E
estesbob
Guest
So she could be the first woman and Native American President!
She would lose even worse than Hillary.
- Status
She would lose even worse than Hillary.
meltzerboy
New member
Both parties threw a lot of big money at the election, but some of the Democratic candidates distanced themselves too much from Obama, and this may have disillusioned certain constituents of the base. I agree, though, that so long as the Republicans focus less on social issues and more on economic and foreign policy ones, they stand a better chance of winning, particularly in the Presidential election.
meltzerboy
New member
Many of the populace like firsts. I’m not so sure Elizabeth Warren would lose, but she would have to gain more national recognition first. Anyhow, I believe reading that she indicated she was not interested in running, at least in 2016.
R
RGCheek
Guest
My impression is that W was seen as sort of a black sheep who then leapt off the cliffs of sanity by becoming an evangelical.
His evangelical ties in Texas were what made his career, not his Daddy Warbucks connections to Rockefellerites.
R
RGCheek
Guest
Agreed; while I agree with Warren on a couple of things they are few and far between.
She is a far left candidate who speaks in ideological shades of legalese and PC.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
The world must be coming to an end. I agree with you, and although we do not often agree, I like to hear your take on things.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
They were not nearly as far out from the center of the party as many of the Tea Party candidates the last time around.
R
RGCheek
Guest
Not according to the party establishment in 1976 and 1980; “Reagan was an unelectable far rightwing nut” according to that establishment.
The GOP establishment does not have as its top priority winning elections but instead they are most of all concerned with staying in power within their own party.
They see anyone that actually believes the party platform to be wacko.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Mitt Romney and John McCain probably focused less on social issues than economic and foreign policy issues, neither of them won the presidency, and do you really think that because they focussed less on social issues, they had a higher chance of winning than if they had focussed on it more?
M
madtom
Guest
“most political analysts” either don’t know what they’re talking about, overanalyze eveything so they can make their job seem necessary, or are biased leftist liberals. only they can take a sweeping GOP victory and call it a loss for other Republicans. I even heard some “political analysts” claim this as a victory for the Clintons. So somehow, republicans lost and democrats won! amazing political analysis!
The problem with the tea party candidates of recent elections wasn’t so much their policies, rather it was largely their complete lack of experience and inability to deal with a hostile media. they were just bad candidates. REALLY bad candidates in some cases. please tell me, what is so “fringe” about the tea party and their desire for small government, states rights, and constitutionalism?
meltzerboy
New member
Well, I hope the world is not coming to an end, but thank you, Mary. I also enjoy reading your perspective.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
I’m not so sure about that. After two terms for the current president, I have no faith in our electorate.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Good question, Tom. They are also for a balanced budget. Unfortunately the very liberal powers that be have talked against the Tea Party groups, often telling outright lies, that those who only list to liberals outlets, do not bother to investigate for themselves what is really going on. That is why we have so many “low information” voters.
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, there are always exceptions. Mitt Romney had his own problems regarding where he stood on certain issues, and, simultaneously, was painted by the Democrats in a most unfavorable light. McCain was running against the potentially first Black President in history, as well as the latter’s not lacking in charisma, and so was almost automatically at a disadvantage. And then he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate to make up for this, not to his advantage either. Besides, his campaign was poorly managed. So in these instances, it might not have mattered so much what they focused on. In general, however, I do believe that toning down on the social issues is a good political move for the GOP. The mixture of politics and morality is a tricky business in the minds of many centrist and independent voters.
D
Dawnia
Guest
She also has that whole Lie-awatha/Fauxcahontas thing that likely won’t play well with many people.
E
estesbob
Guest
You think the results Tuesday indicate the Country is ready for a President who is to Left of Obama?
G
GEddie
Guest
So you would support her candidacy just because she is female?
While I respect that, I should hope that historical-change politics would get set aside for a few cycles in this country!
ICXC NIKA.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
Make no mistake about it, Pro-Lifers won, I don’t care if this is the Catholic Register speaking in this case, it seems all around the Republican Candidates who won were Pro-Life. Md. and Ma. may be different, I don’t know.
Case closed, it is conventional wisdom that tries to downplay social issues.
Many other sources affirm the above.
meltzerboy
New member
I didn’t mean that in my comment. Bob would support Hillary as the Democratic nominee because he thinks she will lose, whereas I would support her because I think she will win. Unlike many on this thread, I also believe she would be a good President. I even supported her during the Democratic primary when she ran against Obama.
meltzerboy
New member
In politics, two years is a lifetime. I think Warren is quite brilliant and, even more important, a fighter for the little guy.
- Status