Back to Romney?

[DM1906]

Ben Carson head to head against Hillary will win. He is the ONLY candidate that can pull votes from her.

Forget Trump he is Democrat in Republican camo

I don't disagree with this, but polls are misleading, and less than 1/2 the non-(D) voters agree. Even if the polls are accurate, a split vote is an absolute lost election. If there's a capable (I) on the ballet along with an (R), (D) wins (landslide, historically). Simple as that. It's a two-party system, like it or not. Any votes for other than the nominee is 1/2 vote for the other side. If Carson is nominated, I'll vote for him, without complaint. If Trump is nominated, I'll vote for him, reluctantly.

[sqlbullet]

I completely agree about recognizing that it is a two party system and that has to factor into your voting.  Clinton won in the 90's on a splintered Republican party, and Bush won on the 2000's on a splintered Democrat party.  Sadly Obama one twice against a reasonably unified, if somewhat unmotivated, republican voter base.

The interesting thing here is the Dem's have a similar issue.  Hillary is the media favorite, but Bernie has a lot of grass roots support.  Lot of Dem's can't stomach Hilliary, but would splinter the vote for Bernie.

[Ramjet]

Ben Carson head to head against Hillary will win. He is the ONLY candidate that can pull votes from her.

Forget Trump he is Democrat in Republican camo

I don't disagree with this, but polls are misleading, and less than 1/2 the non-(D) voters agree. Even if the polls are accurate, a split vote is an absolute lost election. If there's a capable (I) on the ballet along with an (R), (D) wins (landslide, historically). Simple as that. It's a two-party system, like it or not. Any votes for other than the nominee is 1/2 vote for the other side. If Carson is nominated, I'll vote for him, without complaint. If Trump is nominated, I'll vote for him, reluctantly.

So let's get Carson nominated and its win win.

[DM1906]

I completely agree about recognizing that it is a two party system and that has to factor into your voting.  Clinton won in the 90's on a splintered Republican party, and Bush won on the 2000's on a splintered Democrat party.  Sadly Obama one twice against a reasonably unified, if somewhat unmotivated, republican voter base.

The interesting thing here is the Dem's have a similar issue.  Hillary is the media favorite, but Bernie has a lot of grass roots support.  Lot of Dem's can't stomach Hilliary, but would splinter the vote for Bernie.

I firmly believe Ron Paul fouled the 2012 election. Not only did his supporters vote for him, many voters just didn't vote because of it. Had Paul left the election and endorsed Romney, it may have been enough to nudge him past Obama. Voting one's conscience and supporting a candidate who is aligned with your beliefs is a noble deed. It's a noble loss. You either support the party, or lose. The lesser of evils is the only acceptable option remaining. The balance of the votes, which are the deciding votes, are (I) or unaffiliated, swingers.

The Dem's aren't stupid. Bernie won't be on the ballet with HRC. The Dem's/Lib's are unified against the GOP, and will vote their party. Count on that.

[Ramjet]

Dr Carson is a Repubilcan candidate I will vote for him in the primaries.

[Wolfie]

Read these 2 stories from this Republican blogger and committeeman. You will see just how hard it will be for any Republican to beat any Democrat in 2016.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/11/the-missing-story-of-the-2014-election/

The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even trying. That's 257 out of the 270 needed to win.

Arguably Virginia now sits behind that wall as well. Democrats won the Senate seat there without campaigning in a year when hardly anyone but Republicans showed up to vote and the GOP enjoyed its largest wave in modern history. Virginia would take that tally to 270. Again, that's 270 out of 270.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2015/11/republicans-growing-demographic-trap/

This has created a strange and unusually dangerous dynamic, best seen in the radically different results in and out of Presidential election years. We are settling into a pattern, likely to continue for a few more cycles, in which Democrats win crushing victories every four years while Republicans celebrate a faux "resurgence" in the meantime. With each passing year, the Democratic Presidential advantage grows wider while the Republicans' off-year bump weakens.

Political parties go where their supporters take them. A massive influx of Southern conservatives worried about the end of segregation fled the Democratic Party in the last quarter of the 20th century, filling up a previously empty Republican grassroots infrastructure there. Their influence has tipped the balance of power inside the party nationally, suffocating Northern and urban commercial interests that defined the organization from its origins. That electorate dominates Southern politics and their influence has shifted local power, for a while, in rural stretches of the North and West. And they are dying off.

[sqlbullet]

I know alot of guys aren't going to like what Wolfie had to say, but he is spot on.

You guys that are reading this and getting hot under the collar, and are convinced he is out in left field need to find a way to come to grips with this.  The modern incarnation of the Republican party isn't going to put a president in the white house.

Unless there is a fundamental shift in the kind of candidate the republicans offer, their party is dead.

[Ramjet]

Unless there is a fundamental shift in the kind of candidate the republicans offer, their party is dead.

I agree that's precisely why I think that Carson is that alternative.

Moderates from both parties decide the elections. Thier votes will cross party lines.