2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[Path_Finder]

What about Bobby Jindal - Washington Examiner

What an accomplished man and Catholic? Sounds like he may be a convert.

Jindal was raised in a Hindu household, but he converted to Christianity while in Baton Rouge Magnet High School. During his first year at Brown University, he was received into the Roman Catholic Church. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.[33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#Personal_life

I don’t think he immediately strikes one as a charismatic figure which is a quality some people have but probably would be up to the job.

 

[mary_bobo]

I was referring to santorums losing senate campaign in which he lost decisively. Is a candidate whose most recent campaign was a losing campaign (not even close ) the strongest candidate ? I would argue no. I think we should nominate the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning. That would seem to count out guys like Ted Cruz and ben Carson. We can nominate the candidate that makes us feel good for sticking up for principles and not compromising. But then complain when we lose. Or we can deal with political reality.

Ishii

Very sensible, Ishii. But I doubt many will see it that way. We can either have “the perfect” candidate, or we can have a candidate that stands for most of what we stand for and is electable. Standing on principle if fine, but let’s not be so principled that we lose to another radical Dem. Then what have be accomplished?

 

[powerofk]

Very sensible, Ishii. But I doubt many will see it that way. We can either have “the perfect” candidate, or we can have a candidate that stands for most of what we stand for and is electable. Standing on principle if fine, but let’s not be so principled that we lose to another radical Dem. Then what have be accomplished?

The thing is, there are many in the “Conservative” crowd that would rather have a “perfectly” Conservative candidate who loses than one who stands for most conservative values but is electable. Seriously. Quite often, in fact, a nominee (from either party) who appeals best to the primary voters (the base of the party) is the least appealing to the general populace. Think Sharon Angle in NV two years ago - in a contest that should have easily been won by Republicans.

 

[RGCheek]

The thing is, there are many in the “Conservative” crowd that would rather have a “perfectly” Conservative candidate who loses than one who stands for most conservative values but is electable. Seriously. Quite often, in fact, a nominee (from either party) who appeals best to the primary voters (the base of the party) is the least appealing to the general populace. Think Sharon Angle in NV two years ago - in a contest that should have easily been won by Republicans.

The demographics are this, based on Gallup polls over the last few years.

Roughly 22% of the electorate self-identify as liberal

Roughly 35% of the electorate identifies as moderate

Roughly 40% identify as conservative.

gallup.com/poll/160196/alabama-north-dakota-wyoming-conservative-states.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics#1

And yet in exit polls the percentages are different.
kavips.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/liberals-growing-according-to-exit-polls/

Roughly 22% of the electorate self-identify as liberal

Roughly 45% of the electorate identifies as moderate

Roughly 30% identify as conservative.

The point is that conservatives are not showing up to vote in competitive percentages to liberals and moderates.

So even though the country is, according to Gallup, mostly conservative, the GOP, the supposedly conservative party, KEEPS LOSING.

Why? Look at past elections since Nixons ‘Southern Strategy’ changed the political map.

Winners since 1973: Nixon, Reagan twice, Bush (prior to read my lips broken promise), W Bush twice.

Losers since 1973: Ford, Bush (post read my lips broken promise), Dole, McCain, Romney

All the winners ran as conservatives and were ‘too conservative’ to be competitive in the national election, while the moderates who were supposed to be more competitive lost.

This is because IN ORDER FOR THE GOP TO WIN THEY HAVE TO GET THE CONSERVATIVES TO SHOW UP AT THE POLLS.

To sacrifice 3% of conservative voters to gain 1% of moderate votes is not a winning strategy. Gin up that 45% of the conservative base with a n actual conservative with a conservative track record to prove his claims and he will win. Nominate a moderate to ‘be more competitive’ and the GOP loses EVERY TIME.

 

[ishii]

But don’t you think we did that in 2012 with Romney?

Did what? Make us feel good for sticking with principles? Complain when we lose? Deal with political reality? All three?

With Romney I think we nominated the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning - considering the relatively flawed field of candidates (Santorum, Gingrich and a bunch of also-rans).

In 2016 we have a much stronger potential field of candidates - including some excellent governors. I think it will be difficult to decide in some ways, and I hope the primary candidates don’t savage each other too much in trying to win the nomination.

Ishii

 

[RGCheek]

Did what? Make us feel good for sticking with principles? Complain when we lose? Deal with political reality? All three?

With Romney I think we nominated the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning - considering the relatively flawed field of candidates (Santorum, Gingrich and a bunch of also-rans).
Ishii

Why would anyone vote GOP if the GOP is nothing more than a Democratic Party Lite?

Romney was not and is not a conservative. His track record as governor is more liberal than Jimmy Carter’s when he ran Georgia. Romney talked conservative but didn’t mean a bit of it. And the man is so shallow that he thinks everyone that receives government money is automatically corrupted by the system to vote for more goodies and will vote Democrat.

Hello? We have retired veterans, retired conservatives, disabled veterans, etc who will STILL VOTE CONSERVATIVE, if they have anyone different enough from the Democrat to actually bother.

 

[ishii]

What about Bobby Jindal - Washington Examiner

What an accomplished man and Catholic? Sounds like he may be a convert.

I don’t think he immediately strikes one as a charismatic figure which is a quality some people have but probably would be up to the job.

I have been singing Bobby Jindal’s praises for quite a while on CAF.

Consider:

Accepted by both Yale Law school and Harvard Medical school. But went to Oxford instead! He received a masters degree with emphasis on health care policy at Oxford.

At age 24 appointed Secretary of Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hospitals. Under his tenure Medicaid went from Bankruptcy to surplus.

At 28 appointed president of Louisiana University system

Ran for governor unsuccessfully at age 32.

Elected congressman at age 33. Criticized Bush for spending too much.

Governor of Louisiana since 2007. Solidly conservative. The guy is smart - and could go toe to toe with any Democrat on policy.

That is why I have been calling for a Walker/Jindal ticket. Or perhaps a Rubio/Jindal ticket.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Why would anyone vote GOP if the GOP is nothing more than a Democratic Party Lite?

Romney was not and is not a conservative. His track record as governor is more liberal than Jimmy Carter’s when he ran Georgia. Romney talked conservative but didn’t mean a bit of it. And the man is so shallow that he thinks everyone that receives government money is automatically corrupted by the system to vote for more goodies and will vote Democrat.

Hello? We have retired veterans, retired conservatives, disabled veterans, etc who will STILL VOTE CONSERVATIVE, if they have anyone different enough from the Democrat to actually bother.

I understand your frustration. But your critique of Romney is mostly based on his tenure of governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts, right? Show me a Republican who is governor of a liberal state and I will show you someone who has had to compromise a great deal. I mean, don’t expect a governor of Mass to be like a 100% conservative as if he was running in Alabama or Texas. Show me a GOP nominee who picks a bona fide conservative like Paul Ryan and chooses Robert Bork to advise on judicial appointments and I will show you a candidate who is conservative enough for me.

You can get all the retired veterans, conservatives, etc. around the country to vote for a Ted Cruz or Santorum, but if they can’t appeal to some independents or moderates then they will not win. That is the political reality. And I am more interested in winning and making progress than in feeling good by voting for the “true believer” candidate who has no chance to win.

Ishii

 

[RGCheek]

I understand your frustration. But your critique of Romney is mostly based on his tenure of governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts, right? Show me a Republican who is governor of a liberal state and I will show you someone who has had to compromise a great deal. I mean, don’t expect a governor of Mass to be like a 100% conservative as if he was running in Alabama or Texas. Show me a GOP nominee who picks a bona fide conservative like Paul Ryan and chooses Robert Bork to advise on judicial appointments and I will show you a candidate who is conservative enough for me.

You can get all the retired veterans, conservatives, etc. around the country to vote for a Ted Cruz or Santorum, but if they can’t appeal to some independents or moderates then they will not win. That is the political reality. And I am more interested in winning and making progress than in feeling good by voting for the “true believer” candidate who has no chance to win.

Ishii

And that was the exact criticism used against Reagan and W Bush, that they were too conservative and had no chance to win - BUT THEY WON.

And the moderates who were ‘competitive’ like Dole, Ford, Romney or McCain? Losers.

You know, just maybe a majority of Americans want men of principle instead of opportunists who say one thing but do another?

 

[powerofk]

And that was the exact criticism used against Reagan and W Bush, that they were too conservative and had no chance to win - BUT THEY WON.

And the moderates who were ‘competitive’ like Dole, Ford, Romney or McCain? Losers.

You know, just maybe a majority of Americans want men of principle instead of opportunists who say one thing but do another?

Except for the fact that “Conservative” has been a moving target. Compared to the GOP of today, Reagan was a moderate! Remember, Reagan compromised with a Dem Congress. He had two rules, which most “True Conservatives” today break - and often have forgotten. Rule 1: Better a half loaf than none at all. Rule 2: The person who votes with me 75-80% of the time is my friend.

For GHWB, people were primarily voting for a 3rd Reagan term. And, for GWB, GWB just barely won both of his elections (and in his first election, more people actually voted for Al Gore; err, actually, were voting for a 3rd Bill Clinton term).

As for people who were not “Conservative” enough? It seems to me, in general, that the GOP nominates people who are less “Conservative” when they don’t think that they’ll be able to win, anyway - so they can blame the loss on the nominee not being “Conservative” enough. In 1976, no GOPer would have won. The Nixon saga was too fresh. In 1996? Clinton was quite popular then; plus, he ran as “GOP-lite”. Clinton actually did more to advance many GOP goals in his tenure than the GOP did (elimination of general welfare, working to balance the budget, repealing the Glass-Stegall Act; it was Clinton who said “The era of big government is over”). And in 2008, due to the financial sector crash, no GOPer would have won - regardless of how “Conservative” he/she was - that’s how bad the environment was toward GOPers that year.

In 2012? By 2012, the GOPers were trying to “out-Conservative” each other. Romney was picked pretty much by default - the others had practically DQ’d themselves due to sexual harrassment scandals (Herman Cain), freezing in front of the lights (Rick Perry), being too libertarian on social issues (Ron Paul), or being primarily a local politician who had no chance and stated extreme charges (whether true or not) that very few actually believed (Michelle Bachmann). Romney got through the primaries not because he was a great candidate (GOPers were trying to find anyone BUT Romney and seemed to choose Romney quite reluctantly) but because he had slightly fewer flaws than the rest of the field. As I said before - he pretty much won the nomination by default.

Also, “Anybody But…” campaigns pretty much don’t work, regardless of party. Why? Because it’s harder to get people to back a candidate when your main reasoning for supporting the candidate is “At least he/she isn’t so-and-so”. Seriously. Dems ran on “Anybody but Bush” in 2004. GOPers ran first on “Anybody but Romney” - and then, when Romney was nominated by default, ran on “Anybody but Obama” in 2012.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Other.
If the Republicans wish to have any chance of the White House they must run a woman. Hillary will be the opponent. And sadly this country has demonstrated that being the first fill in the blank president is a huge factor.

Palin, Bachmann, or preferably someone fresh.

Rice would be a shoe in for prez.

 

[CaptFun]

The demographics are this, based on Gallup polls over the last few years …

… The point is that conservatives are not showing up to vote in competitive percentages to liberals and moderates.

So even though the country is, according to Gallup, mostly conservative, the GOP, the supposedly conservative party, KEEPS LOSING.

Why? Look at past elections since Nixons ‘Southern Strategy’ changed the political map.

Winners since 1973: Nixon, Reagan twice, Bush (prior to read my lips broken promise), W Bush twice.

Losers since 1973: Ford, Bush (post read my lips broken promise), Dole, McCain, Romney

All the winners ran as conservatives and were ‘too conservative’ to be competitive in the national election, while the moderates who were supposed to be more competitive lost.

This is because IN ORDER FOR THE GOP TO WIN THEY HAVE TO GET THE CONSERVATIVES TO SHOW UP AT THE POLLS.

To sacrifice 3% of conservative voters to gain 1% of moderate votes is not a winning strategy. Gin up that 45% of the conservative base with a n actual conservative with a conservative track record to prove his claims and he will win. Nominate a moderate to ‘be more competitive’ and the GOP loses EVERY TIME.

Thoughtful take. Thanks for the work too.

You may have something there with that “conservatives not showing up at the polls” theory. Last time I think a factor that hurt Romney was (and I don’t like saying it but I’ve seen and heard evidence of sorts) - some Evangelicals (especially) look askance at the Mormon faith and consider it a “cult”.

It didn’t keep his father from being Governor of Michigan … it didn’t keep Mitt from becoming Governor of Massachusetts - and maybe there weren’t enough of the abstainers in the right states to put Romney in the White House anyhow (as he lost almost all the battleground states against Obama despite the latter’s mediocre record as incumbent).

Of the nominees listed in this poll, most have enough conservative cred to bring those stay at homes out I’d think. Yet Democrats stay home too. Which may be how Romney and Scott Brown won in oh so blue Massachusetts in the first place.

I think Chris Christie and Rand Paul will have low ceilings in the primaries. Strong support of a small percentage - perhaps enough to win in an early primary with votes diluted among many. But for different reasons they might suffer from lack of overall support.

In our poll here OTHER leads. Who? (Kitchen sink coming here):

Scott Walker? Rick Perry? Michelle Bachman? Sarah Palin? Dick Cheney? Lyn Cheney? Dan Quayle? Newt Gingrich? Rudy Giuliani? Elizabeth Dole? Condoleeza Rice? Dr. Ben Carson? GHW Bush for a second term? Mc Cain or Romney redux? Pat Buchanan is still alive. Allen Keyes and Bob Dornan too. - WHO are those 9 votes going to really?



2012 GOP Presidential Field before the Primaries

After “Other” its Santorum, Cruz and Ryan here.

Any of those three would be fine by me at this point. Are they all Catholic? Cruz? Might be another part of their support here on a Catholic poll.

Santorum leads - no surprise, he’s been the most visible and (using the Romney formula for getting the nomination in 2012) has seemed to keep running unofficially since then.

Cruz got the needed attention for consideration with his filibuster - plus he’s young, new, hispanic and hasn’t been hit by any scandals ( … so far).

Ryan is conservative, accomplished, and has as much of an heir apparent argument as Santorum as he was the party’s VP nominee vs. the party runner-up. Ryan actually was proposing budgets while the Obama Administration did nothing - yet despite the US’s desperate straights, that didn’t swing votes to Romney. Not even in swing state Wisconsin. Still … the Romney folks who don’t know who to go with this time might back Paul Ryan. AND, IMO he’d probably also make a good President.

Rubio (see Cruz) is another new, young, hispanic candidate - and seemingly conservative enough to bring coservatives out … and a Senator from a critical swing state (Florida).

Jeb Bush has no support in our poll here … but he would probably bring Florida back, is Catholic (a convert with a Catholic Mexican born wife and bilingual children) … so hispanic by marriage … would probably be an acceptable alternative to many once their favorite candidate drops out. Would he take VP (GOPs last 5 WINS had the name Bush on the ticket)?

I like that Jindal in this poll got as many as Christie and Paul. I don’t see him as GOP candidate … but like a few names here … might make a good President. Certainly better than Obama, Hillary, or the usual Democratic suspects.

Santorum’s blue collar strategy is an outreach to gettable moderates and independents that is not so UNconservative as to alienate the base. I know many Catholics who either vote Democratic or hold their nose to vote for the GOP solely on the pro-life stand (when they’d have gone for a pro-life Democrat if they could find one - and feel like they are going against their unions by crossing over to vote GOP).

Other than Rick, maybe Rand Paul and his pacifism/isolationism … is the candidate most clearly defining himself. The GOP should be nice to Paul … without picking him as their leader. Pacifists vote … some people would love a return to isolationism (for either idealistic or selfish reasons ) - and might be jumping off the Obama wagon as he is forced to go back to war now.

What the others stand for is less clear right now. But it’s only 2014.

In 2016 … the GOP will probably WIN … if it doesn’t shoot itself in the foot (again).

 

[jeannetherese]

He burned his bridges when he instituted a State ACA exchange in Ohio. He would never make it through the primaries

Hi estesbob,
What’s a state ACA?
Thank you so much.
jt

 

[GratefulFred]

The problem as I see it for the Republicans is they don’t have anyone who really captures the imagination of the electorate.

Bingo! Spot on!

Obama had that. But we need much more.

We need the Rs to actually support this yet to be identified candidate and NOT tear him or her down in the primaries. The Ds and main stream media will do that; no sense in helping those two.

The candidate needs considerable success in prior elected offices. Someone who knows how to push his point and yet make compromises to actually get laws passed. Stonewalling hurts America. Blaming the other party is no way to govern.

America is divided on major issues. We are in political gridlock. The most basic unit in society is the family and we have far too many dysfunctional families. We are extremely deep in public debt.

So we desperately need a candidate that can inspire us to pull together. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[jeannetherese]

With Romney I think we nominated the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning - considering the relatively flawed field of candidates (Santorum, Gingrich and a bunch of also-rans).

Ishii

Hi Ishii,
Maybe it’s a local thing, but I wonderer if the Republican party might have fared better running Huckabee in the last election. People I knew, who normally would not consider voting Republican, were excited by his positions. He’s the only Republican candidate that I’m aware of, who seemed to be able to pick up votes from those normally unsympathetic to the party.

 

[CaptFun]

Other.
If the Republicans wish to have any chance of the White House they must run a woman. Hillary will be the opponent. And sadly this country has demonstrated that being the first fill in the blank president is a huge factor.

Palin, Bachmann, or preferably someone fresh.

Rice would be a shoe in for prez.

Disagree. GOP women get savaged. Or ignored. Per the mainstream media they are not really women. Like Allen Keyes wasn’t really black. Nor are any of the many smart, black conservatives taken seriously as leaders by the mainstream media. And they don’t poll all that well in the black community for some reason.

There ARE good female GOP candidates. AND Condoleeza Rice is one of them. She would probably be a good President. I could vote for her. But I’d guess the black vote would move no more from its current 95% Democratic support to maybe 90%.

Right now we don’t have a Margaret Thatcher class female candidate, IMO.

Palin - interesting person. In my opinion hurt herself by quitting the Governorship of Alaska. Even though she was being unfairly savaged by the press … and may have felt she’d accomplished what she wanted to in Alaska. That quitting thing can be deadly.

On the bright side Hillary’s quitting as Secretary of State hurts her too I think.

Michelle Bachman would have had a better chance had she stepped up and ran against Al Franken in Minnesota and beat him. Being a senator provides more gravitas than just being a congressperson. That said she has spunk. The media will (and has) savaged her - but in person, she sounds good on Greta van Susteren.

Other female leaders? Lyn Cheney. Elizabeth Dole. Phyllis Schlafly? Would they be better than what we have now? Yes. Would they be better than Hillary? Yes. Would they beat Hillary? Or even really get the GOP nomination? - I’d enjoy those results, but … I … dunno.

The GOP just needs a good, confident candidate that is not afraid to RUN. That is … one that is tougher on the Democratic candidate than he or she was vs. the other GOP hopefuls (thinking of Mc Cain here).

Please, no more wallflower campaigns showing us how “nice” you are. Didn’t work for: Thomas Dewey, Gerald Ford, GHW Bush the second time (especially!); Bob Dole or Mitt Romney. The women named here don’t SEEM to have ***that ***problem though, I must say.

Per your someone fresh (and female) look to the national commentators: Michelle Malkin could have whoever debates her heading for the hills.

 

[FollowChrist34]

But don’t you think we did that in 2012 with Romney?

I couldn’t get past the Mormonism. I never saw Romney as a moderate candidate. I know that topic has been beaten to death, and I actually don’t want to start it up again - just making the point that to a lot of people, Romney was not exactly perceived as a moderate. I am more or less an independent. To me, a much better example of a moderate is Christie. Not saying he would win but I would vote for him. I do think we need to get someone who has principles and will stick to them. Rubio, Jindal, Paul Ryan, etc. Rand Paul really worries me. Too flashy, too Obama, no substance.

 

[Path_Finder]

Jindal has come out for a quarantine, no flights from that area of Africa.
nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/bobby_jindal_calls_for_restric.html

I’m pretty sure he has been very anti-Common Core while some Governors have been for it.

It seems all of his positions are always sound conservatism.

To me, he like Walker do not seem to cut the figure of your charismatic leader but Jindal of course is extremely smart with good values.

Walker still has to win his race for governor.

But no, not another moderate and likely a candidate from a red state. People in Tennessee or wherever vote for whomever the GOP is putting up, McCain, Romney but the candidate really should reflect their values, reflect all people’s values. McCain indeed was from a red state but pretty moderate. Sort of got the nomination because it was his turn.

Rand Paul may be in a bit of a tailspin right now, trying to please everyone has, yes, seemed to make him look a bit inconsistent and I’ve always thought he’s looked a bit green, youthful in his views.

---

Romney was fine and I think our country is suffering from not electing him.

The problem with the Obama-types is they don’t seem to like the same America most of us do imho. At least Bill Clinton had some sort of sincere care about this nation. I don’t think Hillary much cares for America as well. These kind espouse a sort of '60s radicalism.

 

[powerofk]

Jindal has come out for a quarantine, no flights from that area of Africa.
nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/bobby_jindal_calls_for_restric.html

I’m pretty sure he has been very anti-Common Core while some Governors have been for it.

It seems all of his positions are always sound conservatism.

To me, he like Walker do not seem to cut the figure of your charismatic leader but Jindal of course is extremely smart with good values.

Walker still has to win his race for governor.

But no, not another moderate and likely a candidate from a red state. People in Tennessee or wherever vote for whomever the GOP is putting up, McCain, Romney but the candidate really should reflect their values, reflect all people’s values. McCain indeed was from a red state but pretty moderate. Sort of got the nomination because it was his turn.

Rand Paul may be in a bit of a tailspin right now, trying to please everyone has, yes, seemed to make him look a bit inconsistent and I’ve always thought he’s looked a bit green, youthful in his views.

---

Romney was fine and I think our country is suffering from not electing him.

The problem with the Obama-types is they don’t seem to like the same America most of us do imho. At least Bill Clinton had some sort of sincere care about this nation. I don’t think Hillary much cares for America as well. These kind espouse a sort of '60s radicalism.

I’m not going deep into Common Core here. But, Common Core is a natural byproduct of No Child Left Behind, and the GOP is actually quite divided on the issue (“religious” conservatives are against Common Core, while “corporate” conservatives are for Common Core). Due to the extravagant costs of each state having their own standardized tests (required by NCLB), states figured that it would be more fiscally resposible if they had a common test. But they could only have a common test if their standards were the same. Thus, Common Core. Common Core, btw, is not a federal issue; it’s a state’s issue. The feds have given no pressure one way or the other on Common Core - it has been each state that has decided to accept or reject Common Core standards on the state level.

Regardless, a female GOP candidate not mentioned here would be Susana Martinez, though she probably wouldn’t run due to personal reasons (no garbage - she’s the legal guardian to her sister who has cerebal palsy; it’s been hard enough for her to balance this role with her role as governor of NM - she’d probably only run if her sister was comfortable moving to DC with her).

Honestly, though, the GOP has to figure out what it stands for, because right now, the only thing the GOP can agree on is extreme contempt of President Obama.

 

[RGCheek]

Honestly, though, the GOP has to figure out what it stands for, because right now, the only thing the GOP can agree on is extreme contempt of President Obama.

Why not the old Reagan three-legged stool? Social conservatives, national security conservatives and small government conservatives all working together to reign in the old FDR central state liberalism?

Because that old FDR coalition is dying off and leaving no competing ideology other than neoMarxism wrapped in a multi-culti Politically Correct façade.

The neocons like the social re-engineering that the left wants as well. They are pro national security but opposed to meaningful reductions in government scope and size and also opposed to real significant opposition on social issues pushed by the left.

Until the GOP sheds its RINO neocon leadership it wont find the internal consistency to truly champion its conservative base and the values it holds dear.