If this guy isn’t distanced quick and early, the republicans will have a lot of damage to repair.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/rick-santorum-returns-111408.html?hp=t1
God, can’t he just go away for good.
The guy just can’t resist bubbling up into the spotlight.
The guy just can’t resist bubbling up into the spotlight.
Eww, gross.
If this guy isn’t distanced quick and early, the republicans will have a lot of damage to repair.
This is the problem when you have a strongly character based party. People won’t compromise on their character 
If this is a Dem candidate touting radical “Social change” and radical “Environmental change” and radical “Tax changes” the Dems throw the dude under the bus because they know that won’t go over in any general election. The Reps on the other had take the guy touting radical “Social change” etc etc and stick by him to the end because “That’s my belief” even though they know he doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning.
Now while I personally loathe the fact that this is the game, it is the game and that is the way it has to be played under todays rules.
If he runs he does the same thing he did in 2012. He garners a large block of right wing christians and holds on to them until he drops out. This forces the remaining candidate to move further to the right in the primary and makes them spend a ton of cash. Both harming them in the general.
~Matt
I take comfort in knowing that Ted Cruz has appeared to take away the attraction from him. Cruz is smart and while he might be social conservative, I have seen little to believe he is a culture warrior on some of the social issues I find distasteful. Believe me, if he was, I would not support him. Maybe there is less to fear after all.
The guy just can’t resist bubbling up into the spotlight.
Eww, gross.
I hear he is just frothing at the opportunity to run again.
He is the right’s answer to Ralph Nader.
He is the right’s answer to Ralph Nader.
My point exactly and do you think for a moment the Dems would let him run as a Dem? Nope, he get’s relegated to New Party, Green Party etc. No way he get’s in the primary as a Dem.
If the Reps want to survive and or compete with the Dems at some point they have to make “The tent smaller” and less inclusive in the sense of who they allow to run under their banner.
~Matt
He is the right’s answer to Ralph Nader.
My point exactly and do you think for a moment the Dems would let him run as a Dem? Nope, he get’s relegated to New Party, Green Party etc. No way he get’s in the primary as a Dem.
If the Reps want to survive and or compete with the Dems at some point they have to make “The tent smaller” and less inclusive in the sense of who they allow to run under their banner.
~Matt
I have to agree. One of the worst things (strategically) to happen to the Republican party was it’s fragmentation via the Tea Party. Instead of having some Reps lean center and some lean right the party turned into right and even farther right alienating a large part of the voter base in the process. Ironically, I could see the Dems repeating the Reps mistake in '16 with the mindset of “we won with center left so let’s capitalize on social issues by leaning even farther to the left”.
The Reps also have to wise up to demographic shifts. Romney/Ryan was a horrible choice when Romney/Rubio was an option. The Reps went with Ryan to cater to the party’s “purists” which strikes me as misguided because they’re going to vote Rep anyways (it’s not like we have instant runoff elections and a third party has a chance, voters will vote for a candidate out of fear of another even if said candidate wasn’t their first choice).
Dems will probably have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to deal with, and while Sanders is a self avowed Socialist, Warren is a hard left progressive, and if what’s been printed in the last year is accurate, is Obama’s choice over Hillary because they feel Hillary’s more pragmatic approach to her progressive leanings will result in watering down some of Obama’s progressive gains, and therefore, legacy.
There is always a spectrum in each party. There are far more hard right conservatives than there are hard left liberals (hence the Tea Party, and all of those primary challenges the past several years). Two years from now the Dem candidate will be the candidate that is most likely to compete strongly in the swing states (Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Hampshire, maybe Ohio/Iowa/Wisconsin). That is all that matters.
Dems will probably have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to deal with, and while Sanders is a self avowed Socialist, Warren is a hard left progressive, and if what’s been printed in the last year is accurate, is Obama’s choice over Hillary because they feel Hillary’s more pragmatic approach to her progressive leanings will result in watering down some of Obama’s progressive gains, and therefore, legacy.
Warren has repeatedly stated that she will not run. Further, even if she did, I doubt she could muster a sufficient war chest (and she probably knows this at the moment). Wall St. certainly won’t throw any $$$ her way.
There is always a spectrum in each party. There are far more hard right conservatives than there are hard left liberals (hence the Tea Party, and all of those primary challenges the past several years). Two years from now the Dem candidate will be the candidate that is most likely to compete strongly in the swing states (Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Hampshire, maybe Ohio/Iowa/Wisconsin). That is all that matters.
This is probably true.
. That is all that matters.
This is probably true.
Then the Republicans are in big trouble because you know they don’t give a tiny rat’s butt about the swing states. A wink and a nod (like Obama’s “Suuuuuure, I’m against gay marriage”) is never good enough for Republicans. They’ve got to test for philosophical purity every 10 seconds.
Then the Republicans are in big trouble because you know they don’t give a tiny rat’s butt about the swing states.
Ridiculous, a very large minority of Republicans care about swing states. They are called “RINOS” by the conservative wing of their party (which arguably constitutes the majority of the GOP). The same dynamic exists in the Dem party, but there aren’t enough of them to hard-core libs to generate a credible grass-roots challenge (the number of “primaried” incumbents is testament to the relative strength of far left/right).
.
Dems will probably have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to deal with, and while Sanders is a self avowed Socialist, Warren is a hard left progressive, and if what’s been printed in the last year is accurate, is Obama’s choice over Hillary because they feel Hillary’s more pragmatic approach to her progressive leanings will result in watering down some of Obama’s progressive gains, and therefore, legacy.
Warren has repeatedly stated that she will not run. Further, even if she did, I doubt she could muster a sufficient war chest (and she probably knows this at the moment). Wall St. certainly won’t throw any $$$ her way.
-
watch what she does, not what she says. She is keeping herself, her face, and name, very high profile.
-
in 08 it was Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, then Obama for the win. Things can change quickly. I remember when it made news that Hillary was such a presumptive winner that even the military industrial complex broke with past behavior, and had favored her with spending over the traditional money they put to the pubs.
That’s true but, unless Warren is just like the rest of them (I don’t think she is), her policies would not be popular at all either on Wall St. or among big money in general. IMO, she’s keeping a high profile now to benefit herself later down the line (not in 2016).
Warren has a high profile because she’s taking on Wall Street. This is unusual because Wall Street owns most of Congress.
What progressive gains? Mitt Romney’s health insurance plan?