Why are republicans acting as they are?

[sportage]

I figured this out, election 2016.
Doesn't this remind everyone more of a presidential "re"-election year than an election year?
During any re-election year when the other side is up against the incumbent, the other side always choses some lame excuse as their candidate. And they all cheer and act excited, knowing well their guy is doomed to fail.

To name a few of the past failures up against an incumbent we had George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney.
All big losers right out of the gate when up against the incumbent president.
A few exceptions, as when Ross Perot made it a three way and Bill Clinton won.
But, this election cycle looks and acts exactly like the democratic brand "is" the incumbent.

Republicans appear, once again, all geared up to nominate their next loser against the incumbent.
Could this be because, well, because we have been progressing so well as a nation over the past eight years?
All our hopes and dreams becoming true and making things quite good for everyone?

We have made huge gains concerning civil rights, huge gains by insuring millions of Americans that never had health insurance before, far fewer US troops dying in wars around the globe, higher employment, much lower unemployment, a strong market promising healthier retirement hopes, and issues like wage equality finally brought to the front burner.
Not to mention a new focus on illegal immigration and finding a realistic solution.

More Americans are starting jobs at a higher wage than ever before, despite the national minimum wage still stuck at $7.25 an hour in most states.
Congress did not do this, attention to the issue has done this.
Attention under and from a democratic president.
In short, all the bread and butter issues allowing a stronger middle class for Americans have been or are in the process of becoming reality.

Does it appear republican ideology has finally realized democratic ideology is unbeatable?
And in fact democratic ideology is the correct ideology for America?
At least for this election cycle of 2016?
Is that the republican problem?

Carson? Trump? Bush? Rubio?
All of the likely nominations on the republican side seem like a rerun of another Bob Dole or John Kerry.
Do republicans believe, just put one of them up there, any of them, because in the end it won't matter?
The nation isn't going to elect any of these guys or Carly over Hillary Clinton.
It just doesn't work that way when up against an incumbent.
But, but.... Hillary is not an incumbent, yet they still act as if all hope is lost for their side.
Again, just look at their candidates, and more so, the lack of their enthusiasm for the establishment candidates.
At any other time, the establishment would be their hands down choice.

Jeb "should be" their pick, should be, but no not this time around.
This time republicans are playing as if Hillary is the incumbent president to beat.
And for the most part, the republican candidates are acting exactly like that as well.

And when you compare ideology against ideology, the republican ideology of cutting middle class safety nets, continuing trickle down economics, returning civil rights to the back burner, dehumanizing illegal immigration and our Hispanic neighbors, ignoring and resisting issues like wage equality, when you compare ideologies just maybe more republicans have been enjoying what they see? It's just that they will never admit it.

Yep! They want Hillary in 2016, this is crystal clear, and they know they do.

PS. Go ahead. Admit it. Go in the bathroom, the basement, the closet, lock the door, get down on your knees and pray for president Hillary in 2016.
That is, if you haven't already.

 

[Jhhnn]

All of the likely nominations on the republican side seem like a rerun of another Bob Dole or John Kerry.

More like Barry Goldwater.

 

[JulesMaximus]

They're pandering to the crazy lunatics on the far right. Trouble is, these are people who have been listening to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh for the past 20 years and have been taught that they should not compromise one iota in their beliefs nor in politics.

I really don't think Trump will get the nomination but Ben Carson is even nuttier than Trump and he's leading the polls.

 

[feralkid]

Republican Congressman restores Hillary Clinton campaign to the top of the heap.

Republican Congressman ensures continued Planned Parenthood funding.

Bizarro World.



.

 

[fskimospy]

They're pandering to the crazy lunatics on the far right. Trouble is, these are people who have been listening to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh for the past 20 years and have been taught that they should not compromise one iota in their beliefs nor in politics.

Basically. The Republicans in the House that mostly inhabit super safe districts have (correctly) determined that they have more to fear from a primary challenger than from a Democrat in the general election. Who votes in primaries? The hard core partisans. Therefore that's their actual constituency, which means crazy town.

The Republicans running for president have a tougher situation: they have to be crazy enough to win the primary, but not so crazy as to make the general election unwinnable. Hence you get mostly vague policy pronouncements of values instead of actual policies.

 

[Atreus21]

Be afraid Republicans. Democrats don't like you.

 

[feralkid]

Be afraid Republicans. Democrats don't like you.

Neither does God, the Media, most of the people on Earth and also Zoidberg's Home Planet.

Let the oppression begin, already!

 

[retrospooty]

Be afraid Republicans. Democrats don't like you.

Dems arent the reps problem... Reps are. This was from another thread, but hating gays, modern women, minorities and scientists is just not going to work. A huge "hate list" from the 1800's is not winning anyone over... I firmly believe in the old republican values of small govt., a low tax business friendly environment, govt out of people lives and above all personal responsibility but today's republican party is NOTHING like that anymore... It has been taken over by religious nutjobs that want to tell women how to live, they want to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry, they are afraid of science and want our schools to teach dis-proven religious dogma and they clearly blame immigrants for all of their problems on a scale not seen since Germany in the 1930's.

THAT is the reps problem and even more of a problem is the fact that the reps don't seem to realize its a problem. They still think "the libral media" and "meskans" is their problem.

 

[glenn1]

Even if we assume the OP position for sake of argument, what huge difference does it make? It's not like Hillary is going to severely shake up the status quo in DC. Democrats haven't rolled out any new ideas in a long time; she'll mostly continue the Democrat's very conservative defense of aging status quo liberal accomplishments of yesterday (70+ year old New Deal programs and 40+ year old abortion SCOTUS decision). Otherwise she'll probably complain about the usual suspects ("income inequality!" or "corporate welfare!") but do nothing much about them, or maybe propose some new small scale entitlement program that costs a couple billion. But otherwise not even Democrats are delusional enough to think Hillary will be some kind of transformational figure like Reagan or FDR. Honestly for a true "conservative" (and not the fundamentalist Christian nutjobs who prize culture war topics above all else) Hillary basically IS the conservative candidate.

 

[BoberFett]

Dems arent the reps problem... Reps are. This was from another thread, but hating gays, modern women, minorities and scientists is just not going to work. A huge "hate list" from the 1800's is not winning anyone over... I firmly believe in the old republican values of small govt., a low tax business friendly environment, govt out of people lives and above all personal responsibility but today's republican party is NOTHING like that anymore... It has been taken over by religious nutjobs that want to tell women how to live, they want to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry, they are afraid of science and want our schools to teach dis-proven religious dogma and they clearly blame immigrants for all of their problems on a scale not seen since Germany in the 1930's.

THAT is the reps problem and even more of a problem is the fact that the reps don't seem to realize its a problem. They still think "the libral media" and "meskans" is their problem.

You contradicted yourself. You said hate won't win for them, but then listed things that the Democrats label hate.

Run "small government and low taxes" through the Democrat translator and you'll get "Republicans hate the environment, hate the poor, hate women, hate minorities, hate old people, love corporations, love the wealthy" etc. Even without the religious agenda, "small government" will get spun as hate.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Even if we assume the OP position for sake of argument, what huge difference does it make? It's not like Hillary is going to severely shake up the status quo in DC. Democrats haven't rolled out any new ideas in a long time; she'll mostly continue the Democrat's very conservative defense of aging status quo liberal accomplishments of yesterday (70+ year old New Deal programs and 40+ year old abortion SCOTUS decision). Otherwise she'll probably complain about the usual suspects ("income inequality!" or "corporate welfare!") but do nothing much about them, or maybe propose some new small scale entitlement program that costs a couple billion. But otherwise not even Democrats are delusional enough to think Hillary will be some kind of transformational figure like Reagan or FDR. Honestly for a true "conservative" (and not the fundamentalist Christian nutjobs who prize culture war topics above all else) Hillary basically IS the conservative candidate.

And this is why I'd vote for her over any of the nutballs running on the GOP ticket.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if we assume the OP position for sake of argument, what huge difference does it make? It's not like Hillary is going to severely shake up the status quo in DC. Democrats haven't rolled out any new ideas in a long time; she'll mostly continue the Democrat's very conservative defense of aging status quo liberal accomplishments of yesterday (70+ year old New Deal programs and 40+ year old abortion SCOTUS decision). Otherwise she'll probably complain about the usual suspects ("income inequality!" or "corporate welfare!") but do nothing much about them, or maybe propose some new small scale entitlement program that costs a couple billion. But otherwise not even Democrats are delusional enough to think Hillary will be some kind of transformational figure like Reagan or FDR. Honestly for a true "conservative" (and not the fundamentalist Christian nutjobs who prize culture war topics above all else) Hillary basically IS the conservative candidate.

This is actually a very good point. If you look at being 'conservative' as generally preferring the status quo or being in favor of slow, incremental change, Democrats have been the 'conservative' party for quite awhile now. Republican policies at this point are far more radical than anything Democrats have put forward in a very long time.

 

[theeedude]

Look at their voting base. Should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[Cozarkian]

I actually think it is because of unrest in the Republican party, not actually anything to do with Hillary being viewed as an incumbent.

The republican "base" is actually quite varied in their beliefs. You have pro-small business, anti-social welfare, pro-personal liberty, religious-based moral imperative, anti-immigration, etc... groups of conservatives. The one thing they have in common is that they all feel the Republican-elite are looking for a pro-big business candidate that might play lip service to the concerns of the voters, but in the end, will simply continue the status quo of never-ending growth in government.

Thus, you end up with non-politicians leading the pack, and with each special interest having their own politician-candidate, as well as the Republican-elite supporting their choice.

It might lead to another Democrat President, although it looks like the Democrats are trying to self-sabotage by nominating Hillary, who is so hated she will do a better job of motivating republican voters in the general election than the Republican candidate.

The same problems don't affect congressional elections nearly as much, because people tend to have a bias where they perceive their representative as doing a good job and blame other representatives for any problems.

 

[retrospooty]

You contradicted yourself. You said hate won't win for them, but then listed things that the Democrats label hate.

Run "small government and low taxes" through the Democrat translator and you'll get "Republicans hate the environment, hate the poor, hate women, hate minorities, hate old people, love corporations, love the wealthy" etc. Even without the religious agenda, "small government" will get spun as hate.

I think I agree with what you are saying, or at least with what you want, but you are missing a few things

1. Small govt. sounds great to me, but the reps aren't doing "small govt." That is the old "Goldwater republican" concept I mentioned above but that is not todays republican party. Both reps and dems are "big govt" the difference between the two being very little.

2. The reps plan/message/philosophy is not being heard. All you hear from the reps side is gays, abortion, Mexicans and prayer in school. They blame it all on the media (except for the parts they blame on Mexicans, gays and liberals). That simply isn't going to win a national election. Whatever the good part of their message is, it is lost in their hate and and blame and intolerance of others.

Like I keep saying, the reps biggest problem is that they don't seem to realize there is a problem.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I actually think it is because of unrest in the Republican party, not actually anything to do with Hillary being viewed as an incumbent.

The republican "base" is actually quite varied in their beliefs. You have pro-small business, anti-social welfare, pro-personal liberty, religious-based moral imperative, anti-immigration, etc... groups of conservatives. The one thing they have in common is that they all feel the Republican-elite are looking for a pro-big business candidate that might play lip service to the concerns of the voters, but in the end, will simply continue the status quo of never-ending growth in government.

Thus, you end up with non-politicians leading the pack, and with each special interest having their own politician-candidate, as well as the Republican-elite supporting their choice.

It might lead to another Democrat President, although it looks like the Democrats are trying to self-sabotage by nominating Hillary, who is so hated she will do a better job of motivating republican voters in the general election than the Republican candidate.

The same problems don't affect congressional elections nearly as much, because people tend to have a bias where they perceive their representative as doing a good job and blame other representatives for any problems.

I can understand your belief that Hillary is some universally reviled beast if you have been
consuming right wing media for the past 20 years, but I can assure you that feeling is not prevalent outside of that reality bubble.

 

[Cozarkian]

I can understand your belief that Hillary is some universally reviled beast if you have been
consuming right wing media for the past 20 years, but I can assure you that feeling is not prevalent outside of that reality bubble.

I don't think she is universally reviled.

I think that a very large segment of the republican base has a greater loathing for her than many other prominent Democrats. Thus, republicans who might otherwise skip the polls on election day will be motivated to go vote against Hillary, whereas they would not be nearly so vehemently opposed to someone like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, even if you pointed out that Bernie Sanders is farther to the left than Hillary.