T Nation

Republicans Could Lock Up 2016 If...


#1

The Republicans have a great opportunity to win the White House in 2016. There are three key candidates running, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. One of these candidates absolutely needs to be on the ticket with one of the other two.

The republicans need to win two key states in order to defeat Hillary Clinton (or whomever the democrats nominate)

They need Ohio and Florida. Without winning both states they lose! Reagan, Bush Sr., and W all won both Ohio and Florida. Neither McCain or Romney could do it.

Therefore, a smart ticket would include Ohio Governor John Kasich along with either Jeb Bush (former Gov. of Fla.) or Marco Rubio (Sen from Fla,). It matters not to me if Kasich is at the top or bottom of the ticket, nor does it matter if Rubio or Bush are on the ticket as long as one of them makes it.

There you have it, a sure fire win for the republicans. But will they take it, or will they once again snatch defeat from the mouth of victory?


#2

Not intending to derail this thread but is good to see you back Zeb, all the best.

I will bow out and let the heavy hitters continue.


#3

What if the Rs just beat the Ds to the punch and nominate Hillary to run as an R?

Kasich vs. Clinton, folks. This could be the most important election of your lives! Be sure to voluntarily put your stamp of approval on it, or you may have to the next time!

What is it that I’ve often heard? Something like, “If voting mattered, it would be illegal.” Of course, those that don’t vote have no voice…yet I believe I’ve heard mention of making not voting illegal. If not voting mattered, wouldn’t it be illegal?

*The above should not be construed as criticism of the OP


#4

The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?

The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose.


#5

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?

The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]

The republicans didn’t lose because republican voters stayed home, they lost because democratic voters didn’t stay home. Unfortunately I think that’s the new normal.


#6

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The ticket idea perplexes me. It matters very little who the candidate picks for a his/her running mate. Did people really vote for Obama/Biden? Did Biden bring in extra votes in 08 and 12? Was the hope and change crowd enamored with what Biden could bring to the table?

The Republicans can win if they run on conservatism. No more Purple candidates. Jeb can’t be the nominee. Give people a reason to go to the polls. How many Republicans stayed home in 08 and 12? A choice between Jeb and a democrat is a lose lose. [/quote]

I think you forget the voters who are between the two parties, they probably put things like pragmaticism, ability to lead etc higher than how conservative the candidate is. Either party must in order to win, do one of two things: Either win the non-partisan vote and/or fire up the people who usually does not vote to come and vote for them. A purist candidate will have a hard time pulling people from the center towards the deep end of their spectrum. This is why the Ron Pauls and the Bernie Sanders of the world arent party-establishment favourites, the Jeb Bushes and Hillary Clintons on the other hand are because they are more moderate and doesnt scare off those who arent self identified conservatives or liberals. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Btw
Welcome back Zeb.


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

The republicans didn’t lose because republican voters stayed home, they lost because democratic voters didn’t stay home. Unfortunately I think that’s the new normal.[/quote]

I think it was both. Romney (nor Obama) certainly didn’t get my vote. Jeb (nor Clinton) won’t either.[/quote]

Montana is not a swing state so you have the luxury of voting for some Libertarian (or other 3rd party candidate) who appeals to your ideals. I have a hunch, or at least I hope, if you still lived in Florida you would swallow hard and cast your ballet for the likes of Romney & Jeb. Am I not right?


#9

[quote]on edge wrote:

The republicans didn’t lose because republican voters stayed home, they lost because democratic voters didn’t stay home. Unfortunately I think that’s the new normal.[/quote]

While I think there is some truth to that evidenced by the Democratic ground game in some of the select states like Ohio, I also think, much to the chagrin of the more resident conservative voters here, that we really are seeing a lean to the left wherein more younger voters (say maybe 45ish and under) are leaning to the left on social issues and basing those issues on what largely dictates their votes, overlooking the myriad of other issues that should concern government.

You can throw all of this evidence out there about voting trends, stats, etc., but it’s difficult to compile hard data on the psychology of the American voter when the ballot box is quasi-secretive and people can be dishonest towards polling surveys anyhow.


#10

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

The republicans didn’t lose because republican voters stayed home, they lost because democratic voters didn’t stay home. Unfortunately I think that’s the new normal.[/quote]

While I think there is some truth to that evidenced by the Democratic ground game in some of the select states like Ohio, I also think, much to the chagrin of the more resident conservative voters here, that we really are seeing a lean to the left wherein more younger voters (say maybe 45ish and under) are leaning to the left on social issues and basing those issues on what largely dictates their votes, overlooking the myriad of other issues that should concern government.

You can throw all of this evidence out there about voting trends, stats, etc., but it’s difficult to compile hard data on the psychology of the American voter when the ballot box is quasi-secretive and people can be dishonest towards polling surveys anyhow.
[/quote]

Yep, I’d agree with this. It’s a one way ticket gents. The only way for a republican to win is to be moderate or left of center on social issues to pull undecided voters while being conservative fiscally.

There is always the possibility that there comes along another great Communicator to relate conservative social issues in a way that won’t turn off moderates…but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Thats a long way off from the current crop.

The left won the ground game. Plain and simple. It played the long game and won on most social issues.


#11

Nominating someone based on “he/she could win X state” and not “he/she would make a good POTUS” is the wrong, wrong path.

I’m not going to vote for the lessor of two evils anymore. I’ll not be voting anything but my convictions. Letter next to a name doesn’t matter, campaign promises don’t matter. Track record is all that matters. If that means I leave POTUS blank, so be it. I will never, ever vote “because they can win X state”.

And there is a whole lot of right leaning folks who agree with me.

Enjoy nominating a squish, and enjoy getting smoked by the Democrats.

End of the day, if the republicans keep the senate in 2016, I’d rather see Hilary win anyway. I don’t want one party control of both congress and POTUS.


#12

Zeb,

I agree the GOP has to go with electable candidates and forego the right-wingers. But they also need a bona fide platform, and I am having a hard time seeing one materialize.

Economic issues continue to be top priority among voters, and what will the GOP be offering to do about them? Cut taxes? On the exhausted theory that businesses will invest in improving productivity and the economy will improve as a result? When businesses have consistently taken their gains and distributed them as dividends instead of expanding production?

The GOP has got to come up with some new policy material. If they run on their old stuff, I don’t think the candidate matters - voters have given the GOP a new beginning (thanks to an incredibly bad performance by Democrats), but in 2016, they’ll be expecting something more than “not a Democrat.”

I am not certain they will. But I agree with you - having a moderate candidate, while not sufficient to win, will be a necessary condition.


#13

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,

I agree the GOP has to go with electable candidates and forego the right-wingers. But they also need a bona fide platform, and I am having a hard time seeing one materialize. [/quote]

I’ll be honest. I don’t think former matters near as much as the latter.

Someone that can bob and weave through the hyperfocus the media places on every republican candidate while tossing softballs at democrats can hold their “right-wing” convictions solid and be very electable IF they present an actual platform and SHOW they can be effective.


#14

[quote]JR249 wrote:
leaning to the left on social issues and basing those issues on what largely dictates their votes, overlooking the myriad of other issues that should concern government.

[/quote]

So much of this. Let’s get caught up in non-issues (gay marriage, abortion, what music they listen to, RACE!) and over look substance issues which effect EVERYONE.

Our government is nothing more than a collection of who’s the best liar, and who has the best PR spin people. It’s a glorified american idol contest.

(if the right could just stop caring about what 2 consenting adults do, and ease up on the abortion rhetoric they would win over a ton of people)

(Ohio swing state - Obama somehow managed to get a large turn out in Cuyahoga county, you know why? Because he is black, and people who would otherwise not give a shit dragged their ass to the polls to vote for the black guy. No clue on the issues, but he’s black, so he got their vote. I would bet everything i own those same people would have stayed home if it were a white women on the ballot.)


#15

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I agree with you - having a moderate candidate, while not sufficient to win, will be a necessary condition.[/quote]

Fine. And I agree that the Santorim and Huckabees of the world aren’t getting elected. But neither is a Bush…

I feel like you guys don’t appreciate the low information garbage middle and left voters eat up. If you have facebook, go to the page “being liberal” or the website “addicting info” or “upworthy”, they are all run by the same dude, Matthew Desmond. THAT is what the republican’s are up against…

Intellectuals don’t win elections, and intellectual platforms based on sound economics dont’ win elections. 30 second soundbites that hit people right in the feels, during good appearances on the Daily Show win elections.

People like Zepplin and Pittbull vote, understand nothing about economics and are representative of a lot of voters…


#16

Therein lies the problem.

“Repeal Obamacare/The last 8 years have been a disaster”; “Close the Borders”; and “Benghazi” are not Platforms. They are debate points and issues used to fire up ones base.

Platforms should represent a clear blueprint for where a Party or Person would like to take the Country, in order to solve our Myriad of problems.

BOTH parties fall short in this regard.

However; as someone said…“Not Hillary” and blasting President Obama is neither a blueprint nor even a vision. There will need to be a lot more presented if a 2016 Presidential election win is a Goal.

Mufasa


#17

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Fine. And I agree that the Santorim and Huckabees of the world aren’t getting elected. But neither is a Bush…[/quote]

I believe that the proper plural of “Santorum” would be “Santora”.


#18

By the way, CB:

There is a lot of Conservative garbage on Social Media that would make Ronald Reagan turn over in his grave.

The vitriol and hate I see, especially toward this President, can be down right scary.

The point is that there is PLENTY out there to counter all the liberal garbage you see.

Mufasa


#19

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I agree with you - having a moderate candidate, while not sufficient to win, will be a necessary condition.[/quote]

Fine. And I agree that the Santorim and Huckabees of the world aren’t getting elected. But neither is a Bush…

I feel like you guys don’t appreciate the low information garbage middle and left voters eat up. If you have facebook, go to the page “being liberal” or the website “addicting info” or “upworthy”, they are all run by the same dude, Matthew Desmond. THAT is what the republican’s are up against…

Intellectuals don’t win elections, and intellectual platforms based on sound economics dont’ win elections. 30 second soundbites that hit people right in the feels, during good appearances on the Daily Show win elections.

People like Zepplin and Pittbull vote, understand nothing about economics and are representative of a lot of voters… [/quote]

There is also the money factor and stuff like this http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/on-the-face-of-it-the-psychology-of-electability


#20

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nominating someone based on “he/she could win X state” and not “he/she would make a good POTUS” is the wrong, wrong path.

I’m not going to vote for the lessor of two evils anymore. I’ll not be voting anything but my convictions. Letter next to a name doesn’t matter, campaign promises don’t matter. Track record is all that matters. If that means I leave POTUS blank, so be it. I will never, ever vote “because they can win X state”.

And there is a whole lot of right leaning folks who agree with me.

Enjoy nominating a squish, and enjoy getting smoked by the Democrats.

End of the day, if the republicans keep the senate in 2016, I’d rather see Hilary win anyway. I don’t want one party control of both congress and POTUS. [/quote]

I’ve had a similar position for a while now. The tactical idea is only worthwhile to secure short term tactical advantage. The good of the country takes a back seat almost every time when those considerations are the guiding light for candidates.