# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/581 "2014-07-24T15:59:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > His trajectory has been almost exactly like Obama’s. Start out popular, fade, buck up just enough to win an election, then resume the downward spiral for the remainder of his Presidency. Obama could of course still improve his standing, but that assumes he’ll actually change course. Geez, where have we heard that before? Obama is really Bush’s third and fourth terms, if not exactly in policy, in governing style. This is just Halperin-esque punditry crap. Bullshit analysis. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/582 "2014-07-24T16:03:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was supposed to happen \*last \*time, wasn’t it? Oh, right, there was no 2012 in your universe. The GOP corrected that mistake by nominating all credible candidates. No Akins in this bunch. If anything, the Democrats are nominating the gaffe-machines. Braley and his diarrhea of the mouth when it comes to farmers, and now the Montana candidate gets busted committing plagiarism several years back. Sure, the GOP could fall short again, but simply the fact that they SHOULD take the Senate means they are credible. Competitiveness is credible by definition. > [@](#): > > And you know why, too. State boundaries were gerrymandered by the Constitutional Congress? > [@](#): > > It is \*your \*claim that your party will win based on simple historical inertia. It is \*not \*your claim that they present a more compelling argument, nor can it be. Actually, that’s not my claim. I HATE it when people assume they will just win, just because. The GOP will lose if they fail to match Clinton with a candidate who presents an alternative to her biggest weaknesses: Her age and her status as an icon of the status quo. Obviously, Jeb Bush doesn’t do that. Rand Paul or Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie do. > [@](#): > > So you must have meant somebody else by “young, compared to her oldness and sameness”, then. Who? One more thing I forgot to mention: With Democrats railing against the rich and powerful, the fabulously wealthy Hillary Romney will be running against a Republican of modest origins. Other than Bush, they all come from modest origins. I wonder how Democrats will make the argument that we need a longtime member of the 1% to lead us? Probably the same way they argue in Congress as we speak that the largest companies in the world need subsidies. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/583 "2014-07-24T16:06:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He did, too. Only by rigging the vote-counting in Ohio were were subjected to four more years of your party’s historical disaster of an administration. That’s a very technical definition of “victory”, even if we grant the premise. Kerry would have won the election, yet lost the popular vote by 3 million. While obviously that would mean Kerry was the President, and I’d support that outcome because I believe in the Electoral College, it wouldn’t have been a Bush loss because he was unpopular or disastrous. It would have been a Bush loss because the vagaries of the Electoral College worked against him as it did Gore. Besides, I don’t recall Dopers confidently asserting, “Yeah Kerry’s behind in the polls, but he’s going to win on a technicality!” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/584 "2014-07-24T16:08:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Actually, that’s not my claim. I HATE it when people assume they will just win, just because. The GOP will lose if they fail to match Clinton with a candidate who presents an alternative to her biggest weaknesses: Her age and her status as an icon of the status quo. Obviously, Jeb Bush doesn’t do that. Rand Paul or Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie do. Paul/Jindal/Christie have already done enough to present an alternative? Boy, I hope the Republicans are as confident as you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/585 "2014-07-24T16:12:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The GOP corrected that mistake by nominating all credible candidates. No Akins in this bunch. So you say. For now. You seem not to recall that the exposure of your candidates (there were multiple “rape guys”, as you may know) didn’t happen until after this time of year then, either. You also seem not to recall that the Teahadists are even more firmly in control of your party now than then. > [@](#): > > Sure, the GOP could fall short again, but simply the fact that they SHOULD take the Senate means they are credible. Competitiveness is credible by definition. Circular to the point of incoherence. Unless all you really mean is “They’ll win this time because I think they deserve to”, without showing any reasons for that, as you admit you can’t. > [@](#): > > Rand Paul or Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie do. Kindly refer to head-to-head matchup numbers and consider how screwed you are if those are your options. > [@](#): > > I wonder how Democrats will make the argument that we need a longtime member of the 1% to lead us? By working for the 99%, by showing they know how fortunate they are and how much the rest of us need help and how they are committed to using their power to provide it. The way FDR did it, IOW. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/586 "2014-07-24T16:18:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Paul/Jindal/Christie have already done enough to present an alternative? Boy, I hope the Republicans are as confident as you. I’m only talking about the most superficial of issues becuase it’s so early. Clinton is old. They are young. They represent change. Clinton represents more of the same. Clinton is a play it safe politician. Paul/Jindal/Christie are unconventional. Obviously, the actual race will involve events, policy proposals, debates, gaffes, etc. I’m not claiming the GOP will win, only that history favors them, so don’t put too much faith in current polls this far out. Which really should be an uncontroversial argument before we’re even at the midterms. The 2016 Presidential race will be as competitive as the last few. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/587 "2014-07-24T16:24:04Z")
By _unconventional_, do you mean _wingnutty_? BTW, no, obstructionism does not mean change, quite the opposite in fact. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/588 "2014-07-24T16:24:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So you say. For now. You seem not to recall that the exposure of your candidates (there were multiple “rape guys”, as you may know) didn’t happen until after this time of year then, either. You also seem not to recall that the Teahadists are even more firmly in control of your party now than then. Your first point is valid. It’s too early to be sure. But, we do have positive indications. Almost all of these guys are experienced politicians and none of them are known as firebrands. > [@](#): > > Circular to the point of incoherence. Unless all you really mean is “They’ll win this time because I think they deserve to”, without showing any reasons for that, as you admit you can’t. I’m not sure what’s incoherent about the argument, “The GOP is expected to win the Senate, therefore they are credible.” There was a time not too long ago when the idea of the GOP winning the Senate would have been laughed at. That would be when the GOP was actually not credible. > [@](#): > > Kindly refer to head-to-head matchup numbers and consider how screwed you are if those are your options. How accurate were trial heat polls in previous elections? Not very. I’m sure Brain Glutton will be by shortly to whack us over the head for even talking about it this early. > [@](#): > > By working for the 99%, by showing they know how fortunate they are and how much the rest of us need help and how they are committed to using their power to provide it. The way FDR did it, IOW. FDR was succeeding a failed administration in a time of great crisis and running against the very guy who was failing. Hillary Clinton will be succeeding a failed administration in a time of blah and running against someone who is much more likely to pass the “guy you’d like to have a beer with” test. C’mon, you know Clinton’s weaknesses. She never comes off as genuine. She’s not going to be facing Mitt Romney. She’s going to be facing some pretty sincere guys, guys you consider to be sincerely wrong. But still more sincere than one of the most artificial candidates ever to run for President. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/589 "2014-07-24T16:26:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > By _unconventional_, do you mean _wingnutty_? Christie is a straight-talker and far from a radical. Jindal has never had problems working with his legislature and is actually quite charming when not overly scripted. Paul is a libertarian. Hard to call Paul a typical politician. > [@](#): > > BTW, no, obstructionism does not mean change, quite the opposite in fact. How does the obstructionism argument work against a Republican governor? Or even Rand Paul, who has gone out of his way to find partners on the other side of the aisle on a lot of issues? And succeeded. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/590 "2014-07-24T16:33:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Christie is a straight-talker Except when caught, i.e. Bridgegate. > [@](#): > > and far from a radical. Yes, more of a thug. > [@](#): > > Jindal has never had problems working with his legislature Gee, I wonder why? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > and is actually quite charming when not overly scripted. When not scripted, and sometimes even when he is, is when he shows us his wingnuttery. > [@](#): > > Paul is a libertarian. Hard to call Paul a typical politician. IOW, yes, wingnut. > [@](#): > > How does the obstructionism argument work against a Republican governor? By party name. Or simply by refusing Medicaid expansion - how many Republican governors does that leave? > [@](#): > > Or even Rand Paul, who has gone out of his way to find partners on the other side of the aisle on a lot of issues? And succeeded. In what alternate universe? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/591 "2014-07-24T16:36:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > In what alternate universe? Forget it Jake, its Adaher-town. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/592 "2014-07-24T16:37:46Z")
Paul, Wyden, and Udall wrote an op-ed together on NSA surveillance just last month: > **[Op-Ed: Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Rand Paul: How to end the NSA dragnet](https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-wyden-nsa-surveillance-20140617-story.html)** > > One year ago this month, Americans learned that their government was engaged in secret dragnet surveillance, which contradicted years of assurances to the contrary from senior government officials and intelligence leaders. Yeah, I know this is now wingnutty, Democrats having reconciled themselves to the Patriot Act just like they’ve embraced corporate welfare. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/593 "2014-07-24T16:38:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > FDR was succeeding a failed administration in a time of great crisis and running against the very guy who was failing. Fill in the party names and try again. > [@](#): > > Hillary Clinton will be succeeding a failed administration Only by using Hannity’s definition of Democratic and failed being synonyms. 😉 Really, you need to change the station once in a while, it will do you a world of good. > [@](#): > > C’mon, you know Clinton’s weaknesses. C’mon, you know she’s as familiar as anyone in public life could ever be, and that includes her weaknesses whatever they may be, and she’s still way out in front of anybody you can put forward as a plausible opponent. If your proposed strategy is to try to redefine her negatively, you’ve already lost, that can’t work. If your proposed strategy is to try to build up her negatives without offering a positive case of your own, you’ve already lost and, what’s more, you \*deserve \*to. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/594 "2014-07-24T16:38:46Z")
\*\* As an initial step, we have worked with our colleagues in the House and Senate to build support for a package of real and meaningful changes to the law that would promote the restoration of Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms, while protecting national security. This package of reforms includes overhauling domestic surveillance laws to ban the bulk collection of Americans’ personal information, and closing the loophole that allows intelligence agencies to deliberately read Americans’ emails without a warrant. It includes reshaping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by installing an advocate who can argue for Americans’ constitutional rights when the court is considering major cases, and by requiring that significant interpretations of U.S. law and the Constitution be made public. And it would strengthen and clarify the government’s authority to obtain individual records quickly in genuine emergency situations.\*\* Oh, pardon me Airbeck. You were saying something and I interrupted. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/595 "2014-07-24T16:39:36Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Forget it Jake, its Adaher-town. It’s lunchtime and I’m bored. Indulge me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/596 "2014-07-24T16:40:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Christie is a straight-talker What a joke. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you in New Jersey. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/597 "2014-07-24T16:41:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Only by using Hannity’s definition of Democratic and failed being synonyms. 😉 Really, you need to change the station once in a while, it will do you a world of good. > > . Only in the minds of extreme Democratic partisans could Obama’s performance be seen as mediocre or better. Is he a failed President now? It’s debateable. It will be less debatable come 2016 if we get half a dozen more major government failures in the media and nothing but partisan attacks and fundraisers from the President during that time, while he continues to deny the media access to him. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/598 "2014-07-24T16:42:20Z")
So what was all that nonsense about Republicans hoping for failure being _false_? Anyway, I agree Obama has no chance at re-election. None. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/599 "2014-07-24T16:43:48Z")
We certainly don’t want our foreign policy to fail. WOuld be nice if he’d start paying attention. Things haven’t been the same since Clinton left. Kerry’s proving how disastrous he would have been as President. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/600 "2014-07-24T16:45:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The 2016 Presidential race will be as competitive as the last few. Boy I hope so. I’m really hoping for another big Democratic victory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=31)