All the Electable Republicans Are Losing

[Panhandle Progressive]

Jeb! and Rubio are beating Hillary in the polls—so why is the GOP so enthralled with guys like Trump and Carson?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/all-the-electable-republicans-are-losing.html

[okierepublican]

The party is going through an anger phase. Ventral the silen majority of republicans. (Not tea party) will start paying attention. They will ask. Do we want to give nuclear codes to trump or Carson? And he will lose. Cruz has burned his bridge to appealing to those voters and can't get them. Eventually the establishment will go around one candidate. And he will win the nomination.

[Beezer]

Simple answer...it's August. Let's try to defer the interpretation of the GOP base until after it has actually selected a nominee.

[Republican Michigander]

Nobody is "losing" because the contest starts in February. Maybe January in some areas with absentees.

[HillOfANight]

McCain and Romney lost. It's their turn, polls be damned.

[DrScholl]

Remember, this has happened with Senate primaries, so it was bound to potentially happened with a Presidential one.

[Maxwell]

Jeb is not electable though.

[King]

There were electable Republicans?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

[dudeabides]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

I know as a socialist, you love Trump, but he isn't electable at all.

The bottom line is these polls, which are very pre-mature mind you, are showing exactly what I have been saying all along. Republicans can nominate Bush or Rubio and have a good chance of victory. It isn't because they are both from Florida, it's because they are the two candidates who can win over hispanics, women, catholics, and centrist voters who voted for President Obama in 2012 and 2008 after supporting George W. Bush. Scott Walker is Romney 2.0 - Republican Governor of a Democratic state who started off sounding center-right, but now he's pandering not to the conservative base, but to tea party whackos as he flip-flops. John Kasich is very vanilla, he initially had a pretty much all white male cabinet, not sure if he still does. Chris Christie's record in New Jersey is what hurts him, George Pataki is too boring, Lindsey Graham is too hawkish, Ben Carson is unqualified, Carly Fiorina is not specific on detail, Mike Huckabee is too socially conservative, Rick Santorum is too socially conservative and bigoted, Jim Gilmore who, Donald Trump is a socialist who is arrogant, bigoted, and not very bright, Ted Cruz is a symbol of dysfunction in Washington D.C.

Rand Paul is in a very interesting place. I believe there would actually be some Democrats who would support him over Hillary. Why? Paul opposes the Patriot Act, opposes having all of these overseas bases, and he opposed the war in Iraq. Even on social issues, he's been an advocate for criminal justice reform well before Hillary. Paul has tried to reach out to the black community. He could win a nation that is very reluctant to go to war despite wanting to have a leadership presence in the world.

Now, to answer the question posed here.

24% for Trump + 5% for Cruz + 9% for Carson + 1% for Santorum = 39% of GOP voters who are low information voters.

49% for Clinton + 1% for O'Malley = 50% of Democratic voters who are low information voters

Supporters of Bush, Rubio, Paul, and Sanders tend to know the most about politics and policy in my experience. Bush & Rubio supporters are very mainstream and want to win and have a strong economy and American leadership in the world, Rand's supporters have a great understanding of the constitution, and Sander's supporters understand the income gap quite well - I just don't agree with their solutions.

[The Mikado]

Jeb Bush, the electable.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Rockefeller was more electable than Goldwater but he lost the nomination because what would have been the point? Would President Rockefeller have pushed back against the left and rolled back the Democratic agenda? Would President John Ellis Bush?

Conservatives today are looking for a Goldwater, not a Rockefeller. Realistically, they'll have to settle for a Scranton.

[ag]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

You would need the fourth candidate to split the Dem vote

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

I know as a socialist, you love Trump, but he isn't electable at all.

I ain't no socialist, you low information poster. I'm a conservative.

Trump is the savior America both deserves and desires.

[dudeabides]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

I know as a socialist, you love Trump, but he isn't electable at all.

I ain't no socialist, you low information poster. I'm a conservative.

Trump is the savior America both deserves and desires.

First of all, your profile says "(S-GA)." Secondly, you support Trump. So the evidence suggests otherwise but really you are a troll.

[Blair]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

 John Kasich is very vanilla, he initially had a pretty much all white male cabinet, not sure if he still does.

So what? This is literally the worse attack line from a republican, I thought you were against giving people token jobs

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

I know as a socialist, you love Trump, but he isn't electable at all.

I ain't no socialist, you low information poster. I'm a conservative.

Trump is the savior America both deserves and desires.

First of all, your profile says "(S-GA)." Secondly, you support Trump. So the evidence suggests otherwise but really you are a troll.

Oh, if you don't understand the background behind S-GA, then you certainly don't know that everyone thinks you are the worst poster in several years around these parts. Guess that's why you're still posting you garbage rants.

[MT Treasurer]

This thread proves that the 2016 board must be sent to hell.

[Kingpoleon]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

John Kasich is very vanilla, he initially had a pretty much all white male cabinet, not sure if he still does.

Rand Paul is in a very interesting place. I believe there would actually be some Democrats who would support him over Hillary. Why? Paul opposes the Patriot Act, opposes having all of these overseas bases, and he opposed the war in Iraq. Even on social issues, he's been an advocate for criminal justice reform well before Hillary. Paul has tried to reach out to the black community. He could win a nation that is very reluctant to go to war despite wanting to have a leadership presence in the world.

Rand Paul is as "non-interventionist" as John Bolton. He doesn't want an authorization of military force - He wants a declaration of war - a World War Three, considering the last time one was issued - against ISIS.

I also admire those who hate John Kasich for not giving token cabinet spots - because, let's face it, no Minority Republicans are likely qualified enough for most jobs. As for the accusation of him being vanilla... "Very vanilla" people don't usually turn Medicaid into a passionate, God-driven argument.... Or balance the budget nearly single handedly.... Or reform rather than cut or raise the spending/budget/taxation... Or be John Kasich.

[Horsemask]

Rockefeller was more electable than Goldwater but he lost the nomination because what would have been the point? Would President Rockefeller have pushed back against the left and rolled back the Democratic agenda? Would President John Ellis Bush?

Conservatives today are looking for a Goldwater, not a Rockefeller. Realistically, they'll have to settle for a Scranton.

They're looking for a candidate who will get blown out in a landslide election? Goldwater was pioneering for his time, but seriously...

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Rockefeller was more electable than Goldwater but he lost the nomination because what would have been the point? Would President Rockefeller have pushed back against the left and rolled back the Democratic agenda? Would President John Ellis Bush?

Conservatives today are looking for a Goldwater, not a Rockefeller. Realistically, they'll have to settle for a Scranton.

They're looking for a candidate who will get blown out in a landslide election? Goldwater was pioneering for his time, but seriously...

They want someone who will fight for their interests. Electability is meaningless if all President Bush/Rubio/Kasich does for four to eight years is play interference for the left. On policy and legislation, the GOP are proven losers. Conservatives might as well double down on Trump. God knows they have nothing to lose by doing so.

[DavidB.]

Rockefeller was more electable than Goldwater but he lost the nomination because what would have been the point? Would President Rockefeller have pushed back against the left and rolled back the Democratic agenda? Would President John Ellis Bush?

Conservatives today are looking for a Goldwater, not a Rockefeller. Realistically, they'll have to settle for a Scranton.

They're looking for a candidate who will get blown out in a landslide election? Goldwater was pioneering for his time, but seriously...

They want someone who will fight for their interests. Electability is meaningless if all President Bush/Rubio/Kasich does for four to eight years is play interference for the left. On policy and legislation, the GOP are proven losers. Conservatives might as well double down on Trump. God knows they have nothing to lose by doing so.

I could understand these concerns about Bush or Kasich, but if Rubio and Walker aren't conservative enough for people, then these people need to get a reality check, because someone who's more conservative than Rubio and Walker will simply not become president. Rubio or Walker would certainly not "play interference for the left" and no person with a brain genuinely believes they would.

Oh, and it's not as if Trump is so conservative. If Cruz and Carson would be the frontrunners, this argument would at least be somewhat more valid.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Rockefeller was more electable than Goldwater but he lost the nomination because what would have been the point? Would President Rockefeller have pushed back against the left and rolled back the Democratic agenda? Would President John Ellis Bush?

Conservatives today are looking for a Goldwater, not a Rockefeller. Realistically, they'll have to settle for a Scranton.

They're looking for a candidate who will get blown out in a landslide election? Goldwater was pioneering for his time, but seriously...

They want someone who will fight for their interests. Electability is meaningless if all President Bush/Rubio/Kasich does for four to eight years is play interference for the left. On policy and legislation, the GOP are proven losers. Conservatives might as well double down on Trump. God knows they have nothing to lose by doing so.

I could understand these concerns about Bush or Kasich, but if Rubio and Walker aren't conservative enough for people, then these people need to get a reality check, because someone who's more conservative than Rubio and Walker will simply not become president. Rubio or Walker would certainly not "play interference for the left" and no person with a brain genuinely believes they would.

Oh, and it's not as if Trump is so conservative. If Cruz and Carson would be the frontrunners, this argument would at least be somewhat more valid.

Rubio's amnesty shenanigans have not been forgotten. He may yet become the nominee but if so it will be because the establishment settle on him as the safest bet. Walker's positions are an enigma although he is almost certainly on the more conservative side of the establishment wing.

As for Trump's politics, they are much less important that what his supporters believe his politics to be.

[Blair]

And how the hell does a Jeb Bush fanboy call anybody Vanilla?

[dudeabides]

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

I know as a socialist, you love Trump, but he isn't electable at all.

I ain't no socialist, you low information poster. I'm a conservative.

Trump is the savior America both deserves and desires.

First of all, your profile says "(S-GA)." Secondly, you support Trump. So the evidence suggests otherwise but really you are a troll.

Oh, if you don't understand the background behind S-GA, then you certainly don't know that everyone thinks you are the worst poster in several years around these parts. Guess that's why you're still posting you garbage rants.

I have found that the vast majority of posters on here are smart and nice people. Unfortunately, there are some such as you who are completely clueless and I'm going to call you out on in, I'm going to tell it like it is and if some people don't like it, I'm sorry because my intention is not to offend, unless of course you are just rude and obnoxious. I'm glad you took a poll here showing I am the "worst poster in years around these parts." At least my opinions are informed.

Trump is electable, especially in a three way.

 John Kasich is very vanilla, he initially had a pretty much all white male cabinet, not sure if he still does.

So what? This is literally the worse attack line from a republican, I thought you were against giving people token jobs

The media will make a big deal about it, not me. It will get negative attention and some folks will not vote for him because of it. It's about electability, not how I personally feel.