GOP Debate

[Badsmerf]

First of all, I am optimistic about some of these Rep. candidates. I also absolutely hate some of the others. Pretty polarizing actually. I'm just going to list some bullet points about observations I had.

• The Rep. party are hypocritical bigots about women's rights (mostly abortion). It disgusts me. 
• I hate Trump, Walker, Huckabee, Christie, Cruz
• I liked Rubio, Bush, Carson, Paul, Kasich
• It is amusing to me that people are slamming Bush for his performance when I thought he did very well. The GOP does not want him to win, at any means necessary. 
• Fox is a horrible media outlet. My wife compared them to Nickelodeon (and she is very conservative)
• Rubio really looks the part of a new age Rep. party. I just can't get behind climate change pro-life.
• Paul spent too much time bickering. He came off the wrong way. If he wants to make any progress he needs to find a way to be more likable.
• Carson is interesting to me. He isn't a politician, but he is smart and can learn. 

[Willihammer]

"They send the bad ones over."

[TheLeviathan]

What I liked seeing was the beginning of the end of Trump.  He was freaking terrible.

 

I like a lot about Rand Paul, but last night confirmed for me that he's always going to cap out as a rebellious senator.  

 

Carson needs to spend every waking moment associating himself with foreign policy, but he might make an excellent vice presidential candidate.

 

I started to wonder - if Rubio's hard line on social issues is just for show in the primaries....isn't he by far the best chance for the Republicans to win?

[Badsmerf]

I completely agree with him being the best chance. That is the exact comment that I made. I truly believe he would crush Clinton. I almost feel some parallels to him and JFK. I'm not sure if that is taking it too far, but we will see how this develops. 

[Pius Jefferson]

The Fox News moderators earned praise from liberal media outlets like the New York Times.

 

What I liked seeing was the beginning of the end of Trump.  He was freaking terrible.

 

I like a lot about Rand Paul, but last night confirmed for me that he's always going to cap out as a rebellious senator.  

 

Carson needs to spend every waking moment associating himself with foreign policy, but he might make an excellent vice presidential candidate.

 

I started to wonder - if Rubio's hard line on social issues is just for show in the primaries....isn't he by far the best chance for the Republicans to win?

 

Social issues are an overrated set of issues. He could possibly nominate a pro-life judge but over the last forty plus years there's been pro-life justices and Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned. He's already been on record that the gay marriage ruling is the law of the land. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I completely agree with him being the best chance. That is the exact comment that I made. I truly believe he would crush Clinton. I almost feel some parallels to him and JFK. I'm not sure if that is taking it too far, but we will see how this develops. 

I don't see how Rubio gets the woman vote in any capacity much less enough to beat Clinton. Though, I do think he'd be their best chance (or at least conservatives will see him as that--their own identity candidate vis a vis Hillary (and Obama)).  And he looked fine last night, but he's looked really bad when given opportunities in the past (State of the Union response, the water moment).  

 

Although he might be lurching toward the center within his rhetoric, he was a tea-party cover boy early on.  And I don't see much moderation in his stances on the issues. 

 

"You sir, are no Jack Kennedy." 

[Craig Arko]

As you might expect, any of the members of the anti-science group won't get my vote.

[kab21]

Paul was a big disappointment.  He picked fights and even if he had won a fight he would have been covered in so much fecal matter from his fecal matter slinging that he had truly lost. 

 

Trump was awful.  He was pressed for answers and frequently tried to evade the question and talk about what he wanted to talk about.  And he further alienated parts of his non-base voters.  I can't understand why people think we can/could win.

 

Bush simply looked like his brother.  That was the problem.  He didn't do a bad job but he did nothing to show that he was different.

 

Kasich did the best but I can't see how he comes close to the nomination.  He was a very good public speaker but far too moderate and boring to gain appeal.

 

Rubio also did quite well and could see a big move up in the polls.

 

Cruz is easily the least likeable candidate.  He also kept evading questions and pumped out his 'this is an outrage' soundbytes to appeal to his base.  Walker is next but at least he was a good public speaker even if the message was garbage.

 

The 17 candidate field/debacle is actually amusing except for the conservative part of me that is disappointed that the republicans continue moving further and further to the right and choosing to fight unwinnable battles on social issues.  At least nobody defended the confederate flag up there.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Fox News moderators earned praise from liberal media outlets like the New York Times.

 

 

Social issues are an overrated set of issues. He could possibly nominate a pro-life judge but over the last forty plus years there's been pro-life justices and Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned. He's already been on record that the gay marriage ruling is the law of the land. 

 

I agree and yet the Republicans keep hammering those issues to the point of driving people like me away from even casting a ballot.  

[Pius Jefferson]

 

I agree and yet the Republicans keep hammering those issues to the point of driving people like me away from even casting a ballot.  

 

They keep hammering those issues to attract the conservative base. That group didn't show up in 2012 and any Republican candidate needs those people to have any chance of winning. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

They keep hammering those issues to attract the conservative base. That group didn't show up in 2012 and any Republican candidate needs those people to have any chance of winning. 

 

If they keep hammering it all they'll get is their base and that isn't enough to win.

[kab21]

 

They keep hammering those issues to attract the conservative base. That group didn't show up in 2012 and any Republican candidate needs those people to have any chance of winning. 

This is so shortsighted on their planning side.  Of course not everyone voted but the democrats probably had far more that stayed home.  They are losing all of the moderate and independent vote and that is who they need to win. 

 

Here is the bigger problem: the rest of the western world is more socially liberal than the US and the democrats are just catching up to this shift.  Things are going to get worse and worse for republicans and not even gerrymandering will save them in congress.

[Pius Jefferson]

 

If they keep hammering it all they'll get is their base and that isn't enough to win.

 

There's no right strategy if you run a candidate that can't appeal to wide set of voters. Base, independent and moderate. The saving grace for Democrats is probably a larger base of voters. 

 

 

 

 

 

[mikecgrimes]

If they keep hammering it all they'll get is their base and that isn't enough to win.

. After not winning 5 of the last 6 elections and failing to get 50% all 6 I'm OK with doing something different even if not winning is a possibility.

[kab21]

 

. After not winning 5 of the last 6 elections and failing to get 50% all 6 I'm OK with doing something different even if not winning is a possibility.

I'm not sure how moving farther from the shifting center and strengthening the far right core is a good strategy.  This isn't appealing to a wide range of voters.  I say this as an extremely frustrated conservative that wants nothing to do with the far right. 

 

The way I see it is that they have a lost many like Levi and myself while not gaining anyone.  And this doesn't even begin to take into account the growing Hispanic population that is being alienated.  The women vote that is being alienated.  Definitely the black vote that is voting in larger numbers.

[mikecgrimes]

Black vote? Hillary's running, and as you know white lives don't matter.

[TheLeviathan]

My generation and the millennialist below us are open to fiscal conservatism. We want to hear that message and we see the failure of liberal policies on making the world better.

 

But cramming religion down our throats? Abortion? Gay marriage? Immigration? These are INSTANT losers for Republicans and until they figure that out they will continue to lose.

[kab21]

 

Black vote? Hillary's running, and as you know white lives don't matter.

You think that demographic is voting republican?  They might not like Hilary but they still won't vote republican.

 

But you missed the bigger picture.  Republicans are set up to get crushed in almost every demographic other than white male.  It will be very difficult now and in the future to win w/o making inroads outside of that demographic.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You think that demographic is voting republican?  They might not like Hilary but they still won't vote republican.

 

But you missed the bigger picture.  Republicans are set up to get crushed in almost every demographic other than white male.  It will be very difficult now and in the future to win w/o making inroads outside of that demographic.

 

And the elderly and Christians.  Those are pretty much the three staples of the party and that is what their message appeals to.  I'd also suggest white males over 40 is a bit more accurate.

[Craig Arko]

Nightmare at Nov. 2016.

[mikecgrimes]

 

My generation and the millennialist below us are open to fiscal conservatism. We want to hear that message and we see the failure of liberal policies on making the world better.

But cramming religion down our throats? Abortion? Gay marriage? Immigration? These are INSTANT losers for Republicans and until they figure that out they will continue to lose.

 

So your generation is pro abortion?

[mikecgrimes]

 

You think that demographic is voting republican?  They might not like Hilary but they still won't vote republican.

 

But you missed the bigger picture.  Republicans are set up to get crushed in almost every demographic other than white male.  It will be very difficult now and in the future to win w/o making inroads outside of that demographic.

 

I think a very large # of those Obama voters will do exactly what they did during the mid term.  I'd love if Republicans got 20% of the black vote, but I don't really break down the vote by skin color, we're all Americans.  They've seen what the last 8 years brought them and they know Hillary cares about them even less.  When the Democrat party is acting shocked that minimum wage wasn't a big issue during a presidential debate it tells you a lot about what they think of the urban population.  Republicans have seen to many people succeed to ever assume failure.

[mikecgrimes]

 

And the elderly and Christians.  Those are pretty much the three staples of the party and that is what their message appeals to.  I'd also suggest white males over 40 is a bit more accurate.

 

So then we can watch the Republican party get 32% of the vote in 10 years.  You would think given this certain future the elected Democrats would have the political courage to stop pandering and seek out meaningful change.  Some of us young people remember what the Democrats thought of gays as recently as 5 years ago.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's personal opinion on the issue is clear, they've got a new political opinion in the last 2 or 3 years but if you didn't know the political labels you would assume Obama Hillary Clinton were old white male Republicans.

[biggentleben]

 

I think a very large # of those Obama voters will do exactly what they did during the mid term.  I'd love if Republicans got 20% of the black vote, but I don't really break down the vote by skin color, we're all Americans.  They've seen what the last 8 years brought them and they know Hillary cares about them even less.  When the Democrat party is acting shocked that minimum wage wasn't a big issue during a presidential debate it tells you a lot about what they think of the urban population.  Republicans have seen to many people succeed to ever assume failure.

 

Objective historians have already called Obama's second term one of the most productive presidential terms in the last 50 years on a domestic and global scale. It's truly the extremist right wingers who even debate that his presidency has been productive at this point.

[biggentleben]

 

So your generation is pro abortion?

 

Thank you for absolutely illustrating the point. I won't speak to exactly what Levi's intent with the comment was, but the topics he mentioned are issues that much of this generation have come to see as having multiple shades of gray, no real black or white, however primarily Republicans are hammering a black or white response to those questions, which is why the party is losing ground so heavily in the 18-40 market, with many choosing to register third party or independent and vote their favorite candidate, not just a party line.

 

A candidate steps to the mic and is asked, "Do you believe in abortion?" He/she responds with "it depends" and is ripped mercilessly as a baby killer by Faux News. However, I would respect any candidate with a response like that much more than anyone on either side saying, "Abortion good!" or "Abortion bad!" blindly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So your generation is pro abortion?

 

No, as Ben pointed out, we view it as a complicated issue.  I'm anti-unwanted pregnancy and believe that until that problem is better solved, abortions are a necessity.  Otherwise we turn women into forced incubators.  That's the real effect of what that ass clown Walker said at the debate.

 

Democrats generally talk more about policy, even though they're quite bad at crafting it.  It's Republicans that hammer the social issues that younger generations have much more evolved thoughts about.

 

As this older generation dies out the Republican party is going to have two choices - adapt or die.  I don't see why they're delaying that adaptation.  They'll likely still get the vast majority of their base to vote for the lesser of two evils and they'll add the necessary sections of the populace to win.

[biggentleben]

 

And the elderly and Christians.  Those are pretty much the three staples of the party and that is what their message appeals to.  I'd also suggest white males over 40 is a bit more accurate.

 

To amend this, I'd state that their Christian base is really the extremist evangelical Christian. The farther center you get from that, the less party identification you find within the church. Heck, even in rural South Dakota, the church-going populace is rarely 50% Republican, and that's in a state where the Republican party has a strong foot hold.

[TheLeviathan]

 

To amend this, I'd state that their Christian base is really the extremist evangelical Christian. The farther center you get from that, the less party identification you find within the church. Heck, even in rural South Dakota, the church-going populace is rarely 50% Republican, and that's in a state where the Republican party has a strong foot hold.

 

That doesn't line up well with this .

[biggentleben]

 

That doesn't line up well with this .

 

In that one election, sure. I will say that Romney was more centric than basically anyone in the current Republican grouping, so there was more of an opportunity to grab those centrist religious voters.

[mikecgrimes]

How much has republican support slipped in the last 20 years? I ask because you keep telling me us 18-40 year olds have no tolerance for anyone who thinks abortion is criminal. As long as I've been reading internet comments I've heard the I would be a republican but crowd tell me its all over. Then we nominate the exact candidate they describe and they decide that candidate is to "extreme" too. When in doubt tell me about the grey area. It's fine you can vote democrat. Part of politics is losing elections I'm OK with Republicans losing I'd they stand for something.