You don’t get it. The TPers do fine in local elections. They do TERRIBLE in national races. They adored Chrstine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell too. In fact, the GOP would have probably won the Senate in 2010 if the TPers didn’t play such a critical role in bumping out more reasonable candidates for whack-jobs like O’Donnell.
Remember, this thread is about winning in the general election-- not who might win in a few primaries.
I’m not so sure. Let’s say they nominate Walker. The base (Tea Party + religious right + anti-government) will come out in droves. Let’s say they nominate Bush. These groups will still vote for Bush, but without enthusiasm. They’ll be more likely to sit it out. So I think the question is do you want to turn out everybody that’s already in your tent or do you want to risk losing some in the tent to apathy in return for luring some outside the tent? I think it’s an open question with no clear answer.
Let me walk you thru this. The elections are determined, in large part, by the few undecided folks in the middle. TPers often scare the shit out of such voters and put them in the Democratic camp. The GOP had a very safe, almost sure shot at keeping the Senator for Delaware. But he got ousted in the primary by the TPer’s darling, who lost to the Democrat in the general election that fall.
TPers don’t play well in national elections. That has proven itself multiple times in the recent past.
One question I always have, who would teabaggers vote for if not the Moderate Republican? Sure some may go off the reservation and vote for some wacko right-wing independent but the Pub would more than make up for it by picking up some moderates and Libertarians.
I don’t know if their thinking is backed up by reality, but some freeper and freeper-like voters think that they just didn’t show up in 2012 to vote because they couldn’t stomach Romney. So, not switching, but not voting.
I think it’s true that fewer people voted, but I don’t know if it was fewer Republican leaners or fewer overall.
It will be 2 people that aren’t even being considered right now. We are starting these elections way too early, Trump is a flash in the pan and people will be sick of him by next year.
Talk about a wasted opportunity - there is no way the Republicans lose Tennessee. Rubio’s better off moving to a swing state or at least a state that could conceivably be in play in the next decade.
To be sure, O’Donnell cost Castle a pretty good shot at the Senate. Angle gave Reid his only chance at keeping his seat. But these are both blue states and Tea’ers shouldn’t win there. How a TPer would do in a national race is still unproven. I think they’d carry the same states you’d expect a generic Republican to win.
The EC plays against the GOP as it is. They can’t afford to lose any swing states.
Sorry but Reagan/Jesus…? What the fuck? How does Jesus end up as VP? He has more name recognition, higher approval rating AND he’s older. Of course he does have a criminal record…
Florida has a law that someone cannot appear on the same ballot for two offices. Apparently, Rubio wasn’t interested in attempting to pull off the shenanigans Paul did in Kentucky (which has the same law), and decided to give up his Senate seat. He’s stated that he won’t run even if he withdraws from the presidential race in time to get on the ballot for Senate.
Interesting - thanks!
The Republicans are willing to do anything to avoid sending the message that they don’t respect women voters. Anything, that is, short of actually respecting women voters.
They need to read Bill Maher’s: Guide to Those Mysterious Voters Who are Not Men.
Elections are decided by two factors: Who can sway more of the middle, and who can pull in bigger turnout from their base. Tea party candidates certainly do some harm in the middle, but they also increase base turnout. Is this enough to offset the losses in the middle (and, perhaps, increased turnout on the other side)? Sometimes.
And a running mate moving to a different state isn’t going to do anything to turn voters from that state, and might even turn them away if they view the candidate as a carpet-bagging outsider. If you’re going to do that, then, it’s better to move to a safe state rather than a battleground.
Somehow Dick Cheney’s “move” to Wyoming didn’t cost them that state.
I’m coming of the opinion that the middle doesn’t exist anymore, winning elections is about mobilizing your base and demobilizing the opposition’s.
That’s how it’s been done the last few elections, but it seems to me that it’s the easy way out and does nothing to build a real mandate. Ideally, you want to mobilize your base AND win swing voters, and even attract new voters.
It sometimes seems like the modern Republican Party still thinks we’re living in 1950; when democracy meant that everyone - regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, or gender - was allowed to vote for the white male Christian of their choice.
Romney-Walker is my pick. Romney is the best candidate from either side of the aisle for this cycle, and both are successful governors. Romney can handle money, to say the least, and is used to an oppositional government. And the MSM has already used up most of its misrepresentations against Walker, and I don’t think they have gotten used to the fact that the electorate doesn’t do as the East Coast media types tell them automatically.
Regards,
Shodan
Successful at what, one may ask. Romney’s key achievement is Romneycare, Walker’s is union-busting.
When it’s his own, maybe. He was elected to manage the Big Dig, and you know how well he did that.
What do you think is the truth about him?
Couldn’t make yourself just type LSM, could you?