This is a good thing. We need new and Conservative blood. Can you say Scott Walker?

People need to look a little deeper into Walker before they jump on his bandwagon. He's done some changing recently that makes him not so palatable to this conservative. His support for common core for one example.

I agree with you on Romney, however.

I doubt we will find anyone that is "perfect".

Good news indeed.

It doesn't matter what Republican runs, because if they aren't perfect, voters will vote for some third party loser to
"send a message", and give the election to the Demoncrats like they have the last two

Sure hope you are wrong about that snyper.

Common core is uncommonly stupid!

Which "third party loser" got all those votes in '08 & '12?

Very true. Conservatives come in varying levels of conservatism and with widely varying ideals. That's why no one candidate seems to be able to satisfy enough of us to win enough votes to take the big house. We tear down anyone who doesn't fit our ideals rather than getting behind our only chance en mass.

My previous remark is a good example.

There is still plenty of time for it to shake out. I just hope we find someone that will be "perfect" enough. (Grin)

Heres Walkers voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/Scott_Walker.htm

Seems like hes the best the republicans have so far

As for Romney, his best shot was in 2012 and that didn't go so well.

There are plenty here on 24hr who won't vote or will vote Libertarian or whatever. Some people can't do simple math to add up what that does to help the Democrat win. They complain about how so many will vote Dem for the 'free' stuff yet they vote Dem by not voting for the only other candidate with any chance to win.

Martinez/Cruz would be THE winning ticket.

You heard it here first.

all the republicans have to do is run a candidate that isn't too far right and a little moderate. he would get a lot of the democratic vote. there are a lot of blue collar dems that are tired of the damn pussyfooting of the current admin. people are too damn sensitive and the dems are moving too far left.
just my opinion. I'm one of those blue collar dems. god forbid Hillary runs and wins, i'll have to hibernate for 4 years.

Don't confuse being a libertarian with "Libertarian". Anybody that's not a libertarian is an idiot.

that is the key to the last several Republican defeats in the contest for President. If a given candidate is not 100% pure (in our personal view), we won't vote. Millions of Republicans sit out election after election. By doing so, they guarantee a dhimmicrat victory.
Personally, I examine each candidate's position. I look at what they have said, and what they have done. I look at who they get money from, and who they hang with.
Then I flip a coin, and try to pick the guy that will hurt me the least, if elected. I think once or twice, since I started voting in 1964, I have guessed correctly.

You may not have any brains, but I'll compliment your balls.

Oh don't worry there are lots more moderate d-bags the insiders will get nominated for us; I have utmost confidence they'll pi$$ away this easy win as always.

that's funny right there


well its cold and snowing here and what better than stir the chit a little to spice things up.

You'll find that an honest yellow-dog Democrat gets a lot more respect around here than some of these liberal-ass "Republican" snakes do.

Yep, good news. It's far better for us conservatives to run someone who doesn't have a track record of success in business (Bain Capital), a history of scrupulous honesty (Bain compliance record, SLC Olympic LDS corruption prosecution)and, success in taking large international projects that are failing and turning a profit (SLC Olympics), working in government from the standpoint of being in the minority (Mass Gov) and still succeeding in getting legislature, or perhaps even more important keeping extreme liberal legislation from being passed, and instead choosing inexperience young ideologues who have ever only ever worked in government.

Say, like the current POS in the Exec office.

The conservatives have my vote regardless but there is large gap between getting elected and being able to execute at the national and international level. I don't blame Romney for not running and while I don't agree with him on some issue, and he's not the most exciting guy, but he would be the most qualified presidential candidate in along time. Alas, we'll run someone who has been a government wonk their whole lives who gives a flashy speech full if hyperbole instead. Sad what we've become.

DumbAss Don (Savage_99) is upset that Romney isn't running.

That tells me all I need to know to know that Romney being out is a good thing.

Maybe if he had said that instead of promising "RomneyCare" for the entire country (in his book) and 47% of the country doesn't matter to him he would have done better.

Gov John Kasich of Ohio, while under the radar, might have room to emerge into the top 25 now?

he's done a lot for jobs in an industrial state in the heartland.

plenty of good candidates left without Romney.

The only thing worse than Romney would be Bush for conservatives.

Yep. One cull down, Jeb & Christie (At least) to go.

Yea Pat. I hate guys that tell the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-47-percent-americans-pay-no-income-tax/

OK. This news now leaves 2, maybe 3, candidates who could possibly finance the national ground game and garner the over 55 million votes it will take to win the 2016 election.

You go throwing around common sense in a political thread and people's heads are going to explode.

The Rs need to get over the idea that a candidate must agree with them on every issue. That's impossible. Until that happens it doesn't matter who the candidate is. I want a candidate that is reasonably conservative (the more the better), could win an election, and could effectively run a government and be a leader in challenging times. Ultimately it will come down to two to choose from and I will pick the one who is the better of the two. It's highly likely I won't be completely happy, but it has to be better than what we have.

So what math does one use to find an alternative end to this equation?

47% don't contribute + nationalized healthcare = punish contributors & reward dead weight

??

Those indisputable truths make it tough to consider any other "attributes" redeeming.

On the other hand, we'll now run a guy whose truth embraces illegals and likely insists they benefit from the nationalized system neither side has any intention of reversing.

The important thing is that we make sure Republicans know that no matter how socialistic they become, we'll support them wholeheartedly because they're not communists like the Dems. That's sure to garner change in the RIGHT direction .

You voted for a man who only garnered 500,000 votes.

Do you really feel comfortable arguing the math?

And you poured how much money into one that lost in a landslide. How comfortable is your math?

Who did I vote for who lost in a landslide?

Who did you vote for in that same landslide?

Well said! I, too, want a candidate that generally meets those and I can accept not being "completely happy".

My concern is that we have a PROCESS that has resulted in McCain and Romney.
There was a problem here and I don't know if its been solved!!!

I didn't say vote, did I? No, I did not.

as far as politicians go I actually thought Romney was a pretty honest guy.

Glad you're on board with the cause.






BTW, nicely said.

whats the common denominator to both?

=============

A vote for one of the two candidates who had any chance to win the election.

math isn't your strong point I see

I really don't care what they say i care about what they do.

For to long they have said what they think folks want to hear and do the opposite.

Guys, the horrible truth is the Republicans don't have anyone to run that can win...NO ONE! The Democrats can run a one eyed Collie dog and beat the best the Republicans have to offer. I thought after Obama's election that they would immediately start grooming someone for the job, but no they all want to be president so they get no where. Looks like at least another 4 years w/a Democrat. powdr

Forgive me if I don't give much credibility to a person who votes for a candidate who doesn't even end up on page 1 of the election results.

I don't give much credibility to a person who votes for a candidate they don't believe in

===============

I don't believe in fantasy, utopia or perfection. I lean more towards reality.

ok, here's the reality - your candidate lost too

=============

On election night;yes,not forever before it like yours did.

Did your candidate even beat all the write in vote candidates?

That's not at all what he said
That's the liberal spin on his actual remarks

He would have "done better" if people had wanted to win the election and defeat BO instead of whining because no one wanted
Ron Paul or a similar lunatic

Wait, really? Romney has won after he lost in '12? McLame won in his Senate race again, but then again I think you're commenting on KFWA's candidate that also won re-election.

Election night is all that matters; 2nd place is just first loser.

Kasich is the "other guy" on my wish list. Either Walker or Kasich would be my choice of the known potential field. As if my opinion matters..........

But one never stood a chance at all, whereas the other could have won

I think it only matters on election night

The one that could have won, never even bothered to run a campaign (McLame). After '08, the die was cast and Hussein was getting re-elected. The time to knock him out was '08, and McLame and the Rs screwed that pooch royally.

woulda, coulda , shoulda - there is a reason people who voted for him before are happy he isn't running again. That says it all.

============

For the two viable candidates,yes.

Bush is probably a good man, but I don't think we need another Bush vs Clinton. Let's move past that.

Deflect from direct questions; masterful work counselor.

You know what I mean. You can't piss off the base (conservatives) and win the POTUS. The fact is, making every Republican in New England and the West Coast happy, is not going to get a person elected. California and New York are not in play.

Indeed.

So one CAN simultaneously oppose AND vote FOR Socialism?

Then, after the bigger socialist wins, you can take satisfaction in having voted for the lesser socialistic candidate because he had the ability to win?

Hmmmmmm....

Seems to me that if everyone who uses this "logic" would vote AGAINST the socialism the SAY they oppose we might have more than two viable socialists... Heck, maybe one viable candidate who is.... GASP... Consevative?


Hmmmmm....

California and New York are not in play.
===========

True that but we do know which states will likely be in play.

That's where the reality actually comes into play and the money necessary to support the possible reality, given two viable candidates, not a handful.

How thick does a head have to be not to understand that a Republican POTUS can not be elected without the conservative base? The reasons don't matter. A fact, is a fact, and it will not change.

You're frickin' scaring me Pat! I find myself agreeing with you on just about all of your posts in one thread. Stop it man, I don't want some man crush label attached to me.

True, but people still have to go to the polls. Even in Florida.

========

Define the voting numbers of today's conservative base, Pat.

The dumbest dog will only lose so many toes before he stops stepping in traps.

This kind of nonsense is why zero's still screwing America.

Putting Bush #3 or Christie in office isn't "winning".

Well it was kinda fun watching Jeb and Mitt fight over the money needed to win.
Might have created a bigger gap for a good Conservative to gain ground.
Now we are back to as before. Conservatives splitting the vote and a less than fifty percenter moderate on top.

The true conservative base encompasses almost everybody but the entrenched Democrat and Republican parties, that account for about 40% of the population. Most people don't GAF about legalizing marijuana or somebody elses abortion, but do want the goverment less intrusive on their lives.

I completely agree; seems obvious.

So why do they keep nominating Liberals & then blaming Conservatives for the (inevitable) loss?

So-called conservatives are to Republicans what African Americans are to the Democrats; taken for granted. The best thing we can do is tell & show them our votes are in play; if they want our support they run candidates who aren't socialists.

Seems like common sense to me, but I know that isn't so common...

The only thing Christie can win is a bagel eating contest. Bush? Maybe. He could do as well as Romney, I suppose. The point isn't who we run, it's who we can win with. Moderates are proven losers for the Republican nomination. How in the world can anbody argue otherwise?

Winner!

I am not arguing; this is my point exactly.

speaking of the math, what a subject, if we assume the majority of tghe mega-city voters are going demo, then that means the republs have to run the board in suburbia, exurbia and the countryside to have a chance.

and that's because the mega-cities lean left, and they'll pick up some votes in selected rural enclaves as well.

the electoral college could be our friend, ladies & gentlemen.

I know you're not. I'm just hoping that some people will come to their senses and look at reality. It doesn't matter if Jesus is the nominee if he ain't got the votes and without conservatives showing up at the polls, Republicans don't. It's that simple. As a matter of fact, the establishment type R's wouldn't even have to show up if the conservatives did. That's what happened with Reagan.

Could be?

There is no question it's our saving grace!

" The fact is, making every Republican in New England and the West Coast happy, is not going to get a person elected. California and New York are not in play."

But... But..... They like to FEEL important.

And Rove says it will work........ this time.

Well Mitt while a good man, he was a very poor presidential candidate, its that simple, made the right choice! He would make a good treasury secretary! Right now I am Leaning toward Scott Walker, it may change but its also early!

Walker can win, as could several other conservative candidates. Probably most of them. There is one thing that voters will never support...status quo. The Republican establishment has counted on this to be their saving grace for several election cycles now and it's not working for them. Politicians like Romney, McCain and Bush, while having an R behind their names, are perceived as the status quo. Status quo, however, is exactly what the establishment and Wall Street want. Change causes stress, and they don't like stress. That is why the powers that be would rather lose, than face the unknown.

As bad as I hate to admit it, Christie would probably be a better candidate than Bush or Romney. Not because of principle (something he obviously lacks), but because of his brash nature. I don't care who wins, as long as it's us, but the way to do it is by fighting the establishment.

Christie would have a tough time beating the Bush (pun intended) in Florida or Texas.
Or any southern state in-between.

i'm guessing that everyone from South Carolina to Texas are going to want, or wish for, a conservative candidate for which to vote.

later in the game, someone will need to compare a "mainstream demo versus a mainstream publican"

i don't give a chit about wall street, international bankers, the jews, muslims, nor the war-mongers. i want someone in the WH to represent me and my interests. otherwise, i'm out of the game.

The Democrats are having wet dreams thinking about running against Bush...

Speaking of SC Lindsey Graham is throwing his hat in the ring. Pretty sure he doesn't have a chance but I sure would like to see Trey Gowdy as AG.

Trey certainly possesses the credentials, and does have the fire in the belly.

in support of a worthy President, he would be a formidable AG to re-set the federal gov't.

an AG that represented the People. what a concept.

I am glad he's not running. I spent alot of money on him last time, but he's learned nothing since the last loss. He's been goin' around talkin' 'bout how we need to do more to combat poverty and global warming. Are you [bleep] kidding me? We've spent $60 trillion on poverty since 1964 and what, Romney wants to spend more?! The guy is absolutely tone deaf with the base. He would have been far better than Obama, but he's had his chance and he blew it.

There Bow, you feelin' better now?

NO

But, Sarah is still a flake!!