So lets pretend its Clinton v. Christie...

Mott the Hoople said:
Chrisit is a traditional establishment Republican. He certainly has the qualifications for executive leadership. Technically speaking he's farther to the right than Mitt Romney. I think Christie would govern reasonably and competently. I don't have the justified fear that I had with W that the job would overwhelm him.

Having said that I have the same concern with him that I had with Romney. Will the primary process and the base pull him so far to the right that I could not in good conscience vote for the man?
Click to expand...

That's really the question for any Republican... Will the primary process bring him so far right that he cant win. Romney was really the best of the Republican candidates... but one of the factors in his loss was that he was drawn into some radical views, then the etch-a-sketch did not work so well for him.
 
Jarod said:
That's really the question for any Republican... Will the primary process bring him so far right that he cant win. Romney was really the best of the Republican candidates... but one of the factors in his loss was that he was drawn into some radical views, then the etch-a-sketch did not work so well for him.
Click to expand...

that and his 47% comment that drove the final nail in his coffin
 
I think that if, somehow, hardcore primary voters from both parties could have an epiphany, and realize that nominating a candidate who shared most of their views but who also was more centrist than they, themselves would prefer would result in general elections between two folks who naturally could govern from somewhere near the middle. Bill Bradley versus Lamar Alexander in 2000.... Bill Richarson versus Jon Huntsman in 2008. Alas... that will never happen. Instead, we will see the primary process continue unchanged where all the democrats run hard to the left, and all the republicans run hard to the right, and then, the bruised and battered winners spend the rest of the time tap dancing back toward the middle alienating and disillusioning nearly everyone in the process.
 
maineman said:
I think that if, somehow, hardcore primary voters from both parties could have an epiphany, and realize that nominating a candidate who shared most of their views but who also was more centrist than they, themselves would prefer would result in general elections between two folks who naturally could govern from somewhere near the middle. Bill Bradley versus Lamar Alexander in 2000.... Bill Richarson versus Jon Huntsman in 2008. Alas... that will never happen. Instead, we will see the primary process continue unchanged where all the democrats run hard to the left, and all the republicans run hard to the right, and then, the bruised and battered winners spend the rest of the time tap dancing back toward the middle alienating and disillusioning nearly everyone in the process.
Click to expand...

What did Bill Clinton do to "run left" in his campaign? I do not believe the Democrats have allowed the extreme left to control the party as much as the Republicans have allowed the far right to dictate.
 
I am not interested enough to go dig through Clinton primary campaign rhetoric, and you may be right in your observation that republicans do it more blatantly, but the truth of the matter is that primary voters are core base voters, and they tend to be further from the middle than general election voters. It is their selfishness - on both sides - that causes this phenomenon.
 
maineman said:
I am not interested enough to go dig through Clinton primary campaign rhetoric, and you may be right in your observation that republicans do it more blatantly, but the truth of the matter is that primary voters are core base voters, and they tend to be further from the middle than general election voters. It is their selfishness - on both sides - that causes this phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I'm sure that at this point in our history, its the Republicans doing it to such an extreme that they are shooting themselves in the foot. Huntsman did not even come in fourth place, behind Romney was a group of candidates MUCH more wacko than Romney. Compared to Santorum, Gingrich and the 9-9-9 guy... Romney would have fallen in the same category as Huntsman.
 
Topspin said:
Clinton and Obama talked right of thier party!
Click to expand...

Agree; both Clinton and Obama were centrist candidates.

If the left controlled the Democratic primaries, we would have ended up with Kucinich in 2008. And we would have lost the general election. But we didn't pick him overall...
 
DamnYankee said:
Then they show their true selves and move left. Again, Democrats never campaign as liberals.
Click to expand...
that's your opinion. The FACT of the matter is that Obama beat your guys fairly impressively by not only holding HIS base, but getting the middle that was freaked out by your candidates. The guy who wins the middle of the bell curve wins. You guys just can't seem to figure that out. You keep thinking, Johnny Mac and Mr. Mittens just weren't far right enough, when the exact opposite is the case.
 
And we nominate candidates that can actually WIN the middle. Lately, you guys have had a tough time doing that. And your plans? Find someone even MORE conservative, of course. Oh that, and try to tell the electorate that the democrat is really scary... Like the last two times... A kenyan, a muslim, a socialist, a negro, and yet, the electorate didn't buy your fear tactics, and remain freaked out by your two wacko candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top