Republicans Too Divided To Challenge For The White House?

[HuskerNation1]

The GOP does have too many candidates currently, but that will get narrowed quickly after the first 2 or 3 primaries. While there are too many candidates, the resumes of many of the candidates far outweighs what the Dems currently are offering. There are many GOP governors that have turned their states around and were highly successful (Walker, Perry, Kasich, Jeb, Jindal), and the GOP has way more diversity in its field than the Dems, with 2 Latinos, one African American, one Indian American, and one female. And the Dems seem keen on sticking with Hillary who, every time she opens her mouth, her approval ratings fall. Hillary is a horrible candidate and campaigner, and if she weren't female, her poll numbers would be even worse. I actually really like Carly Fiorina and believe she is the most articulate of any candidate on either side, and is willing to criticize her own party just as much as the opposing party. She hasn't picked up in the polls yet, but I would not count her out.

[Husker_x]

I'd take Bernie over any candidate in the field in a heartbeat. The Republican Party might as well be on fire. Every candidate is just another degree of completely unacceptable. Donald Trump is far and away the frontrunner as of this moment, which is unbelievable, but also educational. In a very sad way.

 

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

[AR Husker Fan]

I don't think - and it wasn't my proposition - that the party has too many candidates. Rather, I think it's a symptom (and one of several that I noted in my first post) of the real problem - fragmentation within the party. This normally wouldn't be an issue; no matter whom the Republicans nominate, it would be expected that even the factions that pushed for a different candidate or that felt that the party wasn't representative of the views the faction espoused would hold their noses and vote for the nominee.

 

But this cycle is different due to Trump. Assuming that this plays out as it appears it will (and, admittedly, a LOT can happen over the next 12+ months), Trump will run as an independent. Given the amount of fragmentation in the party, an independent run by Trump has the potential to peel off more than enough dissatisfied Republicans (the minority factions) to split the vote and rob the Republican nominee of a chance to win.

 

My question, then, is whether this looks to be a legitimate scenario. If Trump (or, perhaps, another of the current crop) runs independently, is the level of fragmentation within the party so great that the third party candidate will siphon off enough votes to hand the victory to whomever is the Democratic nominee? As we saw with Gore and Nader's independent run, it doesn't take a huge number of votes for the independent to torpedo the mainstream candidate.

[Moiraine]

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

 

I hate almost all political catch phrases. For instance, people who run for senate/house and say they're going to "fix Washington" as if the body they're running for isn't made up of a bunch of people from all 50 states. And as if they're not accepting or eventually going to accept money from huge corporations to do their bidding. The commercials with these phrases almost always include a combine and some corn fields (okay, obviously I'm in Nebraska so those are what I see) and these are the candidates who fling the words socialism and "wealth distribution" around while farmers receive government subsidies.

 

 

"Branding someone as a socialist has become the slur du jour by leading lights of the American right from Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh," Sanders said in 2009. "If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do."

[zoogs]

If Trump actually ran as an independent, that would be fascinating.

 

If he doesn't, I don't see fragmentation as being a negative necessarily. You have different flavors of fringe whipping up bases, which for each of them seems to play (I would say upsettingly?) well. And at the end of the day, the Republican Party will get behind a mainstream candidate of some kind. All these fragmented factions within aren't going to turn around and latch onto a Hilary ticket, and only a small percentage will instead go for unnamed third party flavors (i.e, not Trump).

 

So I can envision a scenario where the current play is a favorable part of Republican strategy But until they stop becoming the party of tearing down the ACA (among other things...), I hope to goodness they don't get a candidate into office -- no matter who it is.

[Husker_x]

 

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

 

I hate almost all political catch phrases. For instance, people who run for senate/house and say they're going to "fix Washington" as if the body they're running for isn't made up of a bunch of people from all 50 states. And as if they're not accepting or eventually going to accept money from huge corporations to do their bidding. The commercials with these phrases almost always include a combine and some corn fields (okay, obviously I'm in Nebraska so those are what I see) and these are the candidates who fling the words socialism and "wealth distribution" around while farmers receive government subsidies.

 

 

"Branding someone as a socialist has become the slur du jour by leading lights of the American right from Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh," Sanders said in 2009. "If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do."

 

 

It is a curiosity of the political right that to even entertain a political ideology outside of what is "mainstream" or "centrist" is seen as a kind of moral failing. Apparently in Murica we have the freedom to hold to a very narrow range of possible views or be branded with a lefty sounding word. Jesus do the talk radio psychos throw "socialist" like a rock.

 

Farm subsidies aren't the half of it. Why don't we ever talk about military spending? It's like a national taboo. If you look at a breakdown of our federal spending on a pie chart, it's enough to make you spew your coffee. "Small government" "conservatives" have no hesitation about turning on the faucet when this or that country needs bombed or invaded, but if some poor unfortunate soul needs groceries, they're a parasite. Oh and we've spent the last several years watching the Republican house tilt at the Obamacare windmill. Because if there's one thing this country needs, it's the freedom to once again have your health insurance cancelled because you went over the lifetime limit thanks to your inconveniently long bout with cancer. Damn "big government liberals" for putting and end to that one.

[Landlord]

My only hope for this election cycle is for enough people to start viewing Bernie Sanders as actually being electable. I know that there have to be millions of people out there that like him, think he's better than any other options, but are so resigned to how politics work that they won't bother voting for him because they know he can't win and they don't want to take a vote away from the lesser side of two evils.

[zoogs]

That doesn't seem like it would be an issue unless Sanders ran as an independent, too. The issue seems to be more that the momentum behind Hilary is so strong that no other Democrat candidate would appear to have a chance at this point.

 

But if he can emerge the primary victor...what are the Hilary supporters going to do, vote Republican? I'd hope not...

[Landlord]

That doesn't seem like it would be an issue unless Sanders ran as an independent, too. The issue seems to be more that the momentum behind Hilary is so strong that no other Democrat candidate would appear to have a chance at this point.

 

But if he can emerge the primary victor...what are the Hilary supporters going to do, vote Republican? I'd hope not...

 

 

 

Sorry I got my situations mixed up a bit, but mostly I was referring to the primaries.

[HuskerNation1]

I'd take Bernie over any candidate in the field in a heartbeat. The Republican Party might as well be on fire. Every candidate is just another degree of completely unacceptable. Donald Trump is far and away the frontrunner as of this moment, which is unbelievable, but also educational. In a very sad way.

 

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

 

The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention.

 

I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much.

[Husker_x]

 

I'd take Bernie over any candidate in the field in a heartbeat. The Republican Party might as well be on fire. Every candidate is just another degree of completely unacceptable. Donald Trump is far and away the frontrunner as of this moment, which is unbelievable, but also educational. In a very sad way.

 

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

 

The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention.

 

I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much.

 

 

No it isn't. It isn't even remotely comparable. What about Bernie Sanders is "extreme" except relative to conservative demagoguery? His stance that healthcare is a human right rather than a privilege predicated upon a person's wealth? His view that a nation in which higher/specialized education is essential to our future should not only quit burdening young people with impossible debts, but join several other modern countries in providing free public universities? His ambition to end a campaign finance system that allows wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums of money and purchase virtually the entire political process?

 

I don't look on the word "socialist" like a tarantula that just crawled into the room. It's a word which thanks to the slow drift of the country rightward (economically) has lost all meaning. Sanders is a democratic socialist who believes in a hybrid system in which both government and capitalism play a role. So far as I know he does not favor nationalizing every American industry. And no one seems to mind our socialist military––a socialist military paid for by the redistribution of wealth from the tax base to soldiers and pilots and generals and such. Or our socialist interstate highway system. Or our socialist NASA. Yet when we consider removing healthcare from the profit-driven arena of capitalism (specifically our widely beloved health insurance companies), suddenly it's Red Dawn out there.

[True2tRA]

Husker X, great stuff man. I am a registered Democratic voter, but I don't really strictly associate with any party. I'm a common sense voter. What you've said makes a lot of sense. Especially that fear created with that "socialism" word. Spot on.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

I'd take Bernie over any candidate in the field in a heartbeat. The Republican Party might as well be on fire. Every candidate is just another degree of completely unacceptable. Donald Trump is far and away the frontrunner as of this moment, which is unbelievable, but also educational. In a very sad way.

 

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

 

The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention.

 

I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much.

 

 

No it isn't. It isn't even remotely comparable. What about Bernie Sanders is "extreme" except relative to conservative demagoguery? His stance that healthcare is a human right rather than a privilege predicated upon a person's wealth? His view that a nation in which higher/specialized education is essential to our future should not only quit burdening young people with impossible debts, but join several other modern countries in providing free public universities? His ambition to end a campaign finance system that allows wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums of money and purchase virtually the entire political process?

 

I don't look on the word "socialist" like a tarantula that just crawled into the room. It's a word which thanks to the slow drift of the country rightward (economically) has lost all meaning. Sanders is a democratic socialist who believes in a hybrid system in which both government and capitalism play a role. So far as I know he does not favor nationalizing every American industry. And no one seems to mind our socialist military––a socialist military paid for by the redistribution of wealth from the tax base to soldiers and pilots and generals and such. Or our socialist interstate highway system. Or our socialist NASA. Yet when we consider removing healthcare from the profit-driven arena of capitalism (specifically our widely beloved health insurance companies), suddenly it's Red Dawn out there.

 

 

You have to be kidding me. What about Bernie Sanders is extreme? For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth. To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well. He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all). He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field. Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

I'd take Bernie over any candidate in the field in a heartbeat. The Republican Party might as well be on fire. Every candidate is just another degree of completely unacceptable. Donald Trump is far and away the frontrunner as of this moment, which is unbelievable, but also educational. In a very sad way.

 

I don't adopt the socialist label for myself, but then Bernie isn't exactly arguing for a government takeover Apple, or to nationalize the porn industry (Ameriporn?). Also I can't figure out what the hell any Republican means when they use the word. Or other words like "liberty," "freedom," "small government," or even sometimes "conservatism"itself. From a distance it sounds like socialism = taxes, or government, both of which are inherently evil. Not much to do with that.

 

The fact that so many on the left are into Bernie is just as sad as the fact that Trump is leading with 20% of support currently. Bernie is a complete extremist/socialist, while Trump is a narcissist with an ego bigger than all other candidates combined. I think when more in the GOP realize that Trump actually voted for Obama in 2008 and has praised Pelosi and Hillary, they will realize he's not a true Conservative and in this thing just to get attention.

 

I think when you look at the resumes of candidates on both sides, the GOP has a much more experienced field that has gotten results, but they are going to beat themselves up with so many candidates running. There really are no strong Dems running. Hillary has the name recognition but really has never accomplished much.

 

 

No it isn't. It isn't even remotely comparable. What about Bernie Sanders is "extreme" except relative to conservative demagoguery? His stance that healthcare is a human right rather than a privilege predicated upon a person's wealth? His view that a nation in which higher/specialized education is essential to our future should not only quit burdening young people with impossible debts, but join several other modern countries in providing free public universities? His ambition to end a campaign finance system that allows wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums of money and purchase virtually the entire political process?

 

I don't look on the word "socialist" like a tarantula that just crawled into the room. It's a word which thanks to the slow drift of the country rightward (economically) has lost all meaning. Sanders is a democratic socialist who believes in a hybrid system in which both government and capitalism play a role. So far as I know he does not favor nationalizing every American industry. And no one seems to mind our socialist military––a socialist military paid for by the redistribution of wealth from the tax base to soldiers and pilots and generals and such. Or our socialist interstate highway system. Or our socialist NASA. Yet when we consider removing healthcare from the profit-driven arena of capitalism (specifically our widely beloved health insurance companies), suddenly it's Red Dawn out there.

 

 

The American Public still despises Obamacare

 

 

This sounds like something you've heard over and over. It currently has a 53% disapproval rating, and everyone I've ever talked to about the ACA who doesn't like it doesn't know why they don't like it. I'm sure some have legitimate reasons but it's mostly that people are just told they shouldn't like it. Part of what I don't like about it is it didn't go far enough, and that's because of the negotiation that had to be done with the Republicans. For instance you have to be at the 133% poverty line to get help with your healthcare. They left it up to the states to decide whether to cover people with less than that. So every Republican state said no.

[Husker_x]

For starters, he wants to take Obamacare and move it even further to the left and have a Medicare for all single-payer system. The American Public still despises Obamacare and the notion of the government taking such a key role in medical care. A single-payer system that Sanders advocates is the ultimate example of socialism and redistribution of wealth.

 

It's like you didn't read my second paragraph, man. I'm in favor of redistributing wealth in order to provide our country with a maximally beneficial system of healthcare. The left has been consistent about this point: many did not like Obamacare because it was frankly too conservative. It failed to even include a public option in the health insurance exchanges, much less get us on par with the vast majority of developed democracies where citizens pay nothing out of pocket for an ER visit. If we call our single-payer system Medicare, it's a good a word as any. You're presumably in favor of redistributing wealth to fund our military (and unless you want to go to the Roman rape and pillage model or something, you don't have many other options). I consider your health to be on par with our national defense in terms of our political priorities.

 

To help pay for this, he wants to raise marginal tax rates ABOVE 50%. No person, on matter how successful they are, should be forced to pay more than half of their income to any government, especially our federal government that is highly corrupt and does not spend our tax dollars well.

 

I agree that no person should have half their income taken to fund needless wars in the Middle East (or anywhere else). However let's pretend that everyone in the country was taxed at 50%, and out of that you were guaranteed healthcare, education from preschool through graduate school, top-rated infrastructure, social security, defense from all enemies foreign and domestic, accessible public transportation, a basic standard of living, etc. I fail to see the horror in there. It sounds like getting what you pay for.

 

Oh, and under the socialist president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rates for people making over 150,000$ was 90%. Corporate taxes was around 50%.

 

He also want to have the government pay for everyone's tuition (offering free 4-year tuition to all).

 

Yeah, I know. I said that already. But what a terrific idea! We can join socialist Germany, who provides free tuition to all European and international students, or France, or the Netherlands, or Sweden. Etc, etc.

 

He's stated in the past that no person should ever be able to earn more than $1 million, so again the notion of leveling the playing field.

 

Link?

 

Members of his own party even find him as an extremists. I know he's popular right now with the leftist base because many believe in his socialistic views, but that sits far from mainstream America.

 

About 40% of "mainstream America" believes that the earth and all of its species of life was specially created ten thousand years ago. That argument doesn't pack much punch for me. But regardless, the truth is if you polled Americans issue by issue instead of on scary sounding words from a bygone Cold War era, Bernie Sanders is very much in step with the priorities of your average citizen.