How Can the Republicans Win the White House in 2008?

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Here's how the Republicans could win it:

1. Have the Democrats make quasi-Marxist-Feminist Hillary the candidate.

2. Oppose illegal immigration, mass legal immigration, foreign outsourcing, and foreign work visas -- become the party for the nation's middle class.

3. Offer a plan for national health care.

4. Tone down the Christian religious BS; it scares away many voters.

True

All we can hope for is a decent Republican to run or some surprise independent (not likely). The Democratic Choices always suck, and there are too many people that will vote against women.

wrong!! has nothing to do with women has a lot to do with 1 particular woman--Hillary!!!

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Sadly, none of the current contenders are moderate and I don't think republican supporters really care much about the GOP getting back to its core values.

Both Romney and Giuliani are much more moderate than Republican voters would have allowed in the past two elections. Their moderateness is the only reason Fred Thompson is getting lots of attention

Giuliani is Bush, Jr. who doesn't pander to the religious right.

Plus Giuliani I think is a much bigger fear monger. And I don?t know if it?s just me but he seems to just exude a sense of being an A-hole.

If given a choice of being forced to choose between Bush Jr and Rudy I'd vote for Bush.

It's a tough call for me... I am completely against Bush Jr's social policies, but I think Rudy would be a heavy handed authoritarian... they both suck IMO 😛

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic: How Can the Republicans Win the White House in 2008?

Deception
In
Elections
Building
Oppresion,
Lowering
Democracy

 

[Fingolfin269]

The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

 

[nageov3t]

for me at least, it partially depends on how congress is doing.

if it looks like the democrats are going to keep/expand their majority, I'll probably vote for a D president no matter what, with the hopes that the democratic congress authorizes a new supreme court seat or two so that the new president can try and balance out some of the extreme right wing of roberts and alito by appointing a new liberal or moderate justice.

 

[Vic]

How? Simple. The same way they did in 2004 and 2000. Democratic party idealism and incompetence. By which I mean that the Dems once again try running a crappy candidate and then distracting from that by focusing on a polarizing issue (or issues). Sorry, but that's the Pub's game and they're simply better at it than the Dems are.
To win, the Dems need to pick a REAL leader, and then focus on the broad needs and wants of moderate middle America. Damnit, they need another Bill (and not Hillary).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

This is another extremely important issue for me as well. The United States is not a monarchy. And having these same 2 wealthy elite families in control of our country since 1988 (or 1980 if you consider the time during which Bush the First was VP) is starting to make it look like one. And then you consider some of the consistent power players behind the scenes, like Cheney, Rumsfield, etc., and you see control going back to the Nixon administration. This was not the way our country was intended to operate.

But nah... let's all keep our eyes on the partisan ball :roll:

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

Republicans are counting on people voting without any thought.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

This is another extremely important issue for me as well. The United States is not a monarchy. And having these same 2 wealthy elite families in control of our country since 1988 (or 1980 if you consider the time during which Bush the First was VP) is starting to make it look like one. And then you consider some of the consistent power players behind the scenes, like Cheney, Rumsfield, etc., and you see control going back to the Nixon administration. This was not the way our country was intended to operate.

But nah... let's all keep our eyes on the partisan ball :roll:

Did you vote for Bush 2?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

This is another extremely important issue for me as well. The United States is not a monarchy. And having these same 2 wealthy elite families in control of our country since 1988 (or 1980 if you consider the time during which Bush the First was VP) is starting to make it look like one. And then you consider some of the consistent power players behind the scenes, like Cheney, Rumsfield, etc., and you see control going back to the Nixon administration. This was not the way our country was intended to operate.

But nah... let's all keep our eyes on the partisan ball :roll:

Did you vote for Bush 2?

No... I have voted Democratic ticket in every single Presidential election since I was old enough to vote (since 1992, I was 17 in 1988).

I was an extremely vocal "Anybody But Bush" campaigner here in 2004, and prior to I was arguing AGAINST the previous Republican nutjobs here of dmcowen674 and conjur who did vote for Bush 2 in 2000, and who only switched parties after Iraq (if that helps you understand some of my attitude here).

 

[theeedude]

I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the Republicans can win with their usual tried and true method, find some worthless piece of sh!t and paint him as the greatest thing ever to happen to America.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

Sounds like Fingolfin269 could get really conflicted if the Republicans run Jeb Bush or the Dems run someone other than Hillary.

Could that then mean that ole Fin here might then actually have to GASP think about actual issues and GASP actually think. I shudder to think about any conclusions from such a flawed
process. But the argument seems to be that we need to let some new idiot in. Which is how all these damn political families got started in the first place.---someone gave the idiot a chance
and then big mistake another chance.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

So what? Some of us here actually voted for Clinton and Gore, and we don't appreciate disenfrachised ex-dittoheads thinking they own the party now. Haven't you figured out why so many long-time moderate Democrats refer to the party as "Republican Lite" now? It's because the vocal extremists think they run the show, and that they think their blind "screw everyone else for my personal agenda" ideology makes everything all right. Really, you're just the sheep bleating distraction for the power elites. "Baahh 2 legs good 4 legs bad Bahhh" "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

Sounds like Fingolfin269 could get really conflicted if the Republicans run Jeb Bush or the Dems run someone other than Hillary.

Could that then mean that ole Fin here might then actually have to GASP think about actual issues and GASP actually think. I shudder to think about any conclusions from such a flawed
process. But the argument seems to be that we need to let some new idiot in. Which is how all these damn political families got started in the first place.---someone gave the idiot a chance
and then big mistake another chance.

Straw man much? It seems pretty obvious to everyone but you that the corrolary of his argument was that if the Pubs run Jeb and the Dems run someone besides Hillary that he would vote for the Dem candidate. But as yet, neither party has expressed such an intention, therefore he stuck to the real world possibility instead of some (currently) unlikely hypothetical.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

So what? Some of us here actually voted for Clinton and Gore, and we don't appreciate disenfrachised ex-dittoheads thinking they own the party now. Haven't you figured out why so many long-time moderate Democrats refer to the party as "Republican Lite" now? It's because the vocal extremists think they run the show, and that they think their blind "screw everyone else for my personal agenda" ideology makes everything all right. Really, you're just the sheep bleating distraction for the power elites. "Baahh 2 legs good 4 legs bad Bahhh" "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

That's not why Democrats call their party Republican Lite. It's not because of the vocal extremists as you call them, it's because of the moderates who vote like Republicans, meaning that voters only have a choice between two people who vote the same way.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

So what? Some of us here actually voted for Clinton and Gore, and we don't appreciate disenfrachised ex-dittoheads thinking they own the party now. Haven't you figured out why so many long-time moderate Democrats refer to the party as "Republican Lite" now? It's because the vocal extremists think they run the show, and that they think their blind "screw everyone else for my personal agenda" ideology makes everything all right. Really, you're just the sheep bleating distraction for the power elites. "Baahh 2 legs good 4 legs bad Bahhh" "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

So who could we go for this time around?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

Republicans are counting on people voting without any thought.

...or at least lots of emotion

 

[alchemize]

Ron Paul vs. Nader, may the best man win.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

Republicans are counting on people voting without any thought.

I'm a republican. That's all the thinking I need to do to figure out who to vote for.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

So what? Some of us here actually voted for Clinton and Gore, and we don't appreciate disenfrachised ex-dittoheads thinking they own the party now. Haven't you figured out why so many long-time moderate Democrats refer to the party as "Republican Lite" now? It's because the vocal extremists think they run the show, and that they think their blind "screw everyone else for my personal agenda" ideology makes everything all right. Really, you're just the sheep bleating distraction for the power elites. "Baahh 2 legs good 4 legs bad Bahhh" "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

That's not why Democrats call their party Republican Lite. It's not because of the vocal extremists as you call them, it's because of the moderates who vote like Republicans, meaning that voters only have a choice between two people who vote the same way.

No, that's just what the usual teenage-angst extremists think, and it has been proven time and time again that the youth don't vote. The fact is that you (and the other extremists) vote Dem even if they ran Hitler on the ticket (just like the far right would vote Pub even if they ran Stalin), so the moderate crowd should stop giving a fsck what you think and start focusing on what would help actually win elections.

It's simply comical that some of you partisan hacks actually believe that you vote with thought and without emotion, and yet you'll launch into long emotional diatribes at anyone who so much as challenges your partisanship, even if they dare discuss their opinions for what could improve the party's chances in the next election.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Republicans will get my vote without any thought if Clinton is up for the Dems. It is nothing against her personally but I am tired of the same two families being either a VP or President in our country for the past 20 years.

Republicans are counting on people voting without any thought.

I'm a republican. That's all the thinking I need to do to figure out who to vote for.

My point exactly. And he's a Dem, so he'll pull the Dem handle. Oh yeah, a lot of thought went into the voting there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Ron Paul vs. Nader, may the best man win.

That would be like running Goldwater against McGovern. :Q

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

So what? Some of us here actually voted for Clinton and Gore, and we don't appreciate disenfrachised ex-dittoheads thinking they own the party now. Haven't you figured out why so many long-time moderate Democrats refer to the party as "Republican Lite" now? It's because the vocal extremists think they run the show, and that they think their blind "screw everyone else for my personal agenda" ideology makes everything all right. Really, you're just the sheep bleating distraction for the power elites. "Baahh 2 legs good 4 legs bad Bahhh" "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

That's not why Democrats call their party Republican Lite. It's not because of the vocal extremists as you call them, it's because of the moderates who vote like Republicans, meaning that voters only have a choice between two people who vote the same way.

No, that's just what the usual teenage-angst extremists think, and it has been proven time and time again that the youth don't vote. The fact is that you (and the other extremists) vote Dem even if they ran Hitler on the ticket (just like the far right would vote Pub even if they ran Stalin), so the moderate crowd should stop giving a fsck what you think and start focusing on what would help actually win elections.

It's simply comical that some of you partisan hacks actually believe that you vote with thought and without emotion, and yet you'll launch into long emotional diatribes at anyone who so much as challenges your partisanship, even if they dare discuss their opinions for what could improve the party's chances in the next election.

You don't have to like the left, but I am pointing out to you that they are not what is referred to as "Republican Lite" the wannabe Republican "moderates" like Lieberman are. You know the kind that sides with the Republicans on some of the key votes to keep Democrats from making progress they were elected to make. That's why they are called Republican Lite.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
I know some people who voted for Bush in 2000 who swore off voting for a Republican for good.

So what? Some of us here actually voted for Clinton and Gore, and we don't appreciate disenfrachised ex-dittoheads thinking they own the party now. Haven't you figured out why so many long-time moderate Democrats refer to the party as "Republican Lite" now? It's because the vocal extremists think they run the show, and that they think their blind "screw everyone else for my personal agenda" ideology makes everything all right. Really, you're just the sheep bleating distraction for the power elites. "Baahh 2 legs good 4 legs bad Bahhh" "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

That's not why Democrats call their party Republican Lite. It's not because of the vocal extremists as you call them, it's because of the moderates who vote like Republicans, meaning that voters only have a choice between two people who vote the same way.

No, that's just what the usual teenage-angst extremists think, and it has been proven time and time again that the youth don't vote. The fact is that you (and the other extremists) vote Dem even if they ran Hitler on the ticket (just like the far right would vote Pub even if they ran Stalin), so the moderate crowd should stop giving a fsck what you think and start focusing on what would help actually win elections.

It's simply comical that some of you partisan hacks actually believe that you vote with thought and without emotion, and yet you'll launch into long emotional diatribes at anyone who so much as challenges your partisanship, even if they dare discuss their opinions for what could improve the party's chances in the next election.

You don't have to like the left, but I am pointing out to you that they are not what is referred to as "Republican Lite" the wannabe Republican "moderates" like Lieberman are. You know the kind that sides with the Republicans on some of the key votes to keep Democrats from making progress they were elected to make. That's why they are called Republican Lite.

You don't know what "the left" is apparently. Note that your own example, Lieberman, is still in office, re-elected AFTER he went independent.
But wait... let me guess your response. That's because the people are "stupid," right?