Posted on 10/11/2014 6:52:44 AM PDT by cotton1706
Jeb Bush is not the most “electable” GOP presidential contender because the family that he represents is not electable now and truly has never been more electable than ideological conservatives. It’s a historical fact.
Bloomberg writer Mark Halperin this week fawningly suggested that Bush is the electable Republican hopeful in the field. Uh, sure. Everyday Republicans are just chomping at the bit to nominate this donor-friendly prepster who would pick up the ball from his brother on federal school reform and give corporations cheap labor with an immigration package. (Why do liberals always feel the need to “help” Republicans out with political advice about who they should nominate? In that spirit, I’ve got a suggestion for them: Howard Dean. 2016 is that guy’s year, man. He’s ready.)
This all fits into the media’s narrative about how the upstart tea party that won the House in 2010 could never run a viable national campaign around a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. The media thinks that the “uncharacteristic chaos,” as Halperin called it, playing out in the Republican Party right now is something completely new. Therefore, the tea party, in contrast to the permanence of the Bush-dominated establishment, is something completely new. It’s not.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
bfl
Maybe we should stop being in awe of candidates whom liberals think Republicans should nominate, and instead seek true conservative candidates. And give that conservative our support, and let the chips fall where they may in a general election against Hillary.
Bob Dole is the man.
A new shiny charismatic candidate will beat a conventional and familiar dullard every time...regardless of party label or ideology. That is a major (and simple) reason Republicans are losing at the national level.
Based on that, the first choice is Bush and second is Rubio.
In addition to Florida, if the GOP can win North Carolina, win back Virginia, and win back Ohio, then that candidate has a realistic shot at winning the White House.
It’s frustrating to the look at the electoral map. And realize that Hillary, or any other Democrat, has over 200 of 270 electoral votes needed for election, already in the bag. So many states are so predictable that Democrats can take much of the country for granted.
Sadly, I just don’t see the GOP ever winning VA, OH or FL again in a National election. The demographic shift, esp in VA and FL, is just too titanic.
That is why I find it amusing folly that Conservatives DON’T favor abolishing the Electoral College. Our ONLY chance ever again of taking the WH is the popular vote. If we keep relying on the EV well ... the Dims might as well make it their permanent election HQ.
give corporations cheap labor with an immigration package.
...
Ultimately it’s not about cheap labor. It’s about flooding the country with people who will vote for Big Government and will look the other way when it comes to corruption.
I think the reality of the situation this country is in will allow many true independents and moderates to switch to the republican side.
The question will be how to attract them without disenfranchising the conservative voters.
The media and the Marxist/democrats will go into hyper-drive to denounce the tea party extremists so we need a candidate that can promote the conservative positions without sticking his foot in his mouth.
George Washington?
If not for Ross Perot Clinton is NEVER President. He would not have been given a 2nd chance.
The Idea that Clinton was this talented politician that left people feeling like they were in the presence of greatness whatever, was created out of thin air by the media.
Now apparently most believe he is this great figure, but it really was manufactured, the lie became truth to them.
Ross Perot was working for Clinton. The head of Clinton’s security in his home state wrote a book detailing Clinton and Perot in manipulating the election.
That would be a complete disaster. The only thing that would have changed in the last 25 years would have been the 2000 election -- which would have been won by Al Gore under that scenario. Popular elections are a miserable idea, because they inevitably end up with slimy, charming candidates winning.
A more effective route would be to push for more and more states to adopt the model used by Maine and Nebraska in awarding their electoral votes. Electoral votes are allocated to their states based on their combined representation in the House and Senate. In Nebraska and Maine, each congressional district has its own electoral vote and the candidate who wins the state overall gets the two electoral votes for the Senate. That's why a candidate can "lose" a state like Maine but still get one of the four electoral votes anyway.
If a state like California adopted this approach, you'd never have an election where a candidate was awarded all 55 of California's electoral votes. You'd have the 53 districts split between the two candidates, and the Democrat would almost certainly win the last 2 by winning the state overall.
I ain’t voting for any more Bushes. Four times is enough. Enough crap out of the stinking Bushes.
Lol...that rino crap has not power here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.