AZ, circa 2011

[kalm]

I saw some discussion about that on the Fox News Special Report show tonight. Bill Crystal, of all people, launched into a defense of the Republican "insurgents" and made a lot of sense.

He talked about this thing where Republican establishment types turn on people they don't perceive as having a chance to win the general election. He pointed out that the Republican establishment said that about Marco Rubio when he was running in the Florida Republican primary. He named other "insurgent" candidates who similarly proved the establishment to be wrong. He also pointed out that most of the Senate and House races lost by Republicans this past election cycle were lost by establishment candidates. Overwhelmingly so (he had numbers and though I don't remember them they WERE overwhelming).

He talked about how, in 2010, there was an insurgent movement in the Republican Party and the Republican Party made a bunch of gains. Then, he said, the establishment got involved in 2012 and the Party lost ground. He's right. He made a really good case challenging the conventional wisdom that it's the "insurgents" that are the problem in the Republican Party.

He talked about how the establishment controlled things with Mitt Romney as Presidential candidate and how they were going to avoid social issues and other things that get the conservative base fired up and just focus on the economy. And he basically asked, "How'd that work out for you?"

And it really surprised me to see Bill Crystal do that because I've always perceived him as being in the Republican Party estabishment.

Bill Kristol is in the establishment. He is desperately trying to reinvent himself because he is one of the few establishment conks that has a clue as to just how badly they are perceived these days, and that it isn't going to get better for quite a while. Unfortunately for him he hasn't a clue. Firing up the base with the traditional social issues would have made the azz whuppin even bigger in the general.

Yep. Not to mention he is the embodiment of neo-conservatism. The problem has been rational conks getting out of politics in droves and the establishment falling into the hands of Rove and the like with some of the more important pundits like Kristol supporting them.

The Tea Party is promising on paper but it seems like its most vocal advocates in congress have been wack jobs like Alan West or it's current caucus chair person Michelle Bachmann.

Not much to get behind.

[JohnStOnge]

Firing up the base with the traditional social issues would have made the azz whuppin even bigger in the general.

We will never know but I don't think so. I made a series of posts here shortly after the election in which I referred to exit polling indicating that the problem for Romney was that groups that traditionally vote Republican didn't turn out. Fewer White Protestants voted than did in the previous election. Fewer Whites overall. So on and so forth. I'm telling you, if you look at the exit polling you're going to come away with the impression that Romney's biggest problem was that the Republican base was not enthusiastic about him. A fairly large proportion of such voters simply stayed home.

It surprised me at the time because I thought everybody would be fired up to get rid of Obama. But that apparently wasn't enough. I wondered if maybe it was because Romney was a Mormon and maybe that had something to do with it. But whatever it was, the Republican base did not turn out. They weren't jazzed.

[DSUrocks07]

Firing up the base with the traditional social issues would have made the azz whuppin even bigger in the general.

We will never know but I don't think so. I made a series of posts here shortly after the election in which I referred to exit polling indicating that the problem for Romney was that groups that traditionally vote Republican didn't turn out. Fewer White Protestants voted than did in the previous election. Fewer Whites overall. So on and so forth. I'm telling you, if you look at the exit polling you're going to come away with the impression that Romney's biggest problem was that the Republican base was not enthusiastic about him. A fairly large proportion of such voters simply stayed home.

It surprised me at the time because I thought everybody would be fired up to get rid of Obama. But that apparently wasn't enough. I wondered if maybe it was because Romney was a Mormon and maybe that had something to do with it. But whatever it was, the Republican base did not turn out. They weren't jazzed.

I guess its easier to bitch about the man in the office instead of having to defend voting for the new guy in office.

I was surprised how the Republican turnout wasnt as strong as they were letting everyone believe. "Anyone but Obama" was the mantra, and they dropped the ball.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[JohnStOnge]

As I've said before I think the charisma level of the candidate is extremely important. Kennedy had it. Reagan had it. Clinton has it. Obama has it. Romney does not. He comes off as stiff and plastic.

Among Republicans I think Rubio has potential in that regard if he doesn't have skeletons.

The charisma factor. Like I'd predict right now that unless there is some kind of skeleton in the closet or a major, MAJOR gaffe if you had, say, Rubio vs. Biden in the next Presidential election Rubio would win. The issues would be tangential because Rubio would have such a personality, expression, and appearance advantage. Yes you'd still have maybe 40% of the populatiion that'd vote for the Democrat no matter what and another 40% or so that'd vote for the Republican no matter what but the charisma factor would make the difference within the squishy "middle." It would also make a difference in turnout among the cadidates' bases.

I continue to think that the biggest problem the Republicans have had in the past two elections is that the Democrats have a candidate who looks good on TV, sounds good on TV, and can express himself well. I think people who think that there's this big need for a sea change on the ideas and positions front are mistaken. Just come up with a good candidate. And by good candidate I don't mean really good in terms of knowing what to do. I mean a candidate who looks good on TV, sounds good on TV, and can express himself or herself well while making people feel a connection to him or her.

[houndawg]

As I've said before I think the charisma level of the candidate is extremely important. Kennedy had it. Reagan had it. Clinton has it. Obama has it. Romney does not. He comes off as stiff and plastic.

Among Republicans I think Rubio has potential in that regard if he doesn't have skeletons.

The charisma factor. Like I'd predict right now that unless there is some kind of skeleton in the closet or a major, MAJOR gaffe if you had, say, Rubio vs. Biden in the next Presidential election Rubio would win. The issues would be tangential because Rubio would have such a personality, expression, and appearance advantage. Yes you'd still have maybe 40% of the populatiion that'd vote for the Democrat no matter what and another 40% or so that'd vote for the Republican no matter what but the charisma factor would make the difference within the squishy "middle." It would also make a difference in turnout among the cadidates' bases.

I continue to think that the biggest problem the Republicans have had in the past two elections is that the Democrats have a candidate who looks good on TV, sounds good on TV, and can express himself well. I think people who think that there's this big need for a sea change on the ideas and positions front are mistaken. Just come up with a good candidate. And by good candidate I don't mean really good in terms of knowing what to do. I mean a candidate who looks good on TV, sounds good on TV, and can express himself or herself well while making people feel a connection to him or her.

And, as is your custom, you continue to be wrong. The problem is that the party has been hijacked by wack job ideologues.

Dubya got elected twice and he has the charisma of a turnip.

[kalm]

As I've said before I think the charisma level of the candidate is extremely important. Kennedy had it. Reagan had it. Clinton has it. Obama has it. Romney does not. He comes off as stiff and plastic.

Among Republicans I think Rubio has potential in that regard if he doesn't have skeletons.

The charisma factor. Like I'd predict right now that unless there is some kind of skeleton in the closet or a major, MAJOR gaffe if you had, say, Rubio vs. Biden in the next Presidential election Rubio would win. The issues would be tangential because Rubio would have such a personality, expression, and appearance advantage. Yes you'd still have maybe 40% of the populatiion that'd vote for the Democrat no matter what and another 40% or so that'd vote for the Republican no matter what but the charisma factor would make the difference within the squishy "middle." It would also make a difference in turnout among the cadidates' bases.

I continue to think that the biggest problem the Republicans have had in the past two elections is that the Democrats have a candidate who looks good on TV, sounds good on TV, and can express himself well. I think people who think that there's this big need for a sea change on the ideas and positions front are mistaken. Just come up with a good candidate. And by good candidate I don't mean really good in terms of knowing what to do. I mean a candidate who looks good on TV, sounds good on TV, and can express himself or herself well while making people feel a connection to him or her.

And, as is your custom, you continue to be wrong. The problem is that the party has been hijacked by wack job ideologues.

Dubya got elected twice and he has the charisma of a turnip.

Unless you're comparing him to Gore and Kerry. He's Sean fucking Connery compared to those too.

[Ibanez]

Moderate Republicans should leave the GOP, take their supporters to a third Party and let the Tea Party/extremists implode.

[LeadBolt]

Moderate Republicans should leave the GOP, take their supporters to a third Party and let the Tea Party/extremists implode.

This makes a lot of sense. The problem is, that they would have to combine with moderate Democrats leaving the Democratic Party at the same time to have a voice vs. the extremists in the Democratic party and there aren't enough moderate Dems left to unite with the moderate Republicans to give moderates a voice as a third party.

If moderates in either party defect solo they will turn power over to the extremists in the other party.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Bill Kristol is in the establishment. He is desperately trying to reinvent himself because he is one of the few establishment conks that has a clue as to just how badly they are perceived these days, and that it isn't going to get better for quite a while. Unfortunately for him he hasn't a clue. Firing up the base with the traditional social issues would have made the azz whuppin even bigger in the general.

Yep. Not to mention he is the embodiment of neo-conservatism. The problem has been rational conks getting out of politics in droves and the establishment falling into the hands of Rove and the like with some of the more important pundits like Kristol supporting them.

The Tea Party is promising on paper but it seems like its most vocal advocates in congress have been wack jobs like Alan West or it's current caucus chair person Michelle Bachmann.

Not much to get behind.

Id get behind Bachman..................

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[dbackjon]

I'll wager a UNI hat vs. a NAU hat that Hillary will not be President in 2016.

I'll wager him a UM hat vs an NAU hat that Hildabeast won't even be ALIVE by Election Day 2016.

Is that what allows you to sleep at night?

[dbackjon]

Yep. Not to mention he is the embodiment of neo-conservatism. The problem has been rational conks getting out of politics in droves and the establishment falling into the hands of Rove and the like with some of the more important pundits like Kristol supporting them.

The Tea Party is promising on paper but it seems like its most vocal advocates in congress have been wack jobs like Alan West or it's current caucus chair person Michelle Bachmann.

Not much to get behind.

Id get behind Bachman..................

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Doggy-style?

[kalm]

Yep. Not to mention he is the embodiment of neo-conservatism. The problem has been rational conks getting out of politics in droves and the establishment falling into the hands of Rove and the like with some of the more important pundits like Kristol supporting them.

The Tea Party is promising on paper but it seems like its most vocal advocates in congress have been wack jobs like Alan West or it's current caucus chair person Michelle Bachmann.

Not much to get behind.

Id get behind Bachman..................

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

You're welcome...

[JohnStOnge]

Dubya got elected twice and he has the charisma of a turnip.

As Kalm noted you have to look at who he was running against. If he'd been running against Bill Clinton he'd have lost. And, remember, he did lose the popular vote to Al Gore...who has the charisma of a tree stump.

As I said long before the 2012 election came to pass, when I look at the Presidential elections of my lifetime, it's clear that when one candidate has had a distinct "charisma" advantage he's won. I'd say the cases of that were Kennedy vs. Nixon, Carter vs. Ford, Reagan vs. Carter, Reagan vs. Mondale, Clinton vs. Bush, Clinton vs. Dole, Obama vs. McCain, and now Obama vs. Romney.

Tell me: Do you think there has been a case over the past 50 years or so when a candidate in a Presidential race who clearly had the "charisma" advantage lost? I'm talking about a situation in which it's not debatable. Like I GUESS one could say they think Gore had more charisma than Bush. But that's debatable. On the other hand, for example, Clinton having more Charisma than Bush or Dole is NOT debatable. Not to any reasonable person.

[houndawg]

Dubya got elected twice and he has the charisma of a turnip.

As Kalm noted you have to look at who he was running against. If he'd been running against Bill Clinton he'd have lost. And, remember, he did lose the popular vote to Al Gore...who has the charisma of a tree stump.

As I said long before the 2012 election came to pass, when I look at the Presidential elections of my lifetime, it's clear that when one candidate has had a distinct "charisma" advantage he's won. I'd say the cases of that were Kennedy vs. Nixon, Carter vs. Ford, Reagan vs. Carter, Reagan vs. Mondale, Clinton vs. Bush, Clinton vs. Dole, Obama vs. McCain, and now Obama vs. Romney.

Tell me: Do you think there has been a case over the past 50 years or so when a candidate in a Presidential race who clearly had the "charisma" advantage lost? I'm talking about a situation in which it's not debatable. Like I GUESS one could say they think Gore had more charisma than Bush. But that's debatable. On the other hand, for example, Clinton having more Charisma than Bush or Dole is NOT debatable. Not to any reasonable person.

McGovern in '72.

Note: the more charismatic candidate winning is not the same thing as charisma being the difference in the election - too many other factors in play, especially with Nixon vs. McGovern.

With respect to Ford/Carter: there was no "charisma gap" here - Ford lost because he pardoned Nixon.

[BDKJMU]

Moderate Republicans should leave the GOP, take their supporters to a third Party and let the Tea Party/extremists implode.

That would accomplish NOTHING in terms of getting spending under control. Who's been calling for greater fiscal restraint- the "moderate republicans" or the tea party/tea party supporters?

"Moderate Republicans" are the big spending Republicans that are democrat lite when it comes to spending.

[kalm]

Moderate Republicans should leave the GOP, take their supporters to a third Party and let the Tea Party/extremists implode.

That would accomplish NOTHING in terms of getting spending under control. Who's been calling for greater fiscal restraint- the "moderate republicans" or the tea party/tea party supporters?

"Moderate Republicans" are the big spending Republicans that are democrat lite when it comes to spending.

And again, the founder and chair of the Tea Party caucus is this...



Tea Party...anti environment, anti equal rights, anti competition.

[BDKJMU]

That would accomplish NOTHING in terms of getting spending under control. Who's been calling for greater fiscal restraint- the "moderate republicans" or the tea party/tea party supporters?

"Moderate Republicans" are the big spending Republicans that are democrat lite when it comes to spending.

And again, the founder and chair of the Tea Party caucus is this...



Tea Party...anti environment, anti equal rights, anti competition.

Oh BS..