Revisit post 85. Hillary won a bunch of states in '08 Democratic presidential primary. Chisholm ran in '72. Dems, unlike the GOP, have broken through the barrier, and therein lies the difference.

 

By the way, didn't Michele Bachmann come real close in Iowa in '12? Almost a GOP game-changer, but not quite.

 

Did Hillary win a bunch of states? I was thinking she might have won some but seems like she usually finished second to Obama. Did Chisholm win any states? That is your parameter, not mine.

 

Again, where is this long and storied history of the Dems that so dwarfs the republicans?

 

I did see where Chisholm won New Jersey with 2/3rds of the vote, second went to someone I've never heard of with 33% of the vote. No other candidates got a single vote and there were 0 delegates awarded. Seems like a gimme to me so I don't know how you can count that. So you have 2-3 people who have won a state in 40+ years?

Edited September 17, 201511 yr by 75center

So did you just call Republican voters in Ft. Thomas racist ?

 

No, racist and sexist.

Way over the line with that one.

 

Maybe he could have worded it a little better, or leave out the city's name.

 

But it is a mostly republican area such as Ft Mitchell.

 

Maybe he can ask the question and leave out a name of a city.

Last night was my first time taking a close look at the candidates. Here are my thoughts:

 

Stop wasting time and money - Huckabee, Walker and Cruz. None of those three have a prayer of a chance IMO. Cruz comes across as a mad scientist to me. He is obviously very smart but borderline crazy at the same time. I am not sure, but I think Huckabee is on this site as Mt. Ref.

 

I like what they say but they can't win - Paul, Christie, Carson. I expected Paul to be a stronger candidate than what he showed last night. He seemed a little too much on the fringe and weak. Christie had a strong showing last night and took a different angle but I just don't see any way he can get into the top contender status. Carson has great numbers and is a smart guy, but I think he hurt himself last night. He did too much backpedaling and explaining his own comments and was not forceful enough.

 

Strong but Flawed - Fiorina and Bush. I believe with the other viable candidates in the race, these two have too much baggage to win the nomination. Great job by Fiorina last night but she does not have a track record that will get her the win. Kasich is right in Bush's wheelhouse and is a better candidate.

 

The entertaining loser - Trump. People will tire of the act. His answer last night on defense credentials and knowledge doom him. Republicans like someone strong on defense and Trump basically admitted he doesn't know enough to speak on it. Fiorina got some great shots on him last night.

 

The Real Contenders - Rubio and Kasich. If the Republicans want to win this election, they need to nominate one of these two. Republicans are killing themselves in the general election with all the immigration talk. Rubio as a Latino can overcome all that. He is very smart, very well spoken and knows his stuff. He is very strong on defense. Kasich has the best track record, has the best profile for electability, has a great message and handles himself very well. If I were voting today, Kasich is my candidate.

 

I think you gave a great summary VOR.

No, racist and sexist.

So much GOP sensitivity today. By the way, you may want to go back and revise post 100 -- the one where you first agreed with my analysis and now find it racist and sexist.

Thoughts on the premise or the answer?

 

From strictly an electoral standpoint, I thought a long time ago that a Bush/Kasich ticket would be tough. But Bush didn't so himself any favors, and I'm not sure that the last name helps him any more anyway.

I am not sure, but I think Huckabee is on this site as Mt. Ref.

 

 

5. No comments, whatsoever, about any member's true identity in any public forum on BGP. This includes any question, hint (whether true or not), attempt to divulge, or attempt to determine a user's identity posted in any BGP forum.

 

 

I think Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, and Christie are in danger of dropping out.

 

Good, good, good, good, and good!

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center

Maybe he could have worded it a little better, or leave out the city's name.

 

But it is a mostly republican area such as Ft Mitchell.

 

Maybe he can ask the question and leave out a name of a city.

I could have. But I didn't. Just trying to keep the discussion "rousing," which is what the introduction to the political thread promises participants.

Your shout-out is meaningless until a black or female GOP candidate actually wins a state GOP presidential primary. Ain't never happened, and I don't see it happening in '16 either. If I'm wrong, then forecast which primaries Fiorina or Carson will win.

 

 

You are not wrong. You are spot on, in fact.

I could have. But I didn't. Just trying to keep the discussion "rousing," which is what the introduction to the political thread promises participants.

 

I wouldn't consider calling the inhabitants of an entire city racist as rousing discussion.

So much GOP sensitivity today. By the way, you may want to go back and revise post 100 -- the one where you first agreed with my analysis and now find it racist and sexist.

 

My bad, I didn't make myself clear. I was agreeing with your premise that the GOP needs to be more diverse.

 

What would you call your statement about Ft Thomas?

You are not wrong. You are spot on, in fact.

 

So you two think people in Ft. Thomas for the most part are racist and sexist ?

Maybe he could have worded it a little better, or leave out the city's name.

 

But it is a mostly republican area such as Ft Mitchell.

 

Maybe he can ask the question and leave out a name of a city.

 

What question? He stated that Republicans in Ft . THOMAS will only vote for people who look like them. That is a statement.