The Republican who could have beaten Obama in the 2012 election

[lurkingdirk]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that anyone on the list had any chance of beating President Obama. They just aren't strong enough leaders, nor would any one of them wow people in debates or in public speeches. Ron Paul, while a man with some terrific ideas, simply comes off as a wiener. I know that's a juvenile term, but it's the right one. He's the crazy old man, and I do not believe anyone could get behind him. He'd likely have the best chance on that list, though. Sarah Palin should not be on that list, nor should anyone with a national platform be talking to her, or considering her opinions. She's a complete joke. Of course, this is my own opinion, so ignore me if you'd like.

Now, here's a Republican ticket I could get behind:
Colin Powel/Condoleezza Rice
Both proven leaders, both with White House experience, and both very respectable people who would be, I believe, capable of working across the aisle.

 

[Rey C.]

3 million less republicans voted than in 2008. I attribute that to the lack of a real conservative nominee.

So the GOP is in sort of a numbers pickle? If the candidate is not conservative enough, you're saying that the "real conservatives" won't vote at all? But I would say that if the GOP runs a Santorum, Palin/Bachmann, Perry, "insert real conservative ____" type candidate, then they'll likely lose the independent and Blue Dog vote. And if we're talking social conservatives (not just fiscal), then kiss the female and Hispanic vote goodbye in even bigger numbers than Romney did.

This election (and I think many to come in the future) was won by capturing just enough of the center - not the extremes. But I think your view represents what of a lot of Republicans have said the week after: a belief that the next time, the GOP needs to go even harder to the right. But you lose the center. And the left is already in the other guy's corner. Seems like that creates a numbers problem. Even if some of those 3 million stayed at home for the reason you cited (which I don't know to be true - maybe some of them are former Republicans and now identify as Independents :dunno, I just don't see those numbers working out for you any better the next time than this time. I see them getting worse.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

I thought Romney had the best Chance and he lost.

 

[Rey C.]

Now, here's a Republican ticket I could get behind:
Colin Powel/Condoleezza Rice
Both proven leaders, both with White House experience, and both very respectable people who would be, I believe, capable of working across the aisle.

Dammit! Another name I forgot about! :hairpull:

My man, I do believe that you are the winna of the chicken dinna! Yeah, if Condi Rice had run and gotten the nomination this year, I think that she could have beaten Obama. She could have probably matched Obama on the female vote, gotten a decent size chunk of the Black vote and done a hell of a lot better than Romney with the Hispanic vote. A great many neo-Confederates and a more than a few Evangelicals might have stayed at home (what with her being Black, female, pro-gay rights, gay rumors about her and describes herself as "mildly pro-choice" - just 1 out of 5 would be bad enough for those folks), but they wouldn't have voted for Obama even if she got caught burning a Confederate flag on Veterans Day. And maybe some on the left would have overlooked her neocon past just to vote for a Black, pro-choice, female (gay?) for President. She's also about as pro-Israel as you can get without living in Tel Aviv. So she might have gotten some of the Jewish vote away from Obama too... or at least eaten into his landslide with them. And here's one for the folks who have a tendency to use the acronym MSM more than a little bit: I think the "left wing media conspiracy" would have gone quiet a bit lighter on Condi than on any other GOP candidate that I can think of. Look, even NOW came out to defend crazy ass Michele Bachmann when they felt that Time (or NewsWeek?) had snubbed her. Apparently, at least in NOW's view, when a crazy ass woman says something crazy ass, you're not supposed to make her look like a crazy ass - that is misogynistic!!! So NOW had to school Time on the revised Rules of Political and Gender Correctness. Condi could have benefited from that a lot more than a loon like Bachmann, IMO.

So yeah, if she'd run and if the GOP had been smart enough to nominate her (not a chance in hell), I think she could have beaten Barry. Condi Rice is my write-in for this poll... although I would never vote for her to be President. No neocons, never ever again, is my motto.

 

[Trident1]

Does anyone actually think the MSM would've sided with anyone other than a mixed race Democrat to be President? Not a chance, not even a 100% black Republican man or woman could've beaten Obama. The MSM would never allow that.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Huntsman

 

[Rey C.]

Does anyone actually think the MSM would've sided with anyone other than a mixed race Democrat to be President? Not a chance, not even a 100% black Republican man or woman could've beaten Obama. The MSM would never allow that.

As much as I hear people on the right brag that Fox News is the number one source for TV news in the U.S., it strikes me as rather odd that when things go tits up, the "MSM" is blamed for the failure. Is Fox News now not part of the MSM??? Hell, Fox News pretty much is the TEA Party Express. Why don't they follow Mitt's advice and begin taking responsibility for their own actions and failures??? IMO, if the GOP could get the tentacles of the TEA party, Fox News/Roger Ailes/Karl Rove/Rush Limbaugh, the religious right, the Club for Growth and Grover Norquist from around its neck, and nominate a sane, intelligent, center-right candidate (instead of fakes & phonies, people with backward ideas, people with no ideas or some kind of radical wingnut who dismisses science and higher learning), it really wouldn't matter what the "MSM", George Soros or "the vast left wing conspiracy" approved of. I believe that the American people are just a tad bit brighter than the radical right gives them credit for being.

Obama most certainly could have been beaten, but not by (as many conservatives here claimed just a few months ago) a dead dog. Romney was damn close to being a dead dog, but, as his continued sore-loser whimpering today showed (he lost, in part, because he didn't get it and he clearly still doesn't), he was ill prepared to be President for all of the Republic... and the people sensed that. Message to the GOP: stop running dead dogs.

 

[Trident1]

the "MSM" is blamed for the failure.

Of course they played a role in promoting more negative stories about Romney vis a vis Obama.

he was ill prepared to be President for all of the Republic... and the people sensed that. Message to the GOP: stop running dead dogs.

Obama was ill prepared, and acted as more as a Divider in Chief, certainly not for all in his first term. Has he truly changed for his second term? I am doubtful.

 

[Mayhem]

Of course they played a role in promoting more negative stories about Romney vis a vis Obama.

That's because there were more negative things to say about Romney. :nono:

 

[Mayhem]

Obama was ill prepared, and acted as more as a Divider in Chief, certainly not for all in his first term. Has he truly changed for his second term? I am doubtful.

How was he divider in chief? He did a hell of a lot more to get along with the GOP than vice versa.

 

[Deepcover]

Powell and Rice did not get along much during the W. Bush years. They didn't like each other and even if they ran together for office, they both would have fucked it up due to their egos.

 

[Trident1]

That's because there were more negative things to say about Romney. :nono:

Yeah right. I believe MSNBC was found to be even more biased than Fox news, so much so that it was as useless as any dictatorial State run media.


http://now.msn.com/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox-news-according-to-pew-research-center-study

http://www.onenewspage.com/n/US/74ritmifz/Pew-MSNBC-Bias-Far-Worse-Than-Fox.htm




Actually there are more negative things to say about Obama, after all his first term as Divider in Chief was horrific. Of course the MSM willfully ignored those stories.

 

[xfire]

Fox News is the propaganda wing of the republican party. They always get shit wrong and their idiot followers eat that shit up. Fox News has their entire viewership convinced that Obama is complicit in murder in a nasty government coverup. That may be true, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but no one knows that for a fact and it is patently irresponsible for Fox News to push a dubious storyline, particularly one that grave. But hey, if Fox News viewers BELIEVE it, then by GOD it must be true? Fox News has been lying for months about the presidential polls. Fox News had their viewers convinced that Romney was going to win in a landslide. How did Fox News have the election polls so completely backwards? They knew exactly what they were doing, they were trying to influence public opinion with their lying propaganda, by creating a narrative that had Romney winning in the hopes that it would discourage people from turning out to vote. Maybe Fox News drones should read up on propaganda during World War II, it might shed a little light on the tactics of their favorite news outlet. I rarely watch MSNBC, but when I do I don't worry about their famous liberal bias because I'm skeptical of everything they say, too. Fuck Romney, fuck Fox News, and fuck all their beyond ignorant viewers.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Fox News is the propaganda wing of the republican party. They always get shit wrong and their idiot followers eat that shit up. Fox News has their entire viewership convinced that Obama is complicit in murder in a nasty government coverup. That may be true, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but no one knows that for a fact and it is patently irresponsible for Fox News to push a dubious storyline, particularly one that grave. But hey, if Fox News viewers BELIEVE it, then by GOD it must be true? Fox News has been lying for months about the presidential polls. Fox News had their viewers convinced that Romney was going to win in a landslide. How did Fox News have the election polls so completely backwards? They knew exactly what they were doing, they were trying to influence public opinion with their lying propaganda, by creating a narrative that had Romney winning in the hopes that it would discourage people from turning out to vote. Maybe Fox News drones should read up on propaganda during World War II, it might shed a little light on the tactics of their favorite news outlet. I rarely watch MSNBC, but when I do I don't worry about their famous liberal bias because I'm skeptical of everything they say, too. Fuck Romney, fuck Fox News, and fuck all their beyond ignorant viewers.

What the fuck are you rambling on about? The MSM has their plan together, and FOX is just a little part of it. We're all just monkeys, bro.

 

[bobjustbob]

I can't see any of that crop. It's a group of those not ready, those with personal/policy problems, and basic unknowns. Add that to the fact that the political bosses are fucked in the head gave Obama the walkover.

 

[Trident1]

Fox News is the propaganda wing of the republican party. They always get shit wrong and their idiot followers eat that shit up. Fox News has their entire viewership convinced that Obama is complicit in murder in a nasty government coverup. That may be true, I'm not dismissing the possibility, but no one knows that for a fact and it is patently irresponsible for Fox News to push a dubious storyline, particularly one that grave. But hey, if Fox News viewers BELIEVE it, then by GOD it must be true? Fox News has been lying for months about the presidential polls. Fox News had their viewers convinced that Romney was going to win in a landslide. How did Fox News have the election polls so completely backwards? They knew exactly what they were doing, they were trying to influence public opinion with their lying propaganda, by creating a narrative that had Romney winning in the hopes that it would discourage people from turning out to vote. Maybe Fox News drones should read up on propaganda during World War II, it might shed a little light on the tactics of their favorite news outlet. I rarely watch MSNBC, but when I do I don't worry about their famous liberal bias because I'm skeptical of everything they say, too. Fuck Romney, fuck Fox News, and fuck all their beyond ignorant viewers.

Are you drunk or high?

 

[Rey C.]

How was he divider in chief? He did a hell of a lot more to get along with the GOP than vice versa.

Isn't it funny that the very same people who spent the past four years doing absolutely nothing (to help the republic) but calling the President a commie, socialist, Nazi, foreign born, Muslim, illegitimate President, who hates Whites, God and Israel and spends all his time trying to figure out ways to give away stuff to Blacks, illegals (read, Mexicans/Hispanics) and slutty females... they are the ones calling Obama The Divider in Chief? Ya gotta admit, that's :rofl2:

I guess the challenge in my original question is, what GOP candidate, that could have beaten Obama in 2012, could have also made it through the GOP primaries, considering how out of touch with mainstream thinking that party proved itself to be this year? :dunno: Romney's etch-a-sketch/weekly reset strategy certainly didn't work. I'm not saying that Romney was any good. But it is a shame if a relatively moderate candidate has to pretend to be some kind of extremist wingnut before he can get that party's nomination. So maybe the answer (for 2012) is None of the Above.

 

[Straight Shooter]

So the GOP is in sort of a numbers pickle? If the candidate is not conservative enough, you're saying that the "real conservatives" won't vote at all? But I would say that if the GOP runs a Santorum, Palin/Bachmann, Perry, "insert real conservative ____" type candidate, then they'll likely lose the independent and Blue Dog vote. And if we're talking social conservatives (not just fiscal), then kiss the female and Hispanic vote goodbye in even bigger numbers than Romney did.

This election (and I think many to come in the future) was won by capturing just enough of the center - not the extremes. But I think your view represents what of a lot of Republicans have said the week after: a belief that the next time, the GOP needs to go even harder to the right. But you lose the center. And the left is already in the other guy's corner. Seems like that creates a numbers problem. Even if some of those 3 million stayed at home for the reason you cited (which I don't know to be true - maybe some of them are former Republicans and now identify as Independents :dunno, I just don't see those numbers working out for you any better the next time than this time. I see them getting worse.

7% of Obama 2012 voters, that's more than 4 million voters, stayed home in 2016. That's 4 million liberal, mostly young and nonwhite voters. But according to the centrists the party needs to forget about them, the base of the party, and instead go after those Obama-to-Trump voters and moderate Republicans. No wonder the Democrats can't win elections. SMH