The Goat Pen

they haven't been too successful with moderates lately.

There moderates would have been to the right of the party 10 years ago. I do think you're right though. They really need to go ahead and nominate someone to the far right. They'll probably get crushed in the election though. Then they'll figure out how to be conservative while appealing to independents and others.

"they haven't been too successful with moderates lately."

If you're talking about Romney, he lost partially b/c he got off his moderate message and tried to appear more right than he really was. In fairness, he would've probably lost alot more rightwing repub votes by staying moderate than he would've gained moderate/independent votes, but that pretty much sums up the problem with the repub party right now, and I don't see an end in sight anytime soon. Like I said before, what's happening in the repub party right now is kinda like what happened in the dem party in the 60's and beyond. They got perceived as a party of extremists, as the party of the dirty hippies, and there was a backlash against them, at least as far as presidential politics were concerned.

That type of thing turns off most moderate voters and that's what's happening to the repubs right now. Most normal people don't like some shrill, no fun sounding school principal like Rick Santorum or that harpy from Minnesota (or North Dakota or wherever she's from) and they won't vote for them, at least not in sufficient numbers to get them elected. Sarah Palin is a joke, but at least she's somewhat hot, which makes up for alot, but not enough to get her taken seriously by anything close to a majority of people. Basically the only chance the repubs have is Chris Christie, who people like me would gladly vote for, but the far right won't forgive him for basically having his own mind and not spouting the proper party bullshit on every issue.

I have to admit, it's kinda fun watching the republican party implode, much as I'm sure people like WF Buckley took delight in watching the dems get associated with the most radical elements of the left wing in the 60's. I'm sure this will pass eventually, but it's going to be awhile...

Rand Paul would get his assed kicked nationally if his opponent was Jeanine Garofolo. Dems would love the fucking lay up. Don't do it, GOP. Don't do it.

DO IT!!!

At least SNL will have fun with it.

Bklyn wrote:Rand Paul would get his assed kicked nationally if his opponent was Jeanine Garofolo. Dems would love the fucking lay up. Don't do it, GOP. Don't do it.

I think he'd do better than Romney

Does Rand feel the same way about drug legalization as his pappy does? You know I support that, but it won't go over well with the religious crowd that makes up such a voluminous constituency for the repubs...

eCat wrote:I think he'd do better than Romney

Romney lost by 116 Electoral Votes. Progress is progress, but it doesn't mean much when the goal is winning, not a good showing.

It's quite simple, if you want to do national politics, you have to play the national game. The GOP cannibalizes itself so it controls its Congressional gerrymandered fiefdoms (incubators for policy delusion) and a nice chunk of state governorships, but that's as far as it goes until they get a candidate who knows how to craft the policy that will stand up to national scrutiny. I originally was not a Christie believer, but I think he has a shot to make some noise if the money lines up behind him. Unless Rand twists some things around, I don't see him gaining much ground in states that are purple.

Maybe the GOP doesn't want the Executive branch...but that will ultimately lead to a loss of the Judicial branch. Not a good look.

well, the Dems need to figure out who will succeed Obama. I dont' think Hilary is the answer.

true...I don't know if Hillary will run. However, if she did, she would get the nod. Well, I think so. I just don't know if she's up for doing 8 years. These last 4 took a lot out of her.

Hilary if she wants it. If not, then Biden if he wants it.

Neither are solid choices in November. But then it depends on how the next 4 years go. If Obama has a strong 2nd term and the GOP is still trying to figure out if it wants to represent the hilljack Bible thumpers, sleazy capitalist monoliths or the average American looking to keep gov't at a minimum but still on his side, then the Dems will stay in the White House.

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:I think he'd do better than Romney

Romney lost by 116 Electoral Votes. Progress is progress, but it doesn't mean much when the goal is winning, not a good showing.

It's quite simple, if you want to do national politics, you have to play the national game. The GOP cannibalizes itself so it controls its Congressional gerrymandered fiefdoms (incubators for policy delusion) and a nice chunk of state governorships, but that's as far as it goes until they get a candidate who knows how to craft the policy that will stand up to national scrutiny. I originally was not a Christie believer, but I think he has a shot to make some noise if the money lines up behind him. Unless Rand twists some things around, I don't see him gaining much ground in states that are purple.

Maybe the GOP doesn't want the Executive branch...but that will ultimately lead to a loss of the Judicial branch. Not a good look.

Christie won't get the support because he is too quick to tell anyone who reminds him his actions aren't conservative to fuck off. At first I thought Christie would be a great candidate, but the first crisis he'd cave. He'd have to pull a Mitt Romney and basically denounce 1/3 of all his decisions as a governor in an effort to gain favor in the republican party. And he isn't the type that is going to do that. Now if he ran as a Democrat, he'd might just get the nod.

Its not going to be Republican or Democrats in the future, although 2016 may not be soon enough - Republican is a tainted brand at this point and in the eyes of conservatives there is little difference between the two parties. Rand Paul for now is the person that making the distinction between Republican and Conservative resonates with the people, especially after McCain and Graham went after him on his drone filibuster.
He still has the baggage of his father which will be his biggest handicap. If someone was a clone of Rand (Cruz?) they may surpass Rand over the next couple of years

If Hilary runs in 2016, she wins by a landslide. She will get so much of the female vote that is either on the fence or wouldn't have voted at all if she wasn't running it's ridiculous. Her only campaign slogan should be: "It's Time". She will be kinda old and she may not want to do it, but there's no question that she's ambitious and the presidency is the biggest carrot (ahem) of alltime in her world. Add to that the idea of having Bill back in the White House, a former 2 term president who she can kick shit around with and who by then will be regarded as an almost mythical figure (if he isn't already) and it's a no-brainer...

As for Christie:

"Now if he ran as a Democrat, he'd might just get the nod."

That never occurred to me, but it's brilliant. That would absolutely work. He'd lose a good bit of the left and right wing fringe, but he'd get everybody in the middle and even on the fringes of the middle. That would be a stroke of genius...

Hillary need to spend the next 3 years doing everything she can to look and act 15 years younger. Sec of State has aged her badly.

Rand Paul would lose much worse than Romney if he gets the Republican nomination (which I doubt he'd come close to getting), especially if he ran against Hillary. He is outside the mainstream and to the right on many issues of the Republican party economic interests. His great ideas will be torpedoed by his crazy ideas (at least crazy in the minds of the vast majority)

Owlman wrote:Rand Paul would lose much worse than Romney if he gets the Republican nomination (which I doubt he'd come close to getting), especially if he ran against Hillary. He is outside the mainstream and to the right on many issues of the Republican party economic interests. His great ideas will be torpedoed by his crazy ideas (at least crazy in the minds of the vast majority)

only to liberal who wouldn't vote for him anyways

so the options are to run a moderate that will lose to the liberal because he'll never be accepted by the base or run a fiscal conservative that is socially liberal. It really depends on how the government is perceived over the next 3 years. America has learned with Obama that the new boss is the same as the old boss - record profits for banks,corporations, fannie mae and freddie mac - but unemployment is still too high, a record number of people on food stamps, and Obama's foreign policy is identical (if not moreso) than Bush. They also know the only way to get the government to cut spending in an era of record deficits is by sequestration, and now they know that when Biden stood up and said the president won't take your guns he lied. Finally, when people start seeing the cost of Obamacare without the exchanges in place for small business, it will turn some fencesitters into fiscal hawks.

The real divide here is heartland versus urban. The heartland vote will always go conservative.

Nothing galvanizes conservative voters like liberals trying to take away their guns.

So far, Rand's crazy ideas are to filibuster the presidents rights to kill Americans on American soil (in the eyes of the general public) and fight to keep the government from banning weapons guaranteed by the second amendment......crazy right? He also gave back $500K of his budget (compared to the recent 5% Obama gave in empathy to those furloughed by his inability to govern effectively)

"only to liberal who wouldn't vote for him anyways"

Again I axe: What is Rand's position on drug legalization? If it's the same as his pappy's, he might actually gain some liberal votes that he wouldn't otherwise get, but he'd lose a shit ton of religious freak-o "conservative" votes that he *might* have gotten otherwise....

and while I don't think its enough, Rand has accepted that the illegal aliens here now will eventually be registered voters and he is ready to implement policy decisions that won't make all of them democrats.

I think his position on drugs is probably the same as his fathers and most libertarians - it plays well with the college age crowd and grateful dead fans but not so much with the bible base.

But if you were take the pulse of the GOP at this point I think you'd see alot of them are fed up with the notion that the evangelical conservatives are driving a wedge between in the party and is the reason the part can't take the White House.

It won't go away overnight but there is some serious backlash going on for GOP candidates that won't address fiscal issues but will make sure they draft pro-life legislation.

I don't think those are the crazy things Spacer was talking about. You're about to get a mini rant based on judicial philosophy (and maybe some education points added in), methinks...