-
At the start of the election for the new labour leader Corbyn was added to the ballot as a sort of token option . It was assumed he wouldn't win but he came in on a landslide . <br>
I wouldn't count out Hillary, she has the democratic nomination sewn up doesn't she? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="545776" data-time="1449085909">
<div>
<p>At the start of the election for the new labour leader Corbyn was added to the ballot as a sort of token option . It was assumed he wouldn't win but he came in on a landslide .<br>
I wouldn't count out Hillary, she has the democratic nomination sewn up doesn't she?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yep, no chance of her not getting the Dem nomination. Tho' I thought she'd beat Obama, run for 2 terms with him as VP & he'd now be running. God that would have been a slam dunk....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Presidential I still think Rubio has a very good shot, but he is having to wade so deep in crazy at the moment that he will have said something very unhelpful at some stage. Thats the issue wiith the Republicans, because 8/12th of the card is batshit crazy its incredibly hard to stay on the card & at not, at some stage be forced to agree that yes, all Mexicans are rapists, or corporations are people too, or women are too simple to decide shit like contraceptiuon. Then wham, its election time & you have to go "well... thats not what I meant!"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Republicans probably have the best candidates, but are hamstrung by an awful process they have set up. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="545949" data-time="1449137536"><p>
Yep, no chance of her not getting the Dem nomination. Tho' I thought she'd beat Obama, run for 2 terms with him as VP & he'd now be running. God that would have been a slam dunk....<br><br>
Presidential I still think Rubio has a very good shot, but he is having to wade so deep in crazy at the moment that he will have said something very unhelpful at some stage. Thats the issue wiith the Republicans, because 8/12th of the card is batshit crazy its incredibly hard to stay on the card & at not, at some stage be forced to agree that yes, all Mexicans are rapists, or corporations are people too, or women are too simple to decide shit like contraceptiuon. Then wham, its election time & you have to go "well... thats not what I meant!"<br><br>
The Republicans probably have the best candidates, but are hamstrung by an awful process they have set up.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Being the leftie that I am, I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans, but the process isn't the issue for the Republicans, it's that much of their base is far right religious wackos. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="546166" data-time="1449256777">
<div>
<p>Being the leftie that I am, I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans, but the process isn't the issue for the Republicans, it's that much of their base is far right religious wackos.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Nate Silver was pointing out the other day that part of the issue with the primary's was that Trump or Carson (so the insane) have 25%. But thats 25% of <strong><em>registered republicans</em></strong>, So really thats 25% of 25% of the Republican party. IE the people actively polling right now are a tiny chunk, but being treated as if they were half of America.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its why Silver still has Trump at fuck all chance in the election, even now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While I agree a lot of the Republicans are guns, no abotions, slavery is OK, kill mexicans, its nowhere near as many as the press would suggest by constantly refering to the polls.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546195" data-time="1449269329">
<div>
<p>Nate Silver was pointing out the other day that part of the issue with the primary's was that Trump or Carson (so the insane) have 25%. But thats 25% of <strong><em>registered republicans</em></strong>, So really thats 25% of 25% of the Republican party. IE the people actively polling right now are a tiny chunk, but being treated as if they were half of America.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its why Silver still has Trump at fuck all chance in the election, even now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While I agree a lot of the Republicans are guns, no abortions, slavery is OK, kill mexicans, its nowhere near as many as the press would suggest by constantly refering to the polls.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agreed, the parties are both broad churches, and how far left or right the parties are varies by state/region e.g. New York Republicans can be to the left of the Texan Democrats, so the vocal wackos don't actually define either party in terms of percentage of total membership, and taken across the whole USA, there's some overlap between the parties' beliefs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, a big issue for the Republicans is that the Tea Partiers in particular are all about far right activism, so they actively campaign and warp the primaries in the more right-wing states, which is the Republican bread and butter. Winning New York in the Republican primaries isn't enormously helpful because they can't win it in the Presidential election (NY is a Democrat stronghold), so being overly centrist leads to being labelled a RINO, which is death in the more rural and southern states. That leads the candidates to double down on the wackery to get the nomination, and then get thumped in the actual election because moderate Republicans don't want a bar of the final candidate.</p> -
Just regards that last part. What recent repub candidates has that applied to? Both McCain and Romney would have lost regardless of what they said during the republican primaries. <br><br>
Gollum/Mogwai: Do you honestly believe that some Republicans think slavery is ok? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546431" data-time="1449470407">
<div>
<p>Just regards that last part. What recent repub candidates has that applied to? Both McCain and Romney would have lost regardless of what they said during the republican primaries.<br><br>
Gollum/Mogwai: Do you honestly believe that some Republicans think slavery is ok?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On the first bit, Romney had some terrible baggage from the primaries with things like his speech to fund raisers where he talked about the 47% of americans who pay no tax & how he didn't care about them. I agree both struggled regardles, but the fund raising base (especially the likes of the Koch brothers) are so right, that anything a candidate says to pander to them, if it gets leaked, is gold for an attack ad.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of the stuff Rubio is having to say re immigration is going to bite him in the arse come the race.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the second bit, I think there are still Republicans who would be cool with segregation. Its not that long ago that Strom Thurmond was getting in & a saint. Hell, he's cstill revered. While I don't think any Republicans want slavery, a LOT don't think it was wrong & would argue it actually helped black americans, as it got them to America, so they should, you know, be a bit more grateful. Or go back to africa.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546472" data-time="1449487762"><p>
On the first bit, Romney had some terrible baggage from the primaries with things like his speech to fund raisers where he talked about the 47% of americans who pay no tax & how he didn't care about them. I agree both struggled regardles, but the fund raising base (especially the likes of the Koch brothers) are so right, that anything a candidate says to pander to them, if it gets leaked, is gold for an attack ad.<br><br>
Some of the stuff Rubio is having to say re immigration is going to bite him in the arse come the race.<br><br>
On the second bit, I think there are still Republicans who would be cool with segregation. Its not that long ago that Strom Thurmond was getting in & a saint. Hell, he's cstill revered. While I don't think any Republicans want slavery, a LOT don't think it was wrong & would argue it actually helped black americans, as it got them to America, so they should, you know, be a bit more grateful. Or go back to africa.</p></blockquote>
Did Romney actually say exactly that? I remember the issue but cant recall it being a decisive factor in the election. A rich Mormon from Boston will always struggle to become president. Can't recall Bush or McCain being particularly weighed down by any stance taken during the primaries.<br><br>
As for the last part. That is an extremely sweeping statement. Do you actually have any evidence to back that up? Ever heard of Robert Byrd btw? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546474" data-time="1449495573">
<div>
<p>Did Romney actually say exactly that? I remember the issue but cant recall it being a decisive factor in the election. A rich Mormon from Boston will always struggle to become president. Can't recall Bush or McCain being particularly weighed down by any stance taken during the primaries.<br><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah, he did, but it was sort of out of context, he was saying he didn't care about them from a voting pioint of view, as they would bnever vote for him. But it very much came across as "I just don't care about them"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bush was pre Tea Patry so not so hamstrung, while McCain just chose a tea party darling as his running mate, tho' that was sort of at the dawn of the Tea Party. Now with the Tea Party being so strong - and that is a new thing, they have to pander</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Re the last part, Oh god yes. Throw a stick & you can hit 20 republican govenors, candidates, legislators etc who will give you that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/barbour-bryant-lead-in-mississippi.html'>http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/barbour-bryant-lead-in-mississippi.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>"We asked voters on this poll whether <em><strong>they think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal</strong></em>- 46% of Mississippi Republicans said it should be illegal to just 40% who think it should be legal. For the most part there aren't any huge divides in how voters view the candidates or who they support for the nomination based on their attitudes about interracial marriage but there are a few exceptions.<br><br>
Palin's net favorability with folks who think interracial marriage should be illegal (+55 at 74/19) is 17 points higher than it is with folks who think interracial marriage should be legal (+38 at 64/26.) Meanwhile Romney's favorability numbers see the opposite trend. He's at +23 (53/30) with voters who think interracial marriage should be legal but 19 points worse at +4 (44/40) with those who think it should be illegal."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah... that 2011. And 46% of Miss. Republicans think it should be illegal. And they overwhelmingly supported Tea Party Palin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or Rand Paul -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Saying that while he supports civil rights, if you want to put up a "No Blacks" sign in your bar, well, thats sort of freedom of speech & the government should stay out of your business. Sort of. Then desperately trying to go "I didn't really mean that" as fast as he can. While several major Repulicansd step very carefully away from him while trying to not saying anything.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like this guy too, and he does do exactly what I posted, in his book about american conservatists. -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jon-hubbard-arkansas-slavery-book_n_1943661.html'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jon-hubbard-arkansas-slavery-book_n_1943661.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.â€</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's an elected member of the Arkansas house of representitives.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546476" data-time="1449498414">
<div>
<p>Yeah, he did, but it was sort of out of context, he was saying he didn't care about them from a voting pioint of view, as they would bnever vote for him. But it very much came across as "I just don't care about them"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bush was pre Tea Patry so not so hamstrung, while McCain just chose a tea party darling as his running mate, tho' that was sort of at the dawn of the Tea Party. Now with the Tea Party being so strong - and that is a new thing, they have to pander</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Re the last part, Oh god yes. Throw a stick & you can hit 20 republican govenors, candidates, legislators etc who will give you that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/barbour-bryant-lead-in-mississippi.html'>http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/barbour-bryant-lead-in-mississippi.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>"We asked voters on this poll whether <em><strong>they think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal</strong></em>- 46% of Mississippi Republicans said it should be illegal to just 40% who think it should be legal. For the most part there aren't any huge divides in how voters view the candidates or who they support for the nomination based on their attitudes about interracial marriage but there are a few exceptions.<br><br>
Palin's net favorability with folks who think interracial marriage should be illegal (+55 at 74/19) is 17 points higher than it is with folks who think interracial marriage should be legal (+38 at 64/26.) Meanwhile Romney's favorability numbers see the opposite trend. He's at +23 (53/30) with voters who think interracial marriage should be legal but 19 points worse at +4 (44/40) with those who think it should be illegal."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah... that 2011. And 46% of Miss. Republicans think it should be illegal. And they overwhelmingly supported Tea Party Palin.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or Rand Paul -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Saying that while he supports civil rights, if you want to put up a "No Blacks" sign in your bar, well, thats sort of freedom of speech & the government should stay out of your business. Sort of. Then desperately trying to go "I didn't really mean that" as fast as he can. While several major Repulicansd step very carefully away from him while trying to not saying anything.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like this guy too, and he does do exactly what I posted, in his book about american conservatists. -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jon-hubbard-arkansas-slavery-book_n_1943661.html'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jon-hubbard-arkansas-slavery-book_n_1943661.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.â€</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's an elected member of the Arkansas house of representitives.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You said yourself that candidates will say anything to get funding. God knows what they say in private. In this case, Romney was in a private setting and it was not something that he said during the primaries to garner votes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>McCain had already won the nomination before he chose Palin as his running mate. Palin was practically unknown at the time and had no major support base McCain could tap into. Very poor example.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>With regards to that poll, is Mississippi the best example to use here? It's a small, poor state with a very sordid history of racism. The interesting thing about these polls regarding interracial marriage is that there is often a very high percentage who say they are in favour, until they are asked if they would approve of a close relative marrying someone of another race. How many Democrat-voting blacks in Mississippi (or anywhere for that matter) would approve of their children marrying someone white?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rand Paul is, like his father, an uber-Libertarian who hates Govt. Stupid comments to be sure, but do you honestly think he was expressing support for segregation or slavery?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And does that last comment in any way justify or advocate slavery or segregation? IIRC, blacks like Thomas Sowell have made similar comments.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ultimately, you've presented nothing that justifies your original remark, i.e. that some Republicans think slavery is ok.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546692" data-time="1449632855">
<div>
<p>You said yourself that candidates will say anything to get funding. God knows what they say in private. In this case, Romney was in a private setting and it was not something that he said during the primaries to garner votes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>McCain had already won the nomination before he chose Palin as his running mate. Palin was practically unknown at the time and had no major support base McCain could tap into. Very poor example.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>With regards to that poll, is Mississippi the best example to use here? It's a small, poor state with a very sordid history of racism. The interesting thing about these polls regarding interracial marriage is that there is often a very high percentage who say they are in favour, until they are asked if they would approve of a close relative marrying someone of another race. How many Democrat-voting blacks in Mississippi (or anywhere for that matter) would approve of their children marrying someone white?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rand Paul is, like his father, an uber-Libertarian who hates Govt. Stupid comments to be sure, but do you honestly think he was expressing support for segregation or slavery?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And does that last comment in any way justify or advocate slavery or segregation? IIRC, blacks like Thomas Sowell have made similar comments.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ultimately, you've presented nothing that justifies your original remark, i.e. that some Republicans think slavery is ok.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand, I'm surprised he's even running for govt. Libertarians who follow that evil cow usually see govt as a form of collectivism and loathe it Ron Swanson style.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="546695" data-time="1449633918"><p>
Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand, I'm surprised he's even running for govt. Libertarians who follow that evil cow usually see govt as a form of collectivism and loathe it Ron Swanson style.</p></blockquote>
<br>
A common misconception. Rand is actually short for Randal. But yes, the fear or hate of govt is strong in that one. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546701" data-time="1449635941">
<div>
<p>A common misconception. Rand is actually short for Randal. But yes, the fear or hate of govt is strong in that one.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Good to know, I'd hate to be named after this weirdo <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html'>http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546692" data-time="1449632855">
<div><br><p> </p>
<p>Ultimately, you've presented nothing that justifies your original remark, i.e. that some Republicans think slavery is ok.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I then posted that a number Republicans thought slavery was a positive for blacks. <em><strong>You demanded proof of that</strong></em>. I give you an elected Republican who has wrtitten a fricking book saying that & you go "wheres the proof!!!"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And yes, his comment very much defends slavery. Its like saying "sure the halocaust was bad, but it led to Israel being established so in a lot of ways it did then a favour".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's saying a staggeringly bad thing that happened 200 years ago turned out well for those 200 years later, so maybe it wasn't so bad. And luckily, he has WRITTEN A BOOK ON IT to clarrify</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While Romney <em><strong>was</strong></em> campaigning, that wasn't an informal chat with his best mate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, you completely ignore the bits where I mention <em><strong>when</strong></em> the Tea Party came up & that your quoted examples are therefore not great... In contrast Ted Crus is solid Tea Party & pandering had & fast. IE demanding I show the influence of the Tea Party on McCain when McCain ran before the TP was a force (while Bush even more so!) shows either a desperation to be "right" or a total lack of any understanding of US politics.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546763" data-time="1449655098">
<div>
<p>I then posted that a number Republicans thought slavery was a positive for blacks. <em><strong>You demanded proof of that</strong></em>. I give you an elected Republican who has wrtitten a fricking book saying that & you go "wheres the proof!!!"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And yes, his comment very much defends slavery. Its like saying "sure the halocaust was bad, but it led to Israel being established so in a lot of ways it did then a favour".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's saying a staggeringly bad thing that happened 200 years ago turned out well for those 200 years later, so maybe it wasn't so bad. And luckily, he has WRITTEN A BOOK ON IT to clarrify</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While Romney <em><strong>was</strong></em> campaigning, that wasn't an informal chat with his best mate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, you completely ignore the bits where I mention <em><strong>when</strong></em> the Tea Party came up & that your quoted examples are therefore not great... In contrast Ted Crus is solid Tea Party & pandering had & fast. IE demanding I show the influence of the Tea Party on McCain when McCain ran before the TP was a force (while Bush even more so!) shows either a desperation to be "right" or a total lack of any understanding of US politics.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hold on a sec, your original comment was "slavery IS ok". Advocating slavery and saying that slavery might have been a "blessing in disguise" for the descendants of slaves are 2 completely separate things. An Australian who descended from a convict could very well say he's fortunate to have grown up in Australia and not England. That doesn't mean he justifies a situation in which a person was transported half-way around the world in chains for stealing a handkerchief. I haven't read the book in question, but does he say that slavery is a good thing and that he would like it re-introduced? I agree it's a pretty farked up thing to write, but it is not proof that he thinks slavery or segregation are ok.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What crazy Tea Party policies handicapped Romney at the last election when they were out in full force? If anything, it was his record as Governor that did him in the credibility department. Again, that recorded speech was a private speech to donors and was not something he said during a debate or at a rally during the primaries.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are you saying that Cruz is actually quite liberal and that his pandering to the Tea Party is what is causing him to go hard right?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regardless, the original comment was "That leads the candidates to double down on the wackery to get the nomination, and then get thumped in the actual election because moderate Republicans don't want a bar of the final candidate."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? That was my initial question.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546775" data-time="1449662844">
<div><br><p>Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? That was my initial question.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Rubio has had to go very hard right on immigration. Jeb started out centrist then when getting fucked over v Cruz & Rubio tacked right, talking about "anchor babies" & defunding womens health issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Heres Bush 2014 -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"They come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Actually talking about not arresting lawbreaking immigrants. That sparked a wave of outrage among the hard right..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here he is in August this year -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing – pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,†he said. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.†When a reporter questioned Bush about his use of the term, he said that he did not regret saying it and blamed Democrats for the negative stigma surrounding the words. “You give me a better term and I’ll use it,†he said. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton tweeted a suggestion: “How about ‘babies,’ ‘children,’ or ‘American citizens’.â€</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Literally talking about making illegal immigrants having kids a crime.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On Romney - heres a nice easy guide to the areas he movede agressively into TP range when running -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/'>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/18/politifacts-guide-mitt-romneys-flip-flops/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Abortion, Global Warming, new taxes,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Heres 538 talkiing about it a year ago -</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-might-have-a-tea-party-problem-in-2016/'>http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-might-have-a-tea-party-problem-in-2016/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is a great graphic too in the next one, highlighting that the guys polling well right now are either TP, or very close to TP (Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina). Infact almost everyone out wider (Christie, Santorum, Jindel, Graham, Gilmore, even Jeb is struggling). So you either tack right (as Jeb has done) or hope the crazies fall out & the party eventually get behind you as they did with Romney. Difference is every election the crazies are staying in longer. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bobby-jindal-exit-2016-republican/'>http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bobby-jindal-exit-2016-republican/</a></p> -
I'll ask once more: Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? I must have missed the part when Cruz, Bush and Rubio were thumped in a Presidential election.<br><br>
Romney was always going to flip flop like a mofo. You can't become governor of the most Democrat-leaning state in the country and then win the republican presidential nomination with the same policies. Bill Clinton was probably the same when he left Little Rock to have a crack at Washington. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="546787" data-time="1449669984">
<div>
<p><em><strong>I'll ask once more: Who are these candidates that have doubled down on the wackery and then been thumped in the election? </strong></em>I must have missed the part when Cruz, Bush and Rubio were thumped in a Presidential election.<br><br>
Romney was always going to flip flop like a mofo. You can't become governor of the most Democrat-leaning state in the country and then win the republican presidential nomination with the same policies. Bill Clinton was probably the same when he left Little Rock to have a crack at Washington.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You realise me & Godder are different people right?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tho' on his behalf, how about Barry Goldwater? He def doubled down & got absolutely destroyed.... wee bit before the Tea Party, but he tacked very far right to win the primaries...</p> -
<p> I am waiting with anticipation for gollum to provide evidence that some republicans think slavery IS ok.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="546791" data-time="1449680532"><p>
You realise me & Godder are different people right?<br><br>
Tho' on his behalf, how about Barry Goldwater? He def doubled down & got absolutely destroyed.... wee bit before the Tea Party, but he tacked very far right to win the primaries...</p></blockquote>
<br>
Er yes. Did you miss the bit when you responded after I questioned him about it?<br><br>
Goldwater wasn't a moderate who went the full nutjob to get elected. He was already a wacko who rode a wave to win the primary. Another poor example.
US Politics