FYI on Ohio.
Romney won 48.2% with 2,697,260
Obummer won 50.1% with 2,593,779
Romney only lost Ohio by 103,xxx votes
Obummer won Cuyahoga country with 420, 953 votes
vs. Romney with 184,475
and those 420,xxx that obamo got in cuyahoga, are not turning out to vote for hillary, warren, or sanders this time around…
[quote]Aggv wrote:
FYI on Ohio.
Romney won 48.2% with 2,697,260
Obummer won 50.1% with 2,593,779
Romney only lost Ohio by 103,xxx votes
Obummer won Cuyahoga country with 420, 953 votes
vs. Romney with 184,475
and those 420,xxx that obamo got in cuyahoga, are not turning out to vote for hillary, warren, or sanders this time around…
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/ohio/[/quote]
Absolutely, totally agree with you. But, if you are making an argument not to have John Kasich on the ticket because we will win Ohio anyway I would say you are overly optimistic. Yes, we could win Ohio without Kasich. But WITH Kasich we WILL win Ohio there is no question. And we would probably win in a very big way. And with Kasich we spend less money in Ohio and spend it instead on winning toss up states if played correctly. this forces the democrats to abandon Ohio and pour even more money into those toss up states fearing a huge defeat. Then again they could try the hail Mary and pour millions into Ohio in a losing attempt which is even better. Now what would they do if we had a lock on both Florida and Ohio? This now places the democrats in virtually an unwinnable position! How do they wrestle both Ohio and Florida away from the republicans when the republican ticket has someone from both states? They will be running in circles not fully knowing what to do. This also causes chaos in a campaign. As you can imagine they will be split on where to spend the money where to send their candidate etc.
We know we must win Ohio and Florida so why play around? If we have the top and bottom of the ticket covered with Ohio and Florida candidates that places the dems on the defense from the opening bell.
This is how landslides are built my friend!
Your thoughts?
[quote] ZEB wrote:
Yes, Rubio is young but he’s not Obama by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote]
I think you have some party blinders on. Obama surrounded himself with plenty of party warhorse, but he makes the decisions. His inexperience has been terrible for America, irrespective of his ideology. And just because Rubio has the “right ideas” doesn’t change the fact that inexperience will be terrible for America, once again.
That’s true for many reasons, not the least of which is that a president must spend time reacting to unforeseen events. Presidents don’t get to implement their “right ideas” on a blank canvass - they have to do so across a precarious terrain in a system built to slow down and trim “right ideas”.
Rubio hasn’t shown an ability to do that. No experience. That kind of naivete can produce unintended consequences beyond a presidential term - it can cost a party its ascendant majority.
The GOP - broadly - is sitting with real but fragile opportunities. They wouldn’t do well to place all that is the hands of a rookie, as the Democrats did.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Yes, Rubio is young but he’s not Obama by any stretch of the imagination
I think you have some party blinders on. Obama surrounded himself with plenty of party warhorse, but he makes the decisions…[/quote]
Yes the ultimate decisions are made by the President. And while there are some Clinton holdovers in the White House there are also some pretty scary left wing Alinski types who he relies on. When Al Sharpton visits the White House that many times it’s more than just appeasement on the part of Obama. Al’s talking and Obama is listening.
No doubt inexperience has not helped him. But when you look at most of his really bad ideas it’s all pretty much left wing crap. Starting with Obama care and moving right on through left wing Supreme Court picks to the illegal aliens. But certainly his inexperience also helped him along to the title of worst modern day President.
Are there better people to sit in the Oval Office than Marco Rubio? Absolutely! But again unless we win there is no republican in the White House. It will be Hillary Clinton and once again 4 maybe 8 years of horrible decisions. Granted she won’t be as bad as Obama…I don’t think that’s possible. That aside, I want to win and win as big as we can. Rubio fills that bill even if he is on the bottom of the ticket. Surely you don’t have a problem with that. One look at Joe Biden and some of the others who have held that slot should immediately tell you that Rubio is certainly up to the job.
Agreed.
[quote]Rubio hasn’t shown an ability to do that. No experience. That kind of naivete can produce unintended consequences beyond a presidential term - it can cost a party its ascendant majority.
The GOP - broadly - is sitting with real but fragile opportunities. They wouldn’t do well to place all that is the hands of a rookie, as the Democrats did.
[/quote]
Actually Rubio has a ton more experience than Obama when the latter was elected.
Rubio was City Commissioner for Miami. Then he served in the Florida House of Representatives in 2000. Then Speaker of the State House in 2006. He was elected to the US Senate in 2010 and actually sponsored bills and voted on things etc. In other words he was active and participating unlike Obama who started running for President after being a Senator for only 2 years and he really didn’t have much of a record. Well he had the most liberal voting record of any US Senator (if I’m not mistaken).
But, I do agree that there are other republican candidates who have more experience. Personally I prefer Governors over all other candidates generally speaking. But the comparison to Obama can stop now. No one was ever elected to the Presidency with less experience than Obama.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier I would like to see Rubio on the bottom of the ticket with someone like John Kasich, Rick Perry, or Scott Walker at the top of the ticket. There are other powerful match-ups but I think Rubio as VP could pull not just minority voters but women as well. And we need that running against Hillary.
Your thoughts?
Zeb,
I think Rubio wouldn’t be out of his depth as a vice president, but if Rubio starts getting into contention for the top slot, the GOP is going to make with the same mistake as the Democrats did in 2008. Wiser decisions should prevail, but hey, these the same voters who gave Ben Carson high marks for leadership and now thinks Donald Trump is the answer, so wise decisions may not be in the offing.
I think Rick Perry actually has a decent chance. Governor, sounds sensible, hails from a state with complicated politics and a diverse economy. He has Bush-like credentials without being a Bush. He has to get the timing right, but I think people will warm to him.
I view this as a free agent - I don’t consider myself a Republican. I’m lookin for the best ticket that will deal with the most pressing issues, primarily massive fiscal and good government reform. If the GOP just doubles down on the same old same old - then I’m going shopping.
Trump maintains his lead. There is no good to come of this. Every day he remains in the news as a top candidate is a day the GOP brand sinks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,
Yes WIN, that’s quite a mistake.
First of all Ben Carson is a joke. Yes, he’s black and no doubt he thinks he can pull off an Obama, well he can’t! Black people will never leave the democratic party to vote for a black republican. And with his inexperience as a candidate he is certainly one of the republicans who would probably lose to Hillary.
also, early polls really only indicate name recognition. It’s only after the voters have the opportunity to see and hear the candidates for themselves then things change. While Bush will no doubt remain in the top three or so, Trump will fade. His brashness will wear thin eventually.
I think he would be a better President than candidate. Unfortunately, he does not come off as a really smart guy. Now you and I know that as a successful Governor he’s not doubt a smart guy. But, it’s all about perception and while I like Perry a lot I worry that he gives off this ignorant Texan vibe. Remember during one of the debates last time around he made a statement, something like: “There are three agencies that I would immediately get rid of as President.” He then named two and totally forgot the third one. “Um…it’s… now what was that third one?” Romney chimed in to try to help him it was a freaking train wreck. I hope he’s better this time around because his competition will certainly be better.
But where will you go? Do you actually think Hillary and whomever they cast her with as VP will have the answers to massive fiscal government reform? Come on TB, if we are ever going to dig out of this mess it will come from the republicans. Granted they have let me down several times. But all the dems want to do is expand government and take more money out of the private sector while doing it. And as you know there is no credible third party. So I have no idea where you are going to be shopping.
Give us one good republican President with a republican house and senate and we are on our way to the reform that you speak of.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think he would be a better President than candidate. Unfortunately, he does not come off as a really smart guy. Now you and I know that as a successful Governor he’s not doubt a smart guy. But, it’s all about perception and while I like Perry a lot I worry that he gives off this ignorant Texan vibe. Remember during one of the debates last time around he made a statement, something like: “There are three agencies that I would immediately get rid of as President.” He then named two and totally forgot the third one. “Um…it’s… now what was that third one?” Romney chimed in to try to help him it was a freaking train wreck. I hope he’s better this time around because his competition will certainly be better.
[/quote]
I watched all the candidate-for-governor debates when I lived in Texas. Let’s just say the debate you are referring to wasn’t an anomaly.
[quote] ZEB wrote:
Give us one good republican President with a republican house and senate and we are on our way to the reform that you speak of. [/quote]
And what on earth would you base that on?
There’s no reason to think the GOP is interested in doing anything about unsustainable entitlements or deficit spending. Any serious reform in this area requires both a reduction in government spending and raising revenue, either through raising taxes or closong expenditures (or really, both). Is a GOP president and a GOP-controlled Congress going to do that? There is absolutely no reason to think so. The GOP - in full control - is not going to raise taxes. Period.
There’s also little reason to think the GOP will morph into a pro-market party instead of a pro-business one. You think a GOP president and Congress are going to give Big Business a dose of tough medicine and start cutting them off from the sweetheart deals they have in government? I can’t see it.
The kinds of big reform I think are needed calls for ideas from both sides.
The last time the GOP had full control, we lived in a Tom Delay and George Bush world - cut taxes, keep on spending, becausr deficits are self-liquidating through the magic of supply-side tax cuts. And the candidates thus far haven’t distinguished themselves as deviating from that party line. And I expect they won’t.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] ZEB wrote:
Give us one good republican President with a republican house and senate and we are on our way to the reform that you speak of.� [/quote]
And what on earth would you base that on?
There’s no reason to think the GOP is interested in doing anything about unsustainable entitlements or deficit spending. Any serious reform in this area requires both a reduction in government spending and raising revenue, either through raising taxes or closong expenditures (or really, both). Is a GOP president and a GOP-controlled Congress going to do that? There is absolutely no reason to think so. The GOP - in full control - is not going to raise taxes. Period.
There’s also little reason to think the GOP will morph into a pro-market party instead of a pro-business one. You think a GOP president and Congress are going to give Big Business a dose of tough medicine and start cutting them off from the sweetheart deals they have in government? I can’t see it.
The kinds of big reform I think are needed calls for ideas from both sides.
The last time the GOP had full control, we lived in a Tom Delay and George Bush world - cut taxes, keep on spending, becausr deficits are self-liquidating through the magic of supply-side tax cuts. And the candidates thus far haven’t distinguished themselves as deviating from that party line. And I expect they won’t.
[/quote]
And you think the democrats will?
Seriously?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote] ZEB wrote:
Give us one good republican President with a republican house and senate and we are on our way to the reform that you speak of.�?� [/quote]
And what on earth would you base that on?
There’s no reason to think the GOP is interested in doing anything about unsustainable entitlements or deficit spending. Any serious reform in this area requires both a reduction in government spending and raising revenue, either through raising taxes or closong expenditures (or really, both). Is a GOP president and a GOP-controlled Congress going to do that? There is absolutely no reason to think so. The GOP - in full control - is not going to raise taxes. Period.
There’s also little reason to think the GOP will morph into a pro-market party instead of a pro-business one. You think a GOP president and Congress are going to give Big Business a dose of tough medicine and start cutting them off from the sweetheart deals they have in government? I can’t see it.
The kinds of big reform I think are needed calls for ideas from both sides.
The last time the GOP had full control, we lived in a Tom Delay and George Bush world - cut taxes, keep on spending, becausr deficits are self-liquidating through the magic of supply-side tax cuts. And the candidates thus far haven’t distinguished themselves as deviating from that party line. And I expect they won’t.
[/quote]
And you think the democrats will?
Seriously?
[/quote]
I didn’t claim Democrats will, but more importantly, you don’t rebut my claim that Republicans won’t.
Another option, of course, is divided government, and supporting candidates from both sides who add to the larger reform equation, even if we differ on other aspects.
But, serious question: which of these would be considered more of traitor/heretic to their party - a Democrat who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to sustain these programs, or a Republican who wants to raise taxes to help pay for Social Security and Medicare in order to sustain them?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And you think the democrats will?
Seriously?
I didn’t claim Democrats will, but more importantly, you don’t rebut my claim that Republicans won’t.[/quote]
Our only hope is with a good republican President and both houses of Congress stay republican. Perhaps a Scott Walker, Rick Perry or John Kasich could make a difference. Someone strong and unafraid of the media bashing that will inevitably happen when he tries to roll back government spending.
Well…I don’t see that happening.
[quote]But, serious question: which of these would be considered more of traitor/heretic to their party - a Democrat who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to sustain these programs, or a Republican who wants to raise taxes to help pay for Social Security and Medicare in order to sustain them?
[/quote]
I’m on this board talking about democrats raising my taxes and republicans giving me tax breaks all the time. But quite honestly if I saw my money actually going toward something worthwhile instead of just growing government I would be on board with a tax hike. But what really needs to happen is for government to become smaller. How did the federal government get so big that it tries to be all things to all people? Certainly our founders did not intend for this to happen. If we shrunk the size of government I don’t think either of your scenarios would need to take place do you?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Trump maintains his lead. There is no good to come of this. Every day he remains in the news as a top candidate is a day the GOP brand sinks.[/quote]
Yesterday, members of the House grilled DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson about sanctuary city policies that led to the murder of Kate Steinle.
Secretary Johnson was asked if the Obama Administration has made any attempts at reaching out to the Steinle family, his answer was “who”?
The piece of shit did not even know the name of the women murdered or her family, and you wonder why Trump resonates with people ? You wonder why people cheer when Trump speaks plainly about issues when you have lifeless brainstems in power who need barely know the difference between their elbow and their asshole ?
I am saying this in general TB, not to you directly. Trump won’t win, but him putting these issues in the face of all candidates is a good thing, they won’t be able to sit on the fence for long.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Trump maintains his lead. There is no good to come of this. Every day he remains in the news as a top candidate is a day the GOP brand sinks.[/quote]
Yesterday, members of the House grilled DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson about sanctuary city policies that led to the murder of Kate Steinle.
Secretary Johnson was asked if the Obama Administration has made any attempts at reaching out to the Steinle family, his answer was “who”?
The piece of shit did not even know the name of the women murdered or her family, and you wonder why Trump resonates with people ? You wonder why people cheer when Trump speaks plainly about issues when you have lifeless brainstems in power who need barely know the difference between their elbow and their asshole ?
I am saying this in general TB, not to you directly. Trump won’t win, but him putting these issues in the face of all candidates is a good thing, they won’t be able to sit on the fence for long. [/quote]
Yeah, I agree with this. As much as I may “like” Trump, I don’t know that he’d be a very good president. For this reason, I really hope he doesn’t win the nomination (I don’t think that’s likely anyway). But, I do think it’s good that he’s out there stirring the pot. These divisive-but-important topics need to be brought up, and most candidates would rather gloss them over so as not to offend anybody.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Trump maintains his lead. There is no good to come of this. Every day he remains in the news as a top candidate is a day the GOP brand sinks.[/quote]
Yesterday, members of the House grilled DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson about sanctuary city policies that led to the murder of Kate Steinle.
Secretary Johnson was asked if the Obama Administration has made any attempts at reaching out to the Steinle family, his answer was “who”?
The piece of shit did not even know the name of the women murdered or her family, and you wonder why Trump resonates with people ? You wonder why people cheer when Trump speaks plainly about issues when you have lifeless brainstems in power who need barely know the difference between their elbow and their asshole ?
I am saying this in general TB, not to you directly. Trump won’t win, but him putting these issues in the face of all candidates is a good thing, they won’t be able to sit on the fence for long. [/quote]
It’s a race against time regarding putting issues into the other candidates face vs. destroying the GOP brand. The other candidates will be slow to rise to any bait that Trump offers via “issues” because they don’t take him seriously as a candidate or statesman–only as a self interested showman.
And frankly, Trump handed the Democrats a golden egg with that “they’re rapists” thing. Doesn’t matter what he actually MEANT, it matters that he said something so easily weaponized against him. The longer he gets, the more damage he will do because he will say something epochally stupid again.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
It’s a race against time regarding putting issues into the other candidates face vs. destroying the GOP brand.[/quote]
That’s nonsense Trump has about as much chance of destroying the GOP brand as Bernie Saunders (who sits Way, Way over there on the left) has a chance to destroy the democrats brand. Over the years there’s been a lot of characters who ran for President on both sides. No long term damage done by any of them.
Of course he’s a showman first, that’s probably one of the reasons he’s running. He’s an egomaniac. But, when he raised the issue of illegal aliens, inarticulate as it was, he raised awareness and the silent majority suddenly popped their heads out of the sand and agreed. We need more of this, not less.
As for me I have been pounding the table about that issue for the past few years. These are illegal aliens! Just who are they do you know, does anyone know? It is Obama’s job to prevent this kind of thing from happening. But, instead he seems to encourage it. But, the mainstream liberal media sits back kisses Obama’s ass and says nothing. IT IS A FREAKING TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. And while I’d never support Trump in a primary good for him for raising this issue and waking people up.
[quote]And frankly, Trump handed the Democrats a golden egg with that “they’re rapists” thing. Doesn’t matter what he actually MEANT, it matters that he said something so easily weaponized against him. The longer he gets, the more damage he will do because he will say something epochally stupid again.
[/quote]
I respectfully disagree. The sentiment of what he said will be remembered by the masses. The media elite can say what they want.
Keep in mind Trump is not the issue. He’s not going to be the GOP candidate, nor will he be around anywhere near the end of the trail. Imagine him as a media mouth piece pointing to the issue of illegal immigration (or some other Obama crime that the main stream liberal media ignores).
Right now at least Trump is good for the republican party and he’s good for the country. There will be a time when he has worn out his welcome. But, that time is not yet here. I hope he raises more issues that the MSLM has ignored. I applaud his efforts and support his big mouth…for now.
Zeb,
Your insistent and uncritical GOP homerism is twisting you into indefensible knots.
Re: Trump, you say the sentiment of what he said will be remembered by the masses, but you insist he won’t damage the GOP brand.
Can’t have it both ways. The masses are going to remember or they aren’t - you don’t have the luxury of cherrypicking what people associate with Trump. And since they’re going to remember, they are going to remember the good (if there is any) and the bad (which already is plentiful and will be legion if he keeps talking). And they will attach it to the GOP.
Seriously, you need to consider upping your objectivity.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeb,
Your insistent and uncritical GOP homerism is twisting you into indefensible knots.
Re: Trump, you say the sentiment of what he said will be remembered by the masses, but you insist he won’t damage the GOP brand.
Can’t have it both ways. The masses are going to remember or they aren’t - you don’t have the luxury of cherrypicking what people associate with Trump. And since they’re going to remember, they are going to remember the good (if there is any) and the bad (which already is plentiful and will be legion if he keeps talking). And they will attach it to the GOP.
Seriously, you need to consider upping your objectivity.
[/quote]
Not at all TB.
I am very objective regarding the topic of Donald Trump as a republican Presidential candidate. I’ve said many times I will not support his candidacy. Furthermore, I’ve said that he is first a showman and is most likely doing this for the publicity value. Yet, at the same time I like what he had to say about immigration. It’s something that needed to be said plainly. We don’t get that type of honesty from the media. I wish he parsed his words better but that’s Trump. On the other hand, it is you who trash him regularly because you really dislike the man and seem to be absent the objectivity that you claim I need.
The masses WILL remember the issue of illegal immigration for certain. In fact, I doubt they enjoyed illegals coming into our country before Trump ever uttered a word about it. But, no one on the national scene seemed overly upset about it, which in turn most likely bothered the voters at a certain level. Voters want to hear someone echoing their views. Trump connected with his illegal immigration diatribe, give him his due.
Trump stands up makes some very brash statements and POW the average voter was delighted! Will they remember Donald Trump for what he is? I don’t think that matters one way or the other. As I said Bernie Saunders the self declared Socialist won’t be harming the democrats brand. Are you telling me we live in a country where a self made Billionaire (Yes I know he inherited about 25 million to get started ha), who happens to be a big mouth and an egomaniac is more harmful to a party than a Socialist?
Ronald Reagan would turn over in his grave at such a thought.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Trump maintains his lead. There is no good to come of this. Every day he remains in the news as a top candidate is a day the GOP brand sinks.[/quote]
Yesterday, members of the House grilled DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson about sanctuary city policies that led to the murder of Kate Steinle.
Secretary Johnson was asked if the Obama Administration has made any attempts at reaching out to the Steinle family, his answer was “who”?
The piece of shit did not even know the name of the women murdered or her family, and you wonder why Trump resonates with people ? You wonder why people cheer when Trump speaks plainly about issues when you have lifeless brainstems in power who need barely know the difference between their elbow and their asshole ?
I am saying this in general TB, not to you directly. Trump won’t win, but him putting these issues in the face of all candidates is a good thing, they won’t be able to sit on the fence for long. [/quote]
It’s a race against time regarding putting issues into the other candidates face vs. destroying the GOP brand. The other candidates will be slow to rise to any bait that Trump offers via “issues” because they don’t take him seriously as a candidate or statesman–only as a self interested showman.
And frankly, Trump handed the Democrats a golden egg with that “they’re rapists” thing. Doesn’t matter what he actually MEANT, it matters that he said something so easily weaponized against him. The longer he gets, the more damage he will do because he will say something epochally stupid again.
[/quote]
I disagree with your assessment, at least partially, because the POV you mention was the same that Democrats ran against in 2014, and the GOP electorally clobbered Obama. People will claim a low turnout, well that problem belongs to the other party, not mine. Perhaps if Obama and Democrats had a better track record, they might have given a reason for their base to turn out.
Trump went to the extreme with his statements, which are factually wrong, but he did stir the pot when on issues that needed to be.
Today Obama was asked about the idea of possibly taking back Cosby’s medal of freedom, he answered with some carnival barker like “I don’t know if there is legal precedent.”
Ask that same question to Trump, his answered would be something like "hell yes, it will be done by the end of the day.
People have become so used to bureaucratic gibberish that we are shocked when we hear the real-deal-Holyfield.
Zeb,
You’re all over the map.
My objectivity is fine, and objectively, Trump is terrible. Also, you can’t take off the blinders enough to see real candidate weakness when it is clearly evident. Which brings me to…
You like some (controversial) stuff Trump said. So? That doesn’t translate into “the average voter being delighted!”. There is no indication that is true - despite your best hopes. Oh, GOP baselings may be delighted, but that isn’t the same.
Illegal immigration is not a new subject, and polls show opinions are mixed, not white-hot angry. Maybe Trump massages your pleasure buttons on this topic, but not the “average voter”. This is where your lack of objectivity is obvious - you automatically equate your excitement over Trump’s comments to mean he’s making some impact on mainstream voters. Nonsense. And your blind homerism is getting the best of you.
What Sanders does or doesn’t do for Democrats is irrelevant - who has the “bigger” impact is irrelevant. The only question is whether Trump hurts the GOP - and he clearly does as long as he keeps flapping his gums in public.
The Reagan invocation makes no sense - setting said the fact he’d be viewed as a RINO squish, he supported amnesty and it’s unimaginable he’d be as a excited as you are about Trump’s irresponsible comments.