Hey, good one! Wait a tick, you’re serious! Day-um!
I’m guessing he’s talking about Marco Rubio, who is an up and coming Republican. Rubio actually would be an interesting nominee.
But the Republicans won’t nominate him in 2016. The Democrats will go with candidates like Obama or Clinton or Carter or Dukakis or Kennedy - candidates who essentially were unknowns at the start of their campaigns. The Republicans aren’t like that. They want to look a candidate over and think about him for a few years. Republicans don’t like to make snap decisions. You know who the last Republican presidential candidate was who got nominated in his first Presidential campaign? Eisenhower in 1952.
So here’s what will happen in 2016. Rubio will run but he won’t get nominated. This will be his introductory campaign. He’ll lose the nomination to somebody who’s already run before and lost (I predict Santorum but it could be Ryan). Then it’ll be Rubio’s turn to run his real campaign in 2020.
Romney beat a bunch of crazies, Daniels never entered the race. All right, Huntsman’s not crazy, but he went out of his way to alienate his base, a la Lieberman.
Okay, let’s go with this. If Romney and Huntsman were weak campaigners and all the others were crazies (and what kind of party has fourteen crazies in it?) then who should have run in 2012? Who was the Republican who would have beat Obama and why didn’t he or she run?
Huntsman and Daniels were the best candidates. Pawlenty was good too, although he lost early because Bachmann stole his thunder.
Romney was the best guy available and he came pretty close. He had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, but then Sandy and muffing a confrontation over Benghazi(with an assist from Candy Crowley) recentered the race.
2016 and on won’t be nearly as easy for Democrats. There’s no Obama-quality candidate, while the GOP has several exciting young contenders, plus a couple of exciting experienced ones like Chris Christie and Scott Walker. That being said, Hillary Clinton probably gets the Presidency if she wants it, but it’s hard to see anyone else beating a good GOP candidate, especially if Obama leaves office with sub-50% approval ratings.
If your thunder is so weak it can be stolen be Congresswoman Crazy Eyes, it is not a sign you would be a strong candidate.
I have to admit it’s fun watching you try to form some consistency out of all the tangled stuff you’ve throw out here.
Romney was the best Republican out there. But he got beat by Obama. And Obama’s a weak candidate that anyone can beat. So the Democrats are going to lose in 2016 because they don’t have anyone as good as Obama. However the Republicans are going to win because they have lots of candidates who are better than Romney or Obama. Except for Clinton, who’s the best candidate the Democrats have. Although she lost to Obama in 2008 even though he’s a weak candidate. Who beats the Republicans twice.
I said this a couple of years ago: until the Republican party can understand why people voted for Obama, they’re not going to figure out a way to change those people’s minds. But the party is full of people like you who are in denial - you can’t imagine voting for Obama so you can’t imagine how anyone else would. So you keep acting like it was some kind of trick and you just need to figure out how the trick worked.
In Obama I see a candidate who put together an unusual coalition for the Democrats that is unlikely to survive the end of his Presidency. Or even exist during his Presidency when he’s not on the ballot for that matter. His coalition didn’t show up for any of the special elections or the midterms, why would they show up for Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo?
Not that Clinton isn’t likely to win, she is, but she’ll do it with a different coalition: less minority turnout, more working class whites, even more women.
Democrats’ mistake is to assume that the wonders of Obama’s candidacy portend a seismic shift that will benefit all Democrats going forward. But the odds of black turnout exceeding white turnout in 2016, or of Hispanics breaking for Democrats by 60 points, are unlikely.
Face it, Obama won in 2012 by a) turning out his unique coalition and b) making the election about anything other than his Presidency.
Clearly the Democrats should run Candy Crowley in 2016, because she has the magic power to cause Republican candidates to say stupid things.
Speaking of which: Rubio has picking on gay people lately, forgetting that they and their supporters are a small but energized voting base and once more stapling shut the door of the Big Tent. I now await the inevitable idiotic reference to rape that every Republican seems to be required to make at least once in his career, which will be sure to cement the female vote - for someone else. Rubio’s best ploy would be to stand next to ex-Congressman West as often as possible, making Rubio look positively statesmanlike by comparison.
Because they always show up for presidential elections in greater numbers than in midterm elections.
This is a prime example of the thing I was talking about. Obama somehow won by the trick of getting “an unusual coalition”. So you dismiss his wins and figure things are back on the normal course of things - which you imagine means a Republican victory.
Here’s a wake-up call. The Republicans will not have an incumbent advantage in the 2016 election. The last time they got the majority of votes without that advantage was thirty-six years ago. You need to stop acting like Democratic victories are some fluke. And you sure as hell need to stop acting like the Republicans have already got it in the bag - the Republicans are going in to this election as ten point underdogs.
African-Americans normally do not exceed white turnout. That was a product of Obama being on the ballot.
Young voters were also part of that 2008 coalition, although they failed to show in 2012 compared to 2008.
You keep on using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Dude. They’re your candidates. If your party is picking crazy candidates, maybe you should re-examine your party’s values?
I think you are only fooling yourself if you don’t think there already is a seismic shift that is benefitting Democrats.
According to this chart, The Republican’s biggest fans continues to be white, married, evangelical, mid to high income voters (particularly men and old people). That, in and of itself, is a shrinking demographic.
It’s not so much that Obama created a “unique coalition” as millions of Americans who aren’t rich white guys (particularly women, minorities and young people under 30) simply don’t connect to the Republican party.
Christie is popular in New Jersey, but he’s not without his critics. Scott Walker is way to far to the right. So again, I feel like you are deluding yourself that the secret to winning is to double down on right wing.
Why not double down on right-wing? That’s how the Democrats are going to run, especially if it’s Clinton as the nominee. What are Republicans supposed to do, position themselves to the left of Democrats during campaigns?
At this point they’re barely to the left of Cthulu.
The only thing more entertaining than adaher himself is this brilliantly insightful summary of his ridiculous “insights.”
Little Nemo, you are and continue to be simply incredible 
WEll, when the Democrat promises a “net spending cut”, what’s left but to propose bigger spending cuts?
When a Democrat wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”, what’s left but to propose “safe, legal, and really rare”?
When a Democrat assures us that they won’t be seeking gun control legislation, what’s left but to seek to expand gun rights?
When a Democrat promises a tough path to citizenship combined with better border enforcement, what’s left but to seek a tougher path to citizenship and even better enforcement?
Except that what they’re actually proposing is “massive cuts regardless of the consequences”, “unsafe, illegal and humilating”, “making it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns” and “arrest anyone who looks vaguely Hispanic”.
But even that ignores the point that you’re assuming that the Republicans are defining themselves by the Democratic position, which is untrue and frankly if it were true it would be pathetic.
They aren’t doing that, but Democrats see political advantage in portraying themselves as only one step to the left of the GOP on most issues. They rarely come right out with a liberal stance on anything during campaign season.
I think it’s the Democrats doing the positioning, while Republicans are actually conservative and getting moreso. But that’s not stupid, that’s in response to the fact that 40% of Americans are conservative. It’s still a center-right nation.
What about Goldwater, Ford, and Bush Jr? I don’t think any of them had run for President before they got nominated.