Skip to comments.Republican Primary Voters Seem Determined to Nominate Candidates Who can Win
Posted on 05/11/2014 9:04:26 AM PDT by QT3.14
click here to read article
Thanks for the ping!
What you mean is "lesser" of two evils. The smaller of two evils. The less large of two evils.
That said, you are 100 percent correct that voting for the lesser of two evils is what got us here. And you would be correct in saying that Obama was in a sense "the lessor of two evils," but I'd sure wonder which two evils you referred to, because as a landlord (or lessor), Obama has a whole lot more than two evils in his property portfolio!!!! ;^)
Well said. Thank you.
Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, Green Energy, Lois Lerner.
That's right, it's much better when the Democrats win. In fact, why even vote, we'd risk electing a RINO.
I did not say that and if you think that I did, you are mistaken. The Todd Aiken case illustrates my point. That race had at least three rock solid conservatives, any one of whom could have beaten Claire McCaskill. Claire finances Aiken's campaign figuring that she has the best shot of beating him, but not the others. He wins thanks to her ads and proceeds to put his foot in his mouth. He was done at that moment but refused to withdraw. Not smart on his part and suicidal on our part for those who continued to support him.
To exercise political power, you must first win it.
Centurion puts forth the idiotic argument of assuming that had Romney been in office, his choices wouldn't have been just as odious and the consequences just as evil, actually moreso because a Republican being responsible neuters and weakens any Republican opposition to said evils. His record in Massachusetts indicates that he would be a full-goose leftist in a Republican costume.
In such circumstances today, it's better that the Dems win. But it's BEST if either one, the leftist Republican or the leftist Democrat, wins by a plurality, where the clear majority of Americans are on record as rejecting said president, Dem or Rep. Plurality splits FAVOR limited government conservatism, if Perot is any example. Clinton was openly rejected by 57% of Americans his first term, and was steamrolled by the Republican Revolution.
Clinton was openly rejected by 51 percent of Americans his second term, during which he was impeached. I want to weaken leftist government tyranny, which is why I'll be voting third party in 2016 as I did in 2012, if the GOP fields another leftist, which it will.
And instead of fooling myself that I'm voting "against" anything, I will embrace the truth that I must cast my vote with an eye to what I am voting FOR, and I will be voting FOR a plurality.
An excellent question, especially as it applies to the Republican party. Conservatives, in the Reagan era, seized political power for the first time since the 20's by electing Ronald Reagan. There will be no Ronald Reagan miracle this time around. Political power will come one race at a time and it will take a long time. The easy races have already been won, no RINOs in those seats. But you are not going to win those that we still need to take by backing someone who can never win that district. Find a candidate who is more conservative than the incumbent and more conservative than the GOPe guy who want to stuff his pockets. You will be able to tell when this is happening when the House leadership starts to change.
This is what the Democrats do. They don't care who wins as long as they vote for and with the leadership. Once we can change the leadership, then we can start imposing some discipline on the troops.
Yeah, let’s get us some more Democrat Presidents.
McCaskill merely bought herself another term. She won’t luck out again.
She is courting the women's vote, especially suburban women (read Kansas City and St. Louis). If she succeeds, she will not be beaten.
19th Amendment was a bad idea bump...
The vote is functional. You advocate voting for functional leftists and argue that their court appointees would be "better" than the functional leftists you voted "against."
When those Republican leftists get in office and advance the left agenda with your sanction and approval because your vote PUT THEM IN OFFICE, will you be here wailing that you didn't vote for that, you voted "against" the Democrats? One thing -- you will fail to be accountable for what you voted FOR.
If my vote for a limited government third-party candidate creates a plurality win for either a Romney-style Republican or a Hillary-style Democrat, that will be something worth voting FOR because it will weaken leftism in both parties. If miracle happened and the limited government third party candidate won on a plurality, so much the better. I am happy to be accountable for any of it.
Her votes are out of step with the Conservative majority in Missouri, and always have been. She won a fluke upset over Sen. Talent in 2006 solely because it was an anti-GOP year and was headed towards a likely defeat in ‘12 against any GOP nominee.
She took a calculated risk by trying to get the nominee she wanted to run against, but it was done because she thought Todd Akin (not Aiken) would be too Conservative. He wasn’t, and he had a lead from the moment he was nominated. Had he not made his ill-advised remarks (that no one could’ve predicted), it’s likely she would’ve lost by upwards of 15%. She isn’t suddenly going to become more popular between now and 2018, and there will likely be a host of Republicans lining up to take her down.
Her only possible hope is to have a RINO Presidency take office in 2017 to run against with its predictable incompetence (to wit: if Willard had won in ‘12, we’d be facing disastrous anti-GOP midterms this year), but if the Dems retain it, she is finished, and so will be the low-hanging fruit that dodged the ‘12 defeats because of terrible (mostly RINO establishment) opponents (which was, in fact, the real cause of the GOP’s failure to win the Senate, the more than 10 races, not the convenient scapegoats of Akin & Mourdock).
Believe it or not Finny, I’ve worked with Mexicans. I worked with many of them when my brother and I had a roofing business for 10 years. I know everything you say is true. BUT..... it’s not real smart to say that to a bunch of ol’ Redneck boys in Kentucky if you want their vote!!! Where the hell did common sense go? A woman’s baby may be ugly as a dog’s shaved butt; however, it might not be wise to say that if you want her vote.
A sure Conservative seat (not just a Republican seat) thrown away because Todd Aiken’s ego was more important than the Conservative cause.
Exactly!! He should have bowed out gracefully and backed his replacement. But, he didn’t because there were enough Conservative “purists” who encouraged him to stay in and fight. I think the idiot might have thought he actually had a chance.
LOL! Good point! But I would rather the ol’ Redneck boys in Kentucky to get the point that the illegals are a symptom, not a cause.
I hope that you are right, but those women who pay no attention to politics think that Claire is in there fighting for them.
Like Dole, McCain and Romney?
Please see my post #66, which I sent to Justiceseeker93 in error. Apologies to Justiceseeker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.