Rubio might be the strongest of the bunch vs. Mrs. Clinton. But I don't see him winning the nomination. Right now I'd make Rick Perry the front-runner.

 

Perry lags in polling, fundraising, and popularity compared to his other Republican contenders.

 

He also has to compete with Cruz, who is immensely popular in Texas, with donors in Texas.

 

How you came to this conclusion is beyond me. He is not the front runner by any means. (not that that means anything right now anyway).

You must subscribe to Donald Trump's newsletter.

You must be an ostrich.

The nation has changed greatly in terms of demographics since 2000. Revisit Post No. 55.

 

What do demographics have to do with my post?

 

The concept of needing your base still holds despite changing demographics. It just means they become a part of your base.

 

Which is why I gave the Barack/Hillary example. Hillary alienated her base.

Here are some numbers for you Mitch. Obama lost the white vote by the widest margin of any winning candidate ever - 39% to 59% for Romney. The previous record was 12% spread. Even though he only got 39% of the white vote Obama wins. Obama also lost ground with African Americans, 2% fewer than his first election. So how did Obama win? Over 71% of Latinos voted for Obama. That is why I said after the last election that Republicans better change their positions on immigration reform or they will be in trouble in future elections. Whoever the Dem candidate is will do better than Obama did with white voters and with women voters so that makes the challenge even greater for a Republican candidate. The number one issue in the next election? Immigration.

 

I will recant on an earlier comment. Cruz might have better chance than I was thinking because of the Latino vote.

None of that changes the fact that a Republican will not win the general election if conservatives stay home in big numbers. Turning out the base may not result in a win either but there is no way that a moderate Republican will beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

None of that changes the fact that a Republican will not win the general election if conservatives stay home in big numbers. Turning out the base may not result in a win either but there is no way that a moderate Republican will beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

 

Romney got more Republican votes than any Republican ever, except Bush in 2004. And Bush 2004 only received 1 million more than Romney.

 

So Romney got more Republican votes, more African American votes, more white votes and more women votes than McCain and still lost.

Edited June 9, 201412 yr by Voice of Reason

Unlike 2012, I really like the Republican field. But a lot of these guys have no shot at winning a general election. Cruz is not winning. Neither is Walker, Huckabee, Ryan, Santorum, and probably add Carson to that group.

 

The GOP nominee will be Christie, Bush, Rubio, or Rand Paul.

Romney got more Republican votes than any Republican ever, except Bush in 2004. And Bush 2004 only received 1 million more than Romney.

 

So Romney got more Republican votes, more African American votes, more white votes and more women votes than McCain and still lost.

Your analysis ignores the nation's population growth between 2004 and 2012. Romney was running against a candidate with a poor record and still only received about 1 percent more of the vote than McCain, who has a terrible candidate. Obama was the first president to win reelection with fewer popular and electoral votes than he received in his first election - and Romney still lost.

 

McCain and Romney are both moderates and both lost. If Republicans nominate another generic moderate, then he will lose as well. The Republican Party is still a conservative party and continuing to field moderate presidential candidates is a recipe for continuing disaster. Obama's tenure as president offers a target rich environment for Republicans but only if their candidate can draw sharp contrasts to Hillary and Obama.

None of that changes the fact that a Republican will not win the general election if conservatives stay home in big numbers. Turning out the base may not result in a win either but there is no way that a moderate Republican will beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

After eight years of Obama, GOP turnout likely will be strong in '16, regardless of the candidate. The GOP's best path to victory likely rests with the success of its voter suppression tactics in states that went for Obama in '12.

After eight years of Obama, GOP turnout likely will be strong in '16, regardless of the candidate. The GOP's best path to victory likely rests with the success of its voter suppression tactics in states that went for Obama in '12.

And Hillary's best chance will be to repeat Obama's feat of getting 100%+ turnout in many precincts of the states that wen for Obama in 2012.

 

Voter ID laws are not voter suppression - they are tools to combat vote fraud.

And Hillary's best chance will be to repeat Obama's feat of getting 100%+ turnout in many precincts of the states that wen for Obama in 2012.

 

Voter ID laws are not voter suppression - they are tools to combat vote fraud.

Make it harder for those college kids to vote. Keep the lines long and slow in those minority districts. Outlaw straight-party ballots. Move the early voting site from downtown Cincinnati waaaay out to the edge of the city.

 

That's the GOP key to victory.

McCain and Romney are both moderates and both lost.

 

I don't think either of them lost because they were/are moderates. No Republican was winning in 2008 due to the financial meltdown that was attributed to George W. Bush's leadership.

 

In the case of Romney, that was simply a repeat of 2004: a vulnerable incumbent beat an impersonal, disconnected, chameleon robot from Massachusetts.

I don't think either of them lost because they were/are moderates. No Republican was winning in 2008 due to the financial meltdown that was attributed to George W. Bush's leadership.

 

In the case of Romney, that was simply a repeat of 2004: a vulnerable incumbent beat an impersonal, disconnected, chameleon robot from Massachusetts.

I agree that it would have been extremely difficult for any Republican to have won in 2008 but McCain is no conservative and he was an absolutely horrible candidate. You are also right about Romney's weakness but he, like McCain, was also a moderate. There is really nothing in recent elections that support the idea that Republicans will have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2016 if their candidate is another moderate.

Your analysis ignores the nation's population growth between 2004 and 2012. Romney was running against a candidate with a poor record and still only received about 1 percent more of the vote than McCain, who has a terrible candidate. Obama was the first president to win reelection with fewer popular and electoral votes than he received in his first election - and Romney still lost.

 

McCain and Romney are both moderates and both lost. If Republicans nominate another generic moderate, then he will lose as well. The Republican Party is still a conservative party and continuing to field moderate presidential candidates is a recipe for continuing disaster. Obama's tenure as president offers a target rich environment for Republicans but only if their candidate can draw sharp contrasts to Hillary and Obama.

 

And that growth is happening in demographic groups that are not voting Republican. Obama not only gained percentage with Hispanics, the Hispanic vote grew from 8% of the total to 10%. The next Republican candidate can get out the vote and win a higher percentage and total of that number and lose by an even wider margin than McCain. George Will was one person who was talking a lot about this after the 2012 election.

 

Here is what Karl Rove said after 2012: "If we're gonna win in the future, Republicans are gonna have to do better among Latinos and among women," Rove said.

There is really nothing in recent elections that support the idea that Republicans will have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2016 if their candidate is another moderate.

 

My argument would be that the 2012 GOP field had several more conservative candidates than Romney, but none of those people stood a chance against Obama. I didn't vote for Romney (or Obama), but he was the most electable GOP candidate in that sorry field.

 

I don't think the Republicans have to nominate a moderate in 2016 at all, but neither do I believe that it would be a guaranteed loss if they did. Whoever the nominee is, that person has to connect with voters & put together the necessary organization to win. Say what you want about GWB & Obama, but both of those guys could do that (even though I think both stunk/stink as Presidents).

 

I've always held the belief that America elects its Presidents based primarily on style & not substance. The two parties don't always nominate candidates that way, but in the general election, America always goes with the more personable of the two candidates. I think style has much more to do with it than moderate/conservative/liberal.

Here is what Karl Rove said after 2012: "If we're gonna win in the future, Republicans are gonna have to do better among Latinos and among women," Rove said.

 

He is right.