GOP Presidential Nomination

[Desdichado]

I think Condi is leaps and bounds more electable than Fiorina. Firstly, the general population actually knows who Condi is lol. Secondly, despite being part of Bush's administration, lots of people I know have a generally fair opinion of Condi even if they don't like Bush. Plus again ,the whole experience thing. Condi could say whether or not she agreed with Bush that she was Secretary of State at a pivotal time and did indeed a fair job for her term. Fiorina by contrast can only say she ran against Barbara Boxer and lost.

You are correct on the donor dillema, but alas, that is not as important these days for two factors. For one the rise of the Super PACs which enables such donors greater ability to essentially donate to multiple campaigns, plus allows lesser individuals and blocs to pool together. For two, note Obama's run and how he had record breaking campaign funding, not from traditional donors, but rather through a grassroots campaign of small donations from common people. Though indeed I do not think Condi would generate the hype Obama did in 2008.

You bring up the second leg of Condi's problem. She will not trigger the groundswell or attention from PAC's necessary to out-do the litany of Governors and Senators throwing their hats into the ring. In short, she would find herself encircled.

Would her position be impossible? No. But she wouldn't have a serious advantage over any candidate. Certainly not a self-funder like Fiorina in the early stages.

Changing one's political image is not an easy task. Sure, right now she's sitting pretty when she isn't running, but if another campaign were convinced she was a threat, pinning her to the Bush Administration and making it stick would be easy as pie.

 

[Desdichado]

Condi be good for the nomination, but I still do think Hillary would prevail over her. It would be somewhat closer though than some of the other match ups me thinks. Be a good general debate for sure at the least.

Condi would be somewhat viable. Hardly a shoe-in.

We've had the Clinton argument before, but if you want to take the gloves off, I'm game. : P

 

[GodIsSalvation]

You bring up the second leg of Condi's problem. She will not trigger the groundswell or attention from PAC's necessary to out-do the litany of Governors and Senators throwing their hats into the ring. In short, she would find herself encircled.

Would her position be impossible? No. But she wouldn't have a serious advantage over any candidate. Certainly not a self-funder like Fiorina in the early stages.

Changing one's political image is not an easy task. Sure, right now she's sitting pretty when she isn't running, but if another campaign were convinced she was a threat, pinning her to the Bush Administration and making it stick would be easy as pie.

This is good points, but one here. If supposing Condi ran and also Jeb ran, I do think it be Jeb that get pinned to the Bush moreso than Condi. Would be a fun show though either way.

Condi would be somewhat viable. Hardly a shoe-in.

We've had the Clinton argument before, but if you want to take the gloves off, I'm game. : P

Aye Condi is no more a shoe-in than anyone in the GOP field. From polls I have seen, and just asking peoples their general opinions there is no clear frontrunner. But alas, the race has not even really begun lol.

As for Hillary, there's no argument to be found, she is a political juggernaut. If she can be beaten by the GOP it will take the utmost of their efforts. In a way this could be an interesting opportunity for the GOP as they will have to reunify and get their act together and present their A-game if they want to even make it a close race.

 

[Desdichado]

This is good points, but one here. If supposing Condi ran and also Jeb ran, I do think it be Jeb that get pinned to the Bush moreso than Condi. Would be a fun show though either way.

Aye Condi is no more a shoe-in than anyone in the GOP field. From polls I have seen, and just asking peoples their general opinions there is no clear frontrunner. But alas, the race has not even really begun lol.

As for Hillary, there's no argument to be found, she is a political juggernaut. If she can be beaten by the GOP it will take the utmost of their efforts. In a way this could be an interesting opportunity for the GOP as they will have to reunify and get their act together and present their A-game if they want to even make it a close race.

Okay, so we're ultimately in agreement with Condi. Jeb and Dr. Rice would contrast each other in an interesting way in regards to W.

Jeb has the Bush name (and Bush domestic policy), but Condi has the experience within W.'s administration. Again, it all depends on how other candidates read the field. She could potentially spook one into focusing an attack on her rather than Jeb even if there is no threat.

So many variables and, like you said, it's so early. Walker is the flavor of the week, but it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree that the GOP ought to bring its A-game. Demographics and electoral votes are as such that the Demorcats have serious advantages no matter who either side picks.

As for Hillary, I will write a more comprehensive response tomorrow. It's 2:11AM, and my brain has had it.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Okay, so we're ultimately in agreement with Condi. Jeb and Dr. Rice would contrast each other in an interesting way in regards to W.

Jeb has the Bush name (and Bush domestic policy), but Condi has the experience within W.'s administration. Again, it all depends on how other candidates read the field. She could potentially spook one into focusing an attack on her rather than Jeb even if there is no threat.

So many variables and, like you said, it's so early. Walker is the flavor of the week, but it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll.

Ah but see here, Condi has what I call the "Advisor's Excuse" in such a situation. Simply, she can minimize some of the Bush stuff by simply saying she was a servant and did all that was asked of her and advised to the best of her ability. Therefore any serious foreign policy blunders of the Bush Administration do lie with Bush himself for as he himself said, he was the Decider. This is applicable to Hillary as well and why the Benghazi stuff won't stick to her because frankly all she could do is answer the phone and tell Obama, but it was Obama that ultimately failed to act.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm running and you will all vote for me... or else.

 

[p_rehbein]

I agree that the GOP ought to bring its A-game. Demographics and electoral votes are as such that the Demorcats have serious advantages no matter who either side picks.

As for Hillary, I will write a more comprehensive response tomorrow. It's 2:11AM, and my brain has had it.

That's funny.......no, really........so Hillary is the Dems "A-Game?" I do not agree with the demographics or electoral votes assessment either. Those are in constant flux and the REAL battle to be won is "voter turn out." That is decided by the issues, how invigorated the base of a Party is, weather, and other factors.

 

[p_rehbein]

With regards to Condi Rice........she will never run for President......just saying. She is way to smart for that. She may not be the "perfect" candidate, but if she were to EVER consider running for Public Office, she would certainly be the one with the highest intellect on the ballot.

One thing Condi has that many politicians and wanna-be's don't is integrity.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

With regards to Condi Rice........she will never run for President......just saying. She is way to smart for that.

Besides, she wants to be commissioner of the NFL.

With that kind of announcement, I'm amazed the NFL owners have retained Goodell. It's a sure thing that Condi wouldn't have let Ray Rice get away with first-degree assault with a mere two-game suspension.

 

[Desdichado]

Ah but see here, Condi has what I call the "Advisor's Excuse" in such a situation. Simply, she can minimize some of the Bush stuff by simply saying she was a servant and did all that was asked of her and advised to the best of her ability. Therefore any serious foreign policy blunders of the Bush Administration do lie with Bush himself for as he himself said, he was the Decider. This is applicable to Hillary as well and why the Benghazi stuff won't stick to her because frankly all she could do is answer the phone and tell Obama, but it was Obama that ultimately failed to act.

I really don't think the adviser's excuse would play too well for Condi. Partially because the need to have it alone would bog down her campaign considerably.

 

[Desdichado]

That's funny.......no, really........so Hillary is the Dems "A-Game?" I do not agree with the demographics or electoral votes assessment either. Those are in constant flux and the REAL battle to be won is "voter turn out." That is decided by the issues, how invigorated the base of a Party is, weather, and other factors.

Demographics are not the only factor, but the GOP faces an uphill battle with them. Most swing states are not getting any more red that is why the GOP will be forced to bring its A-game.

Ground game is a huge deal, but it is more of a necessary capstone than it is a foundation. The key is demographics and identity first, then ground game. Think of ground game and turnout as a reinforcement mechanism.

Hillary is not the A-game. If you want to talk about campaigns, the A-game of the Democratic party is found to the Left of her. We saw it operate in 2008 and 2012. It will be interesting to see how well she can replicate programs like OFA.

One of her huge weaknesses is that her staff isn't exactly innovative and prone to getting blindsided like in 2008. Knowing her, she'll fire some people and reorganize. She's a pretty impressive executive leader if the book Game Changer is to be believed. The trouble is the people she will not fire who still campaign like it is the year 2000.

With regards to Condi Rice........she will never run for President......just saying. She is way to smart for that. She may not be the "perfect" candidate, but if she were to EVER consider running for Public Office, she would certainly be the one with the highest intellect on the ballot.

One thing Condi has that many politicians and wanna-be's don't is integrity.

Yeah, Condi probably won't run, but a campaign for her is extremely fun to entertain.

 

[p_rehbein]

Demographics are not the only factor, but the GOP faces an uphill battle with them. Most swing states are not getting any more red that is why the GOP will be forced to bring its A-game.

Ground game is a huge deal, but it is more of a necessary capstone than it is a foundation. The key is demographics and identity first, then ground game. Think of ground game and turnout as a reinforcement mechanism.

Hillary is not the A-game. If you want to talk about campaigns, the A-game of the Democratic party is found to the Left of her. We saw it operate in 2008 and 2012. It will be interesting to see how well she can replicate programs like OFA.

One of her huge weaknesses is that her staff isn't exactly innovative and prone to getting blindsided like in 2008. Knowing her, she'll fire some people and reorganize. She's a pretty impressive executive leader if the book Game Changer is to be believed. The trouble is the people she will not fire who still campaign like it is the year 2000.



Yeah, Condi probably won't run, but a campaign for her is extremely fun to entertain.

The ground game is the Cornerstone of all Elections.......understand, not campaigns, but Elections. This is where the Dems held the edge over Repubs for so many years........but, the Repubs are beginning to change and play ketchup!

Demographics serve to put a bulls eye on where to aim the ground game.......people can identify all they want, but come Election day, if the ground game isn't the A-Team effort, they will probably not win.

As for Hillary, I suspect the far left wing of her Party will do more damage to her than the Repubs.........and Bill won't help. In the end, if the Dems go with Hillary, the Repubs will win.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Demographics are not the only factor, but the GOP faces an uphill battle with them. Most swing states are not getting any more red that is why the GOP will be forced to bring its A-game.

Ground game is a huge deal, but it is more of a necessary capstone than it is a foundation. The key is demographics and identity first, then ground game. Think of ground game and turnout as a reinforcement mechanism.

Hillary is not the A-game. If you want to talk about campaigns, the A-game of the Democratic party is found to the Left of her. We saw it operate in 2008 and 2012. It will be interesting to see how well she can replicate programs like OFA.

One of her huge weaknesses is that her staff isn't exactly innovative and prone to getting blindsided like in 2008. Knowing her, she'll fire some people and reorganize. She's a pretty impressive executive leader if the book Game Changer is to be believed. The trouble is the people she will not fire who still campaign like it is the year 2000.



Yeah, Condi probably won't run, but a campaign for her is extremely fun to entertain.

You touch on a key point here that most partisans will never understand. That is the swing states. Most partisans live in either deep red or deep blue states. I suppose I have a little advantage here in that I live in Ohio which is one of the traditional swing states. Thing with the swing states as far as I am aware is they aren't getting anymore red nor blue. They're solidly purple.

What was real interesting to me in terms of swing states and partisan states is that some very traditional GOP fronts in the past two elections either swung straight up blue or were elsewise so close you can reckon them to be now swing states. Whether or not they will be close races/swing states or go back to being solidly red will be an interesting little side-plot to watch in the upcoming elections.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Saw a very interesting interview with John Kasich on CNN today. He comments on a variety of topics. Here is the video of the interview, put up by the Republican Governors Association youtube page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWTGOcgXQw

[video=youtube;lTWTGOcgXQw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWTGOcgXQw[/video]

Fairly interesting interview touching on a variety of current and relevant topics.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Saw a very interesting interview with John Kasich on CNN today. He comments on a variety of topics. Here is the video of the interview, put up by the Republican Governors Association youtube page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWTGOcgXQw

[video=youtube;lTWTGOcgXQw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWTGOcgXQw[/video]

Fairly interesting interview touching on a variety of current and relevant topics.

Yes I saw that interview and he said some very good things that surprised me, as his main focus was on getting the government back to serving and helping the people instead of fighting along against one another.

I also saw how congress is refusing and/or sitting on their thumbs and not wanting to vote on a bill to give homeland security more funding. I thought this was suppose to be a new GOP congress, but I still see the same thing going on. Not getting anything passed, bills just sitting around while they keep going on vacations or shutting down congress, and complaining about what Obama has done or is doing instead of getting stuff done themselves.
I do not agree with what some of what Obama has done, put if I were in the role of the president and those in congress have had 5 months to a couple of years to get things on certain topics done. I probably would step up and override them and get something accomplished myself to. They keep complaining about him, but what are they doing? Not very much of anything that I can see.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Yes I saw that interview and he said some very good things that surprised me, as his main focus was on getting the government back to serving and helping the people instead of fighting along against one another.

I also saw how congress is refusing and/or sitting on their thumbs and not wanting to vote on a bill to give homeland security more funding. I thought this was suppose to be a new GOP congress, but I still see the same thing going on. Not getting anything passed, bills just sitting around while they keep going on vacations or shutting down congress, and complaining about what Obama has done or is doing instead of getting stuff done themselves.
I do not agree with what some of what Obama has done, put if I were in the role of the president and those in congress have had 5 months to a couple of years to get things on certain topics done. I probably would step up and override them and get something accomplished myself to. They keep complaining about him, but what are they doing? Not very much of anything that I can see.

Aye Kasich is good governor. Whether or not people like him, his strength is his pragmatism and his record as governor is positive and undeniable. I agree with about all he said excepting for the notion of "putting boots on the ground" in the Middle East again (though I suppose one could successfully argue that there all ready is boots on the ground there.)

I also saw about the Homeland Security issue with Jeh Johnson speaking. I think Johnson showed well the problem when he said the Senate referred him to the House and the House referred him to the Senate. Both chambers have passed bills to pay Homeland Security. Merely they can't agree to the other chamber's bills for partisan politics. I think they'll get something done last minute though.

As for Obama, rough week for him, but I am not too pleased with him at the moment. Obama should go back to playing golf.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Aye Kasich is good governor. Whether or not people like him, his strength is his pragmatism and his record as governor is positive and undeniable. I agree with about all he said excepting for the notion of "putting boots on the ground" in the Middle East again (though I suppose one could successfully argue that there all ready is boots on the ground there.)

I also saw about the Homeland Security issue with Jeh Johnson speaking. I think Johnson showed well the problem when he said the Senate referred him to the House and the House referred him to the Senate. Both chambers have passed bills to pay Homeland Security. Merely they can't agree to the other chamber's bills for partisan politics. I think they'll get something done last minute though.

As for Obama, rough week for him, but I am not too pleased with him at the moment. Obama should go back to playing golf.

Yes and like I said I don't agree with all that Obama has done, but some of these topics have been addressed since Obama first took office in his first term. Yet here we are many years later still with the same discussions left unsolved and still put off with both sides debating with the other on getting something done. Homeland security is still waiting on that funding which is why Johnson went to both houses to see about it, and instead he got passed around.
These people are paid to do their jobs and not take a month or two off here and there. These annoys me how they get paid so much more than the average person gets paid, and yet can take off 3 to 5 times more then what the average person gets. I guess I am just tired of people who make 60,000 or more a year trying to tell others they can live on less then $8 an hour / less then $25,000 a year.....

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Yes and like I said I don't agree with all that Obama has done, but some of these topics have been addressed since Obama first took office in his first term. Yet here we are many years later still with the same discussions left unsolved and still put off with both sides debating with the other on getting something done. Homeland security is still waiting on that funding which is why Johnson went to both houses to see about it, and instead he got passed around.
These people are paid to do their jobs and not take a month or two off here and there. These annoys me how they get paid so much more than the average person gets paid, and yet can take off 3 to 5 times more then what the average person gets. I guess I am just tired of people who make 60,000 or more a year trying to tell others they can live on less then $8 an hour / less then $25,000 a year.....

Ya many people feel that way on that last part. Perhaps rightly so, but remember, we agreed to pay them and give them vacation, so we can't hold that against the politicians. I think the issue is we all just want more bang for our buck so to speak. Would like to see them get something done that is positive.

I am not sure what all issues you are meaning here though that are still existing over from 2008. Just curious if you could be a bit more specific on that. Or if you were meaning general economic issues, these it seems to me have been major issues for every US presidential campaign I have witnessed going back from Clinton-Dole to now.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Ya many people feel that way on that last part. Perhaps rightly so, but remember, we agreed to pay them and give them vacation, so we can't hold that against the politicians. I think the issue is we all just want more bang for our buck so to speak. Would like to see them get something done that is positive.

I am not sure what all issues you are meaning here though that are still existing over from 2008. Just curious if you could be a bit more specific on that. Or if you were meaning general economic issues, these it seems to me have been major issues for every US presidential campaign I have witnessed going back from Clinton-Dole to now.

We may vote them in, but they actually vote on their own salary hikes.
As for what has been just sitting around and not done anything about there are a number of things, and economics is just the main issue that has been bad since Reagan was in office. Reagan and Bush sr made things harder on the middle to lower class, then Clinton made things a little easier but still not great, then Bush jr and Obama took it right back down hill again. Immigration, minimum wage, equal pay for women, and more or less authority in the judicial system are just few of the many issues that has been on the table for 5 months or more that are refusing to either act on or vote on.

They are focusing to much on debating and arguing over foreign affairs then working on getting things straight here at home. If they put as much emphasis on the U.S. as they do on over seas issues I believe our country would still be strong and thriving. Yet we are collapsing and headed for destruction, which I believe will be our final fate in the U.S. as the bible prophecies give very little to almost no recognition to the U.S. in the many end times prophecies.