What about the republican commercial where the multimillionaire business man is wearing a plaid shirt with the sleeves rolled up and talking 'sincerely' with small town farmers while 'sincere' music plays in the background?
Politicians are FOS.
Seriously, GOP'ers? 2016 candidates so far.. Uggh.
- Thread starter CommieGator
- Start date
What about the republican commercial where the multimillionaire business man is wearing a plaid shirt with the sleeves rolled up and talking 'sincerely' with small town farmers while 'sincere' music plays in the background?
Politicians are FOS.
Generally speaking politicians are FOS and I dont trust any as far as I can throw them. That said, I've personally encountered the occasional business owner or executive who dresses in a more "blue collar" fashion.
All in all playing dress up I think is slightly less hypocritical than pocketing a quarter or half a million for a 30 minute speech and then pointing your finger at someone else and complain about how much money they got.
All in all playing dress up I think is slightly less hypocritical than pocketing a quarter or half a million for a 30 minute speech and then pointing your finger at someone else and complain about how much money they got.
You also continuously see GOP politicians and spokesmen putting their foot in their mouth, and that doesn't help the party image. Ann Coulter recently made another concerning the confederate flag drama.
They just can't keep doing that, and you cannot keep nominating people like Christine O'Donnell, Todd Aiken and Sharron Angle in major campaigns. You just can't do it.
That's not going to attract younger voters from the age of 22-35 and minority voters. You are dealing with a new generation and a new US demographic that is far more socially liberal and diverse, and is not quite as concerned (although they should be) with economic issues, so it appears. Yes, when it all crashes, and it will....Gen Y will be suffering a lot and then maybe they'll get it.
They just can't keep doing that, and you cannot keep nominating people like Christine O'Donnell, Todd Aiken and Sharron Angle in major campaigns. You just can't do it.
That's not going to attract younger voters from the age of 22-35 and minority voters. You are dealing with a new generation and a new US demographic that is far more socially liberal and diverse, and is not quite as concerned (although they should be) with economic issues, so it appears. Yes, when it all crashes, and it will....Gen Y will be suffering a lot and then maybe they'll get it.
Well, the Republicans have two things going against them:
1) The demographical move in this country is leaning for voters to become Democratic.
2) The media is clearly biased (as a whole) for Democrats.
As a voter used to vote more Republican and now more Democratic, I'll be the first to admit that, but the fact appears that the "image/perception" of the Republican Party is that it is stuck in the 80s as if nothing has changed since then. Catering to a dwindling base isn't going to cut it and now, gay marriage is legal federally. So, they've lost that battle socially that Karl Rove and George Bush used big-time as a fear point in the '04 cycle (it proved to be helpful in Bush's narrow re-election).
Add to it, that a lot of the "traditional", socially conservative base is now old and starting to die, literally. Things do change, and I believe a major economic event (i.e. another depression, which is coming) could turn the tables. Back in the 80s, the Democratic Party looked totally lost, as the party base shifted from the south to the northeast and industrial Midwest. They just kept losing, nominating one "liberal" after another with a dwindling party base. Things have changed though as the country has gotten less white and as younger voters, starting with the '00 election have become very strongly affiliated with the Democratic Party. Few if any of my generation cared about Bill Clinton's ethical dirt. What we saw was a booming economy (his doing or not) and Newt Gingrich essentially running himself into the ground growing up. It did big-time damage to the GOP image.
There was evidence, however that in '12, the "baby" voters (18-21), may not be as affiliated with the Democrats. I believe Romney broke even with Obama with them in '12 and may have even won their vote, but it was with minorities and voters 22-35 where Romney and McCain got crushed.
So, now what?
Of course while the Dems were nominating one lib after another in the 80s, they had a stranglehold on the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate for at least much of that time. Not sure about at state level.
The GOP must be doing some things right to be doing so well at the state level.
The GOP must be doing some things right to be doing so well at the state level.
Going third party is one reason these libs and under qualified people get elected. Voting third party is worse than not voting at all, your just wasting your vote.
Respectfully disagree. The GOP's inattention to- If not outright sanctimony and arrogance towards, their evolving base was the reason for Ross Perot and the foregone conclusion that accompanied his candidacy. Checkmate a united Democratic party.
Same exact thing you saw in the Nader/Gore deal, and to a lesser extent the ability of Barry to do the unthinkable and dethrone a dynasty and heir apparent- but I think the Dem's learning curve doesn't seem to have been as steep.
Gore losing TN wasn't the big shocker of '00, although Clinton/Gore carried TN twice. The big switch was WV, which was dominantly Democratic prior to then, except in GOP landslides. Since then, it's been all Republican at a national level.
Also, exit polls showed Perot supporters were nearly split in '92 had he not been on the ballot.
Still....as a candidate you would like to carry your home state. Granted Romney wasn't going to carry Mass, but hell even Mondale won Minnesota. Gore had not yet gone full blown ecofascist in 2000 to the point of turning off the folks back home in overwhelming fashion.
MN still has the longing streak of voting for Democrats, although part of that is that the state was represented at the top of the ticket by a presidential/vp candidate 5x from '64-'84. Ironically, it's one of the whitest states in the union.
Reality...
It doesn't matter who ends up on the Republican ticket.
The media will not let Hillary lose. PERIOD.
It doesn't matter who ends up on the Republican ticket.
The media will not let Hillary lose. PERIOD.
McCain was a horrible candidate. It's like the republicans said "no need for anything fresh, who's next in line?"
That was the only presidential election I didn't vote in since I became eligible.
Funny that the media hit piece suggesting he may have had an affair was run after he became a Presidential candidate.
Of course the economy was a factor. There were many other factors. But once he became the GOP nominee, he became the enemy. Prior to that, many in the media loved him or were favorable toward him because he was willing to "cross the aisle" and had an "independent streak."
Jeebus.freaking.christmas
Trump v. Walker for the nomination? A beauty pageant magnate reality TV star vs. a high-school graduate? Is this what we've become? If so I'm buying eighty acres in the remotest part of Alaska I can find and packing nothing but guns, ammo, p0rn, and seeds for next year's harvest- Because I'll be living in a yurt the rest of my life.
I'm missing the sarcasm here, obviously.. Right? I mean, Scott Walker at least has the money to buy a BA degree from the University of Phoenix right- Probably a PhD while he's at it, and meanwhile in the midst of a Presidential run, Trump's worried about stripping tiaras from disagreeable fashion models?
If that's the case, then when Hillary's elected, the Trump/Walker faction need to keep quiet.
Dudes, our beloved pal BBB is way more qualified than either- If I remember, UF undergrad and accounting Master's from Notre Dame. Our very own "BringBackBonner" should run for a sure & easily clinch in a landslide win against those two, as would, in this situation, most of the other posters on this forum... Where's "Burked" and his Ayn Rand nonsense all of a sudden??!!?!
Last edited:
In the long run, he's probably helping Republicans by playing the "bad cop" role. Eventually, the moderate, "good cop," Jeb will win the nomination.
I would rather have that Duck Dynasty guy be president than Trump. In addition to being a giant asshole, he doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line. WHen liberals talk nasty about Republicans, he's the epitome of what they are talking about.
That's pretty much the main reason that Romney lost, besides the obvious problem that he couldn't attract the non-white vote.
