Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Post '16 GOP Autopsy


33 replies to this topic

#26
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,100 posts

 

On that note, instead of the GOP needing an autopsy, they need a bullsh*tectomy--removing the last vestiges of destructive factions (like white supremacists usually coded under the "values"  / "take America back" banner) while allowing the left (as mentioned before) to swell in its arrogance and overreach (mainly cultural)  to the point where the Great Left Remaking of America implodes. But that will never happen with the way the GOP fights battles today--the Cruz and Trump way, which (among several things) will never move middle road voters to even give an interested glance at Republicans.


So who should have been the GOP nominee?

Of people that actually had a realistic chance of winning the primaries, that is.

 

Jeb would have been the rational choice; he was not offensive, had success as governor and though his immigration statements were troubling to some of harder-core Republicans, he certainly had the potential to attract more of the Hispanic voter--now getting ready to place the crown on Hillary. Jeb's problem: he allowed Trump to draw him in. Even paying mild attention to Trump's attacks on his brother (Iraq) and his own even-tempered behavior (he let Trump turn that into a negative) transformed him into a defensive, stammering shell of himself.



#27
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Jeb was the most knowledgeable on policy and perhaps the best 'qualified' (in the traditional sense) to be president.  He also had the most establishment support and the largest war chest.  So I get it.

 

But two questions- first, why do you think he actually had potential to attract Hispanic voters?  Due to identity politics, the Hispanic vote is quickly becoming like the Black vote.  I mean, the GOP has tried to avoid talking about immigration in any meaningful sense on the national stage for at least 5 years, if not 10 (similarly to gay marriage), and both McCain and Romney overwhelmingly lost the Hispanic vote.  Romney said like 2 words on it, and McCain said basically nothing, and it was still 80-20%.  Why would Bush change anything?  Just because his wife is Mexican?  I'm not buying it.

 

Second, if Bush couldn't get past Trump, why do you think he'd get past Clinton?  The same problems as a candidate he had would still come out, it's not like they would disappear.



#28
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,100 posts

Jeb was the most knowledgeable on policy and perhaps the best 'qualified' (in the traditional sense) to be president.  He also had the most establishment support and the largest war chest.  So I get it.

 

But two questions- first, why do you think he actually had potential to attract Hispanic voters?  Due to identity politics, the Hispanic vote is quickly becoming like the Black vote.  I mean, the GOP has tried to avoid talking about immigration in any meaningful sense on the national stage for at least 5 years, if not 10 (similarly to gay marriage), and both McCain and Romney overwhelmingly lost the Hispanic vote.  Romney said like 2 words on it, and McCain said basically nothing, and it was still 80-20%.  Why would Bush change anything?  Just because his wife is Mexican?  I'm not buying it.

 

Second, if Bush couldn't get past Trump, why do you think he'd get past Clinton?  The same problems as a candidate he had would still come out, it's not like they would disappear.

Sorry for the late reply.

 

I would not underestimate the weight his frequent statements and Latino members of his family carry in those circles, since he actually paying more than lip service to their projections of social acceptance, progression and impact for the foreseeable future in a way no white Republican matched. To this group, that was fairly earth shaking and viewed as more believable than the inexperienced Rubio, the seemingly hate-filled ideologue (Cruz) a joke with no chance (Carson), someone repeating the same few would-be talking points (Fiorina) and certainly was not the universe of negatives (especially where race is concerned) that is Trump.

 

Its all academic now, but Jeb as the nominee would have been in a good position to capture the most important voter base (arguably) today. What would that do to Hillary's chances?

 

For example, the Bendixen & Amandi poll of Arizona Latinos' likely choice for president as of September:

  • Clinton - 68%
  • Trump - 18%
  • Other / No Answer - 14%

For Trump to pull 18%--long after The Wall / Mexican drug cartel / rapist / murderer / takin' your job rants, he still pulled 18%. Jeb had much support from Latinos, so there should be little doubt he had the "goods" to cut into Clinton's advantage with Latino voters. Obviously Jeb would need more than this one group to challenge and/or defeat Clinton, but turning Trump's 18% to say, 35...45% of Latinos? We might be having a very different discussion about the race, one that does not end with smug left wing pundits already in celebration mode.



#29
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

I don't mean to change the topic, but here is an interesting observation that occurred to me.  Clinton is now the latest in a string of candidates for president on both sides to have run for president in an earlier primary and lost, come back for another primary and won the nomination, only to go on to lose the presidential race.  

 

Going back to 1988:

 

Clinton

2008, she lost the primary to Obama

2016, she won the primary, but lost the election 

 

Romney

2008, he lost the primary to McCain

2012, he won the primary, but lost the election 

 

McCain

2000, he lost the primary to Bush

2008, he won the primary, but lost the election

 

Gore

1988, he lost the primary to Dukakis

2000, he won the primary, but lost the election

 

Bob Dole

1988, he lost the primary to Bush

1996, he won the primary, but lost the election

 

Going back to 1960, here is the only example of candidates who lost a previous primary, that went on to win a following primary and the presidency:

 

Reagan

1976, he lost the primary to Ford

1980, he won the primary, and won the election

 

Nixon is kind of related in that he won the 1960 primary but lost the election, then came back in 1968 to win both the primary and presidency, but we know how that turned out.

 

 

 

I don't know if that is really useful information, or what can be learned from it, other than maybe both parties need to institute a one and done policy: if you lose a primary, don't come back! 



#30
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
It seems to be a feature of the party leaders believing that their leading candidates get to have their "turn". Was Clinton the best candidate? No, but it was her "turn" to run.

#31
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

It seems to be a feature of the party leaders believing that their leading candidates get to have their "turn". Was Clinton the best candidate? No, but it was her "turn" to run.

Totally agree!  In fact, I think I remember something like that was said of Dole in 1996.  



#32
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,595 posts
Name recognition does wonders.

#33
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

Name recognition does wonders.

Maybe Hillary should have had Bill stump for her more prominently and with more press coverage, then.

 

It was like they kept him in a secured undisclosed underground location through most of the campaign.   Except when he talked to Lynch.  They should have kept him out of sight, then! 



#34
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Nixon is kind of related in that he won the 1960 primary but lost the election, then came back in 1968 to win both the primary and presidency, but we know how that turned out.

 

You can keep going backwards from there:

 

Adlai Stevenson

1952: Nominated and lost.

1956: Nominated and lost.

 

Thomas Dewey

1940:  Ran for the nomination and actually collected the most delegates heading into the convention, but lost the floor fight.

1944:  Nominated and lost. 

 

Al Smith

1924: Ran for the nomination and lost.

1928: Nominated and lost.

 

John Davis

1920: Ran for the nomination and lost.

1924: Nominated and lost.

 

Charles Evans Hughes

1908: Ran for the nomination and lost.

1916: Nominated and lost (gave up his seat on the Supreme Court to do it).

 

And then there's the all-time champ:

 

William Jennings Bryan

1896: Nominated and lost.

1900: Nominated and lost.

1908: Nominated and lost.

 

And I think I'll stop at the beginning of the 20th century.

 

 

 

Reagan

1976, he lost the primary to Ford
1980, he won the primary, and won the election

 

He ran in 1968 as well.





Reply to this topic