I disagree totally and feel this line has been a cop out for many people who claim to want a moderate or bipartisanship.

 

Before running for Pres, McCain was a darling of the media, moderates and liberals for his maverick ways, swimming against the tide of the GOP hard-liners, so there's that. And there was also Romneycare, which is the model for Obamacare, which is being vilified as a big step toward socialism.

 

How again is that a cop-out? Did both candidates not, in fact, sign on bulldog conservative-type would-be VPs as blatant pandering to the right wing of the GOP, so as to strengthen their conservative cred? :idunno:

Before running for Pres, McCain was a darling of the media, moderates and liberals for his maverick ways, swimming against the tide of the GOP hard-liners, so there's that. And there was also Romneycare, which is the model for Obamacare, which is being vilified as a big step toward socialism.

 

How again is that a cop-out? Did both candidates not, in fact, sign on bulldog conservative-type would-be VPs as blatant pandering to the right wing of the GOP, so as to strengthen their conservative cred? :idunno:

 

Your absolutely correct, but what they both failed to do was energize the base of the Party. Not the right wing nut jobs and not the moderate Libricans, I don't think the base of the party was never excited about either one of them. They both kind outlasted their primary opponents and both had favorable media coverage compared to their primary opponents. I talked to a lot of people that voted for one or both of them, but only because they were the lesser of two evils so to speak, not because they excited to have either one as President.

 

As stated earlier Romney won the independent vote in nearly all states, if the base of the GOP had turned out and actually voted for someone they were excited about Romney may have won the election.

Again, matter of degree. He went right as to compared to his normal position on the spectrum. Sen McCain did the same thing.

As most moderate Republicans do, McCain and Romney moved to the right during the primaries and back to the middle during the general campaign. Neither are conservative as conservatives understand that term. Romney is somewhat conservative fiscally but there is nothing conservative about McCain. With McCain, it is all about saying whatever it takes to win an election. Republicans should try running a true conservative for a change.

Basically, yes to the Paul question.

 

It will always come down to the middle 1/3 of the voters. IMO Paul and Cruz will not play well to that middle segment. They play really well to some segments but not enough IMO. Of course, it's 2013 so I fully realize things can change.

 

As to debate skills I think that has a very small long-term impact on who gets the nomination.

Cruz's speaking skills are not limited to formal debates. Being able to deliver fire up a crowd with one's speaking ability has a huge long-term impact. Being able to read a teleprompter well is the main advantage that Obama had over Hillary Clinton. Cruz's father, Rafael, is a better speaker than McCain and Romney are.

Your absolutely correct, but what they both failed to do was energize the base of the Party. Not the right wing nut jobs and not the moderate Libricans, I don't think the base of the party was never excited about either one of them. They both kind outlasted their primary opponents and both had favorable media coverage compared to their primary opponents. I talked to a lot of people that voted for one or both of them, but only because they were the lesser of two evils so to speak, not because they excited to have either one as President.

 

As stated earlier Romney won the independent vote in nearly all states, if the base of the GOP had turned out and actually voted for someone they were excited about Romney may have won the election.

 

But that someone may not have brought out the Independents, so would it matter anyway?

 

And besides, anti-Obama sentiment was still a major motivator, so I'm not buying that the far right/base sat this last one out the way you seem to be suggesting. Romney (and McCain) had bigger problems than "energizing the base," and that was the fact that Obama brought out voters that sat previous elections out, and it has a lot to do with why there's been a recent upswing in the voter ID push by the GOP.

As stated earlier Romney won the independent vote in nearly all states, if the base of the GOP had turned out and actually voted for someone they were excited about Romney may have won the election.

 

The label of independent voters can be deceiving. The vast majority of self-described independents favor one party or the other and vote nearly identically as their partisan brethren. With the influx of the Tea Party, I imagine there are many who left the Republican Party in protest, but continue to identify strongly with their candidates. My point being that independent doesn't simply mean neutral or "swing voters." So, the question is how those "independents" break down along party sympathy? Was Romney pulling "lean democrats?"

 

As to your second point, how many conservatives sat at home on election day? Most conservatives appeared to be fired up after the first debate and Romney's subsequent gains in the polls. I think the prospect of knocking off Obama was mouthwatering enough. So, how many were abstaining? There's enough polling going on during these election years that evidence for this phenomenon should be easily obtainable. Furthermore, if there are so many Republicans that want the hardliner candidate so much so that they refuse to participate in the general, why aren't they winning the primaries?

 

And I have never seen Clyde defend Obama or Holder. I have seen him question views that oppose Obama but I have never seen him defend Obama or Holder. Asking questions isn't defending. To this day I honestly couldn't tell you if Clyde is a democrat or republican or libertarian.

 

Personally, I think he leans libertarian.

 

Let's just name a few hot topics and I'll state where I stand:

 

Gay marriage: state issue but I've got no problem with it.

Religion: practicing Catholic

Abortion: against it morally - do NOT think we can jail mothers for having one.

Drugs: Marijuana should be legal. All others - illegal.

NSA spying: 100% against it. Violates the constitution IMO.

DUI checkpoints: Same as NSA spying.

Taxes: Too many

Military: Pro military. No problems with war IF its based on actual intel

Death penalty: Against it not for religious reasons but because they are too many errors that result in a "not guilty" person being killed.

 

So from that you've got me pegged? Hell, I don't have me pegged.

 

The mistake you have made and many others over the years have made is your belief that I take a side. What you call taking a side is me stating flawed info or flawed logic. Not the same. You have no clue how I have voted nor how I WILL vote in the future.

 

Be smarter than that. You've obviously intelligent.

 

See...my man leans libertarian.

But that someone may not have brought out the Independents, so would it matter anyway?

 

And besides, anti-Obama sentiment was still a major motivator, so I'm not buying that the far right/base sat this last one out the way you seem to be suggesting. Romney (and McCain) had bigger problems than "energizing the base," and that was the fact that Obama brought out voters that sat previous elections out, and it has a lot to do with why there's been a recent upswing in the voter ID push by the GOP.

Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004. Turnout in this election was the lowest of the last 3

 

Turnout was down for both Republicans and Democrats, falling 4.2 percentage points for the Democrats from 33.0 percent of eligible citizens in 2008 to 28.8 this year; and 1.2 percentage points for the GOP from 28.4 in 2008 to 27.2 this year. These numbers seem to show that neither party was overly energized for this election. Had the GOP turnout even approached the Dem turnout, Romney would have won. GOP has got to figure a way to get out the vote!!! They have to understand that every vote matters.

Let's just name a few hot topics and I'll state where I stand:

 

Gay marriage: state issue but I've got no problem with it.

Religion: practicing Catholic Methodist

Abortion: against it morally - do NOT think we can jail mothers for having one.

Drugs: Marijuana should be legal. All others - illegal. Don't care either way on MJ

NSA spying: 100% against it. Violates the constitution IMO.

DUI checkpoints: Same as NSA spying. Not as big an issue for me

Taxes: Too many

Military: Pro military. No problems with war IF its based on actual intel

Death penalty: Against it not for religious reasons but because they are too many errors that result in a "not guilty" person being killed.

 

Bolded is the only differences I have with they way you think on these topics...after reading many of your post I wasn't really shocked that we were as aligned as we are on these.

 

I too made the mistake of trying to put a label on you a year or too ago....but you are way too deep a cat to be labeled!

Personally, I think he leans libertarian.

 

Clyde is way to far away on economics to be a libertarian. Not to mention the 2nd amendment.

See...my man leans libertarian.

 

I guess if we only count social issues

Relevant.

 

Relevant.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40648[/ATTACH]

 

Cruz=Ouch

Cruz=Ouch

 

You could also say he has most room to grow. Has the lowest unfavorable ranking. Most GOP have no opinion because he's so new to the scene.