If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Reality check for the GOP: in 2016, the Democrats will start the race with 246 electoral votes out of 270. So obviously the answer is to nominate the most conservative candidate possible   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 335
    More: Interesting, GOP, Republican, Democrats, humans, Dan Balz, Walter Mondale, Rand Paul, presidential nominee  
•       •       •

4683 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Aug 2013 at 1:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-18 10:42:37 AM
SANTORUM/BACHMANN '16
 
2013-08-18 10:51:38 AM
They are going to show up with a billion $'s. It should be close.
 
2013-08-18 10:56:10 AM

johnryan51: They are going to show up with a billion $'s. It should be close.


i'm sure they will - but will shelly adelson and the kochs give billions again for a losing candidate? they got burned big-time by karl rove last time. i'm guessing they'll make him more accountable and try to get a "moderate" nominated.
 
2013-08-18 11:45:32 AM

FlashHarry: SANTORUM/BACHMANN '16


Wouldn't it make more sense to have Santorum on the bottom?
 
2013-08-18 11:46:02 AM
Okay, so a Democratic win in 2016 is nearly a slam dunk.  So the Democratic primary voters had better come up with someone good.  Not in the sense of picking a winning candidate, I mean in the sense of electing a good president.
 
2013-08-18 11:51:55 AM

ginandbacon: FlashHarry: SANTORUM/BACHMANN '16

Wouldn't it make more sense to have Santorum on the bottom?


The froth always rises to the top
 
2013-08-18 12:14:13 PM

One Bad Apple: ginandbacon: FlashHarry: SANTORUM/BACHMANN '16

Wouldn't it make more sense to have Santorum on the bottom?

The froth always rises to the top


That explains a lot.
 
2013-08-18 12:36:44 PM
I've been around long enough to hear the press explain that Republicans could never take the House ever again and then Gingrich arrived.

I heard about the Democrat's solid south and that no southern state would ever be Republican controlled.

I heard that the Republican Revolution was permanent.

I heard after Goldwater that conservative Presidents were permanently out of the picture and then Reagan showed up for a couple of terms along with Bush and Bush.

I heard that Watergate had destroyed the Republican Party for generations.

I heard that Carter had destroyed the Democratic Party for generations.

People always think they are permanently in power and yet they never are.
 
2013-08-18 12:45:39 PM
RT (4)

RT?

Rhode Tisland?

F*ck you, man! We're a state too! Not a unit of measurement!
 
2013-08-18 01:09:12 PM

NewportBarGuy: F*ck you, man! We're a state too! Not a unit of measurement!


I don't know about that.  I've seen a lot of things expressed in terms of "x times the size of Rhode Island".  Embrace your unity.
 
2013-08-18 01:11:46 PM
Let's look back, shall we?

Obama - D
Bush, Jr. - R
Clinton - D
Reagan/Bush - R
Carter - D
Nixon/Ford - R
Kennedy/Johnson - D
Eisenhower - R
Roosevelt/Truman - D
Hoover - R
Harding/Coolidge - R

See a pattern?  The only time a party has kept the white house has been when a VP succeeded - not since Hoover in 1928 has a party won 2 elections in a row. Al Smith, the loser in that election, had 3 strikes going in - he was openly Catholic (like being devout Muslim in an election today), he was anti-prohibition (which was, for reasons passing understanding, wildly popular) and he was a product of Tammany Hall (like being a product of the Koch machine, if the Koch brothers didn't even try to hide their doings).

I think with the state of personal finances these days, and the swiftness of the decline in buying power over the last 10 years, the Republicans will stand a chance.  IF they can field a decent candidate.

If they go with any of their current bunch, good farking luck.
 
2013-08-18 01:15:53 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: not since Hoover in 1928 has a party won 2 elections in a row


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-08-18 01:20:05 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: IF they can field a decent candidate.


And the odds of that happening?  As bad us Bush the Younger was, he is still ten times more electable than any of the current crop of GOP "leaders".  Chris Christie is about as electable as they come, but I just can't see him surviving the vicious crucible of the Republican primaries. Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.
 
2013-08-18 01:22:39 PM
What really gets me about teabaggers is that they present themselves as Über-patriots but they are absolutely fkn clueless on the most basic facts of American government.  They are pissed off that the GOP is not moving to impeach Obama, despite being unable to articulate what he has done that is impeachable, and apparently not understanding that a Dem-controlled Senate would never convict.  They want more efforts to repeal Obamacare despite the absolute impossibility of the Senate going along with it, or Obama signing his own pet program out of existence (and the even more impossible situation of getting enough Dem Senators on board to override a veto.  They want to accentuate the derp by going extra-conservative in choosing a candidate for 2016, despite that being the surest way to lose in 2016.  They get a hard-on for Cruz, despite the fact that he is (by their own criteria) ineligible (he isn't, but to admit that is to admit that Balrog HUSSEIN al-Fartbongo is legit).

These people are fkn idiots and America will be better off when they die.  Let's hope they take their shallow, narrow, ignorant politics to the grave with them.
 
2013-08-18 01:23:27 PM

ginandbacon: FlashHarry: SANTORUM/BACHMANN '16

Wouldn't it make more sense to have Santorum on the bottom?


Depends on whether it's Mr. or Mrs. Bachmann.
 
2013-08-18 01:25:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Let's hope they take their shallow, narrow, ignorant politics to the grave with them.


Derp runs deep.  It has always been there...and always will.
 
2013-08-18 01:26:50 PM
Electoral math doesn't mean anything other than determining what the tipping point state is, and its simple. In order for the GOP to have won the 2012 election, they would have needed to win CO (and every state which was closer than CO). Obama won CO by about 5.37%, which means in 2016 the GOP needs to do approximately 5.4% better overall than they did in 2012. Since Obama won the national vote by 3.9%, this means whoever the GOP candidate is in 2016 needs to aim for a 1.5% victory overall.

That's all that matters. Ignore the state by state stuff, it's not relevant otherwise.
 
2013-08-18 01:32:03 PM

DamnYankees: Since Obama won the national vote by 3.9%, this means whoever the GOP candidate is in 2016 needs to aim for a 1.5% victory overall.


So, what you're saying is... Welcome President Biden 2016.
 
2013-08-18 01:38:50 PM

kronicfeld: Benevolent Misanthrope: not since Hoover in 1928 has a party won 2 elections in a row

[imgs.xkcd.com image 692x1500]


That would be all well and good, if the historical precedent didn't show such a clear pattern over time - the public wanting change, perceiving the election of a non-incumbent as an opportunity for change.

And, by the way, I didn't say the Dems can't get elected.  I said this is the pattern, but the Republicans better do something about the piss-poor group of potential candidates they have, if they want to take advantage of the pattern.

That said, the American voting populace are, by and large, idiots.  So you never know.
 
2013-08-18 01:44:27 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: but the Republicans better do something about the piss-poor group of potential candidates they have, if they want to take advantage of the pattern.

That said, the American voting populace are, by and large, idiots. So you never know.


I think Christie would have a 50/50 shot if he ran. I'm assuming he'd go against Biden or Clinton and it would be a good race. That is of course assuming he survives the Night of the Long Knives of the conservative primary process.
 
2013-08-18 01:49:08 PM

NewportBarGuy: Benevolent Misanthrope: but the Republicans better do something about the piss-poor group of potential candidates they have, if they want to take advantage of the pattern.

That said, the American voting populace are, by and large, idiots. So you never know.

I think Christie would have a 50/50 shot if he ran. I'm assuming he'd go against Biden or Clinton and it would be a good race. That is of course assuming he survives the Night of the Long Knives of the conservative primary process.


I like where this thread is göring.
 
2013-08-18 01:53:16 PM

Man On A Mission: Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.


This is what really scares me about the GOP (and since the Tea Partiers have taken over the rhetoric, I include them).  They're reduced to a mob of credulous, unreasoning sheep.  They don't know or care what  candidate stands for.  If The Party says that's the candidate, then that's the bestest thing for the country and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country.

Seriously, it's scary.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-18 01:58:05 PM

arkansas: People always think they are permanently in power and yet they never are.


Yes, mainly because the parties changed, not that anyone came around to the failed point of view.

The GOP will win again someday, but it won't be because everyone decided to ride the crazy train.  it will be after they dump the tea tards and come up with a winning strategy.
 
2013-08-18 01:58:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Man On A Mission: Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.

This is what really scares me about the GOP (and since the Tea Partiers have taken over the rhetoric, I include them).  They're reduced to a mob of credulous, unreasoning sheep.  They don't know or care what  candidate stands for.  If The Party says that's the candidate, then that's the bestest thing for the country and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country.

Seriously, it's scary.


True, I blame the tea partiers for the eventual rise to power of President Clark.  Because any moderate must die in their eyes.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-18 01:59:12 PM

NewportBarGuy: F*ck you, man! We're a state too! Not a unit of measurement!


Good thing, because that would be a tiny little unit!
 
2013-08-18 02:01:15 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Man On A Mission: Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.

This is what really scares me about the GOP (and since the Tea Partiers have taken over the rhetoric, I include them).  They're reduced to a mob of credulous, unreasoning sheep.  They don't know or care what  candidate stands for.  If The Party says that's the candidate, then that's the bestest thing for the country and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country.

Seriously, it's scary.


That is the perfect word for these douchebags.

And no matter how many times they get burned, they swallow the next ridiculous claim hook, line, sinker, pole, angler, and boat.  As long as it makes Obammy look bad, they believe it, and keep on believing it no matter what.
 
2013-08-18 02:03:11 PM

vpb: NewportBarGuy: F*ck you, man! We're a state too! Not a unit of measurement!

Good thing, because that would be a tiny little unit!


Congratulations! You've just made the list!

i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-18 02:03:13 PM
And they'll still be surprised at the outcome...
 
2013-08-18 02:05:07 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Man On A Mission: Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.

This is what really scares me about the GOP (and since the Tea Partiers have taken over the rhetoric, I include them).  They're reduced to a mob of credulous, unreasoning sheep.  They don't know or care what  candidate stands for.  If The Party says that's the candidate, then that's the bestest thing for the country and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country.

Seriously, it's scary.


That's something a traitor would say.
 
2013-08-18 02:05:54 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Man On A Mission: Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.

This is what really scares me about the GOP (and since the Tea Partiers have taken over the rhetoric, I include them).  They're reduced to a mob of credulous, unreasoning sheep.  They don't know or care what  candidate stands for.  If The Party says that's the candidate, then that's the bestest thing for the country and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country.

Seriously, it's scary.


Odd that you say that when it's precisely what's happening with the DNC.

Democrats aren't thinking about who they're going for. They think of solely how they need a Dem to win. Republicans seem to be the only ones considering who they vote for. The typical democratic voter should feel shame at the lack of thought they use as a whole yet they're proud to be the party that doesn't think, derides, and never accepts their failures.

It's how we ended up with Detroit and Jesse Jackson Jr. Total obliviousness to the failures of the party.
 
2013-08-18 02:07:12 PM

NewportBarGuy: vpb: NewportBarGuy: F*ck you, man! We're a state too! Not a unit of measurement!

Good thing, because that would be a tiny little unit!

Congratulations! You've just made the list!

[i42.tinypic.com image 512x512]


www.johnnythefool.com
 
2013-08-18 02:07:37 PM

Mrbogey: Odd that you say that when it's precisely what's happening with the DNC.

Democrats aren't thinking about who they're going for. They think of solely how they need a Dem to win. Republicans seem to be the only ones considering who they vote for. The typical democratic voter should feel shame at the lack of thought they use as a whole yet they're proud to be the party that doesn't think, derides, and never accepts their failures.

It's how we ended up with Detroit and Jesse Jackson Jr. Total obliviousness to the failures of the party.


This is now officially performance art.
 
2013-08-18 02:07:48 PM
Well, if Republicans stick to their next runner up (2nd place in last election) gets the nominations, it's Santorum 2016.
 
2013-08-18 02:07:51 PM
Which is why the GOP is trying like mad to make as many states as possible allocate their electoral college votes by congressional district.  Because they've gerrymandered the hell out of a lot of them.
 
2013-08-18 02:08:29 PM

arkansas: I've been around long enough to hear the press explain that Republicans could never take the House ever again and then Gingrich arrived.

I heard about the Democrat's solid south and that no southern state would ever be Republican controlled.

I heard that the Republican Revolution was permanent.

I heard after Goldwater that conservative Presidents were permanently out of the picture and then Reagan showed up for a couple of terms along with Bush and Bush.

I heard that Watergate had destroyed the Republican Party for generations.

I heard that Carter had destroyed the Democratic Party for generations.

People always think they are permanently in power and yet they never are.


If you read the article, you'll see that it's not written from the perspective of the people currently in power; it's written by a conservative who wants to dump the Electoral College, since he believes that my be the only way Republicans can win the White House.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-18 02:08:52 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: I think with the state of personal finances these days, and the swiftness of the decline in buying power over the last 10 years, the Republicans will stand a chance.  IF they can field a decent candidate.

If they go with any of their current bunch, good farking luck.


You know that Ford wasn't elected right?  And that Roosevelt and Truman served five terms between the two of them?  And that Gore got more votes than Bush and could easily have won if a lawsuit had gone differently?

If the GOP was going to pin the Bush recession on Obama, or the Democrats they would have done it by now.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-18 02:11:07 PM

Mrbogey: Democrats aren't thinking about who they're going for. They think of solely how they need a Dem to win. Republicans seem to be the only ones considering who they vote for. The typical democratic voter should feel shame at the lack of thought they use as a whole yet they're proud to be the party that doesn't think, derides, and never accepts their failures.

It's how we ended up with Detroit and Jesse Jackson Jr. Total obliviousness to the failures of the party.


That's pretty good.  You're laying it on a little thick but not bad all in all.
 
2013-08-18 02:11:55 PM

WorldCitizen: Well, if Republicans stick to their next runner up (2nd place in last election) gets the nominations, it's Santorum 2016.


its gonna be awesome watching Santorum lose Pennsylvania to [insert generic Democrat here].
 
2013-08-18 02:13:47 PM
cdn-www.i-am-bored.com

If the R's don't actually focus on how to win 270 EC votes, they aren't actually trying to win the election. Will it just be a fund drive for Congressional races?
 
2013-08-18 02:14:11 PM

One Bad Apple: www.johnnythefool.com


Favorite line in that movie: "You can't leave! All the plants will die!"
 
2013-08-18 02:17:14 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: kronicfeld: Benevolent Misanthrope: not since Hoover in 1928 has a party won 2 elections in a row

[imgs.xkcd.com image 692x1500]

That would be all well and good, if the historical precedent didn't show such a clear pattern over time - the public wanting change, perceiving the election of a non-incumbent as an opportunity for change.

And, by the way, I didn't say the Dems can't get elected.  I said this is the pattern, but the Republicans better do something about the piss-poor group of potential candidates they have, if they want to take advantage of the pattern.

That said, the American voting populace are, by and large, idiots.  So you never know.


Reagan then Bush 1 was back to back (not counting 2nd terms). But, in general, I agree with what you are saying.
 
2013-08-18 02:17:24 PM

Mrbogey: Odd that you say that when it's precisely what's happening with the DNC.


media.urbandictionary.com
 
2013-08-18 02:17:28 PM

Makh: Benevolent Misanthrope: Man On A Mission: Every Tea Partier I know blames him for Obama's re-election, saying that Romney had it in the bag until the "convenient" hurricane hit New Jersey.

This is what really scares me about the GOP (and since the Tea Partiers have taken over the rhetoric, I include them).  They're reduced to a mob of credulous, unreasoning sheep.  They don't know or care what  candidate stands for.  If The Party says that's the candidate, then that's the bestest thing for the country and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country.

Seriously, it's scary.

True, I blame the tea partiers for the eventual rise to power of President Clark.  Because any moderate must die in their eyes.


1. Purge the RINOs
2.
3. Win the election!
 
2013-08-18 02:19:12 PM
Well, obviously the solution is to blow up the electoral college and/or somehow gerrymander the shiat out of the entire country so a republican can win with less than 30% of the votes
 
2013-08-18 02:19:13 PM

vpb: Benevolent Misanthrope: I think with the state of personal finances these days, and the swiftness of the decline in buying power over the last 10 years, the Republicans will stand a chance.  IF they can field a decent candidate.

If they go with any of their current bunch, good farking luck.

You know that Ford wasn't elected right?  And that Roosevelt and Truman served five terms between the two of them?  And that Gore got more votes than Bush and could easily have won if a lawsuit had gone differently?

If the GOP was going to pin the Bush recession on Obama, or the Democrats they would have done it by now.


The point being that the only time a party has held the white house through two different presidents the second was vice president to the first.  While your facts are valid, they don't disprove the point.
 
2013-08-18 02:23:28 PM

DamnYankees: Electoral math doesn't mean anything other than determining what the tipping point state is, and its simple. In order for the GOP to have won the 2012 election, they would have needed to win CO (and every state which was closer than CO). Obama won CO by about 5.37%, which means in 2016 the GOP needs to do approximately 5.4% better overall than they did in 2012. Since Obama won the national vote by 3.9%, this means whoever the GOP candidate is in 2016 needs to aim for a 1.5% victory overall.

That's all that matters. Ignore the state by state stuff, it's not relevant otherwise.


That only holds true if the regional appeal of candidates is the same this time around. Obviously many of the names currently bandied about are "national" in the sense that there isn't much regional bias with them, but other candidates could have, for instance, a much stronger pull in the West but a smaller pull in the South, which would completely upset the above math.
 
2013-08-18 02:26:03 PM
I don't really see anyone in the (R) field that has a shot at beating Huckabee for the nomination.
 
2013-08-18 02:27:13 PM

RevCarter: I don't really see anyone in the (R) field that has a shot at beating Huckabee for the nomination.


images.t-nation.com
 
2013-08-18 02:28:23 PM
Lol at this person for thinking the electoral college helps Democrats, and for thinking that Democrats loving it is why it can't be changed.

Also lol at her for the phrase "Democrat leaders," rather than "Democratic leaders."  Surefire sign of derp.

/the electoral college helps whoever wins MORE states.  Not a matter of which states.  In 2012, Obama won 27 out of 51 (DC), but he also won the general by a good deal.  The electoral college makes small states matter more than they should, and big states matter less.  That's about it.
 
2013-08-18 02:29:27 PM
Obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the rich.
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report