With the intense campaigning surrounding the Republican primaries and caucuses this year, I am reminded of 1996. Just two years removed from a dramatic takeover of Congress, and with President Bill Clinton reeling from a largely ineffective first term, the Republicans essentially "shot themselves in the foot" by nominating Kansas Senator Bob Dole as their standard-bearer. Dole never seriously threatens Clinton in the fall and loses his bid for the Presidency in a contest which was over before it started.

Do the Republicans seem doomed to repeat history by putting up a candidate so flawed that Obama wins easily? Right now it sure looks as if it is a possibility. Do they stick with one of the four remaining candidates or is it time for the party leaders to draft another who can win in November. I feel it may be their only chance to win the election. What say you all?

The liberals are scared shitless of the thought of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination. He would either force you to admit you are hypocrites or that your boy is a warmonger in bed with the bankers and big corporations.

stlouiedipalma;1089381 wrote:With the intense campaigning surrounding the Republican primaries and caucuses this year, I am reminded of 1996. Just two years removed from a dramatic takeover of Congress, and with President Bill Clinton reeling from a largely ineffective first term, the Republicans essentially "shot themselves in the foot" by nominating Kansas Senator Bob Dole as their standard-bearer. Dole never seriously threatens Clinton in the fall and loses his bid for the Presidency in a contest which was over before it started.

Do the Republicans seem doomed to repeat history by putting up a candidate so flawed that Obama wins easily? Right now it sure looks as if it is a possibility. Do they stick with one of the four remaining candidates or is it time for the party leaders to draft another who can win in November. I feel it may be their only chance to win the election. What say you all?

If only Alan Keys would've won, then Obama would just be a senator in Illinois.

I really don't see very many similiarities here. For one, the economy was doing pretty well...the nation was at peace with only the beginnings of Saadam's non compliance to worry about. Clinton was moving to the center, adopting the Republican Congress's policies as his own. This is hardly the case with BHO.

What does work in his favor is that the Dem's dirty little secret of entrapping and ensnaring the population into their web of dependency on the Democratic party has taken root. Nearly 40% of the country pays no taxes, or pays no taxes and recieves government handouts. You would think that the 'Pubs could run Bozo the Clown and win, buit that is not the case, especially with a possible third party running who may split the forces of good.

Cleveland Buck;1090266 wrote:The liberals are scared ****less of the thought of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination. He would either force you to admit you are hypocrites or that your boy is a warmonger in bed with the bankers and big corporations.

lol in what world do you live. Ron Paul, right, Obama would be the first President since Washington to win the electoral college unanimously. His dream is to run against a racist flake.

isadore;1090548 wrote:lol in what world do you live. Ron Paul, right, Obama would be the first President since Washington to win the electoral college unanimously. His dream is to run against a racist flake.

Paul would carry Texas and kansas.

An alternate title to this thread could just as easily be "Will the Republicans nominate Barry Goldwater again?". Even though anti-Obama sentiment runs high among the right wing of the Republican party, I believe that it would be a mistake for the R's to nominate anyone with extreme right-wing views. There are still an awful lot of moderates in the Republican Party, as well as the independent voters. Goldwater's extreme views scared these two groups away in 1964, leading to a landslide victory by Johnson. Social issues have served the R's well in the past, but the overwhelming issues this year are the economy and jobs. To ignore these in favor of a social agenda is, IMO, political suicide.

It doesn't matter who is nominated. The money available in the Presidents war chest will squash even Romney's efforts. Presidential campaigns used to be about "it's the economy stupid"... not any longer. Now it's about "fundraising".

Why Democrats are so engaged in the Republican nomination process is comical. They should be worrying about getting their paws out of the economy so it can be righted and raising even more money for the Pres.

That's what will keep him in office not who he will run against.

Thread Bomber;1091306 wrote:Paul would carry Texas and kansas.

Not when he tells them he wants to abolish social security and medicare.

Con_Alma;1091812 wrote:It doesn't matter who is nominated. The money available in the Presidents war chest will squash even Romney's efforts. Presidential campaigns used to be about "it's the economy stupid"... not any longer. Now it's about "fundraising".

Why Democrats are so engaged in the Republican nomination process is comical. They should be worrying about getting their paws out of the economy so it can be righted and raising even more money for the Pres.

That's what will keep him in office not who he will run against.

Fundraising has now become even more of a factor, thanks to the five right-leaning Supreme Court Justices who opened the door to unlimited personal and corporate donations. You folks got what you wanted with Citizens United, now you want to bitch about it when Obama is allowed to use it.

stlouiedipalma;1091823 wrote:Fundraising has now become even more of a factor, thanks to the five right-leaning Supreme Court Justices who opened the door to unlimited personal and corporate donations. You folks got what you wanted with Citizens United, now you want to bitch about it when Obama is allowed to use it.

Who was bitching about it? It is what drives this country.

stlouiedipalma;1091823 wrote:Fundraising has now become even more of a factor, thanks to the five right-leaning Supreme Court Justices who opened the door to unlimited personal and corporate donations. You folks got what you wanted with Citizens United, now you want to bitch about it when Obama is allowed to use it.

Huh? Go back to the 2010 State of the Union address where Barry tore into the SCOTUS decision and Justice Alito mouthed the words, "not true" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/alito-not-true_n_439672.html

What a fucking hypocrite, this guy Barry. He gets in front of America and excoriates the SCOTUS for a ruling he wants to overturn...and now he'll use the super pac money until the spigot goes dry. IF he had any moral fibers in his body, he'd walk his own talk. Of, course, that would be something completely different from him. What a leader, this guy Barry.

BGFalcons82;1091886 wrote:Huh? Go back to the 2010 State of the Union address where Barry tore into the SCOTUS decision and Justice Alito mouthed the words, "not true" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/alito-not-true_n_439672.html

What a ****ing hypocrite, this guy Barry. He gets in front of America and excoriates the SCOTUS for a ruling he wants to overturn...and now he'll use the super pac money until the spigot goes dry. IF he had any moral fibers in his body, he'd walk his own talk. Of, course, that would be something completely different from him. What a leader, this guy Barry.

So it was the President that was bitching about it? Maybe that's what stlouiedipalma meant.

I think it was a terrible decision by the Court and now we are seeing the fruit of their labor. All of the Republican candidates have Super PACs which are funded by sugar daddies of one form or another. Now that Barry is planning to play by the new rules it has all of you in an uproar. Check out what Newt's sugar daddy had to say about it.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/sheldon-adelson-newt-gingrich-forbes-interview-/1

"Bob Dole would nominate Bob Dole"-----Bob Dole.

Footwedge;1092587 wrote:"Bob Dole would nominate Bob Dole"-----Bob Dole.

LOL. Bob Dole also says don't forget to secure the railing.

[video=youtube;hWib8GbrIlA][/video]

I'm a republican. I didn't vote republican in the last election because I didnt like the vp. For their sake, I hope the get it right.

Hey, the R's can always turn to Jeb Bush. Maybe that old adage about "the third time's the charm" could serve as a campaign slogan, right up there with "He's the smart one in the family". Nominating him would really be a "Bob Dole" moment, but that may be all the R's have left. I really don't believe that any of the "final four" have a realistic chance of winning in November.

stlouiedipalma;1094651 wrote:Hey, the R's can always turn to Jeb Bush. Maybe that old adage about "the third time's the charm" could serve as a campaign slogan, right up there with "He's the smart one in the family". Nominating him would really be a "Bob Dole" moment, but that may be all the R's have left. I really don't believe that any of the "final four" have a realistic chance of winning in November.

LMAO Unless the economy rebounds, Obama doesn't stand a chance no matter who the Repub nominate.

stlouiedipalma;1094651 wrote:Hey, the R's can always turn to Jeb Bush. Maybe that old adage about "the third time's the charm" could serve as a campaign slogan, right up there with "He's the smart one in the family". Nominating him would really be a "Bob Dole" moment, but that may be all the R's have left. I really don't believe that any of the "final four" have a realistic chance of winning in November.

LMAO Unless the economy rebounds, Obama doesn't stand a chance no matter who the Repubics nominate.

stlouiedipalma;1094651 wrote:...I really don't believe that any of the "final four" have a realistic chance of winning in November.

Perfect. Their positions are of no importance then.

believer;1095270 wrote:LMAO Unless the economy rebounds, Obama doesn't stand a chance no matter who the Repubics nominate.

Not if the R's keep going crazy and alienating the key demographics-moderates, women, and Latinos.
I doubt that the R's right now, can take the swing states like Obama did. Ohio will probably go red, but I doubt Colorado, Virginia and Penn do.

ptown_trojans_1;1095405 wrote:Not if the R's keep going crazy and alienating the key demographics-moderates, women, and Latinos.
I doubt that the R's right now, can take the swing states like Obama did. Ohio will probably go red, but I doubt Colorado, Virginia and Penn do.

Virginia and Pennsylvania can easily tilt Republican especially if Romney gets the nod (which seems likely). I can vouch for PA since I lived there the past 9 years and EVERYONE I've talk to are fed up with Obama...even many Dems.

"Will the Republicans nominate Bob Dole again"
as they line up for mitt romney
a man with
less character than Bob Dole
less courage than Bob Dole
less oratorical skill than Bob Dole or a tree stump

isadore;1095856 wrote:"Will the Republicans nominate Bob Dole again"
as they line up for mitt romney
a man with
less character than Bob Dole
less courage than Bob Dole
less oratorical skill than Bob Dole or a tree stump

We're not lining up for Willard...he's simply the most electable of the offerings presented to us.

If we could take the electability of Romney, the eloquence of Newt, the social conservatism of Santorum, and the economic common-sense of Paul and merge them into a single candidate I'd be a very happy camper.

As it is - well - it is what it is.