The 2016 Republican primary is the biggest crap-shoot since at least 1988

[mystery-ak]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/17/the-2016-republican-primary-is-the-biggest-crap-shoot-since-at-least-1988/

 By Scott Clement December 17 at 7:30 AM

Early national presidential primary polls are, at best, rough indicators of who will eventually become the party's standard-bearer. But the Republican primary field is especially scattered heading into the 2016 cycle, which is one reason why Jeb Bush's recent moves toward a candidacy are getting so much attention.

In fact, the GOP field is more scattered at this stage in GOP primaries since at least 1987, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The table below looks back at early Post-ABC surveys in the past five open Republican primary contests.



A few findings help give a sense of just how uncertain Republicans are in their current views:

1.  Nine Republican candidates garner at least 5 percent support, several more than in past cycles (it was five in early 2011 and 1987).

2. Mitt Romney is on top, but his 20 percent support is quite a bit smaller than past leaders (2012 being an exception). Given that he appears unlikely to run again, the poll asked Romney supporters who they'd support instead. His supporters split between Bush, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and others, leaving an even-more-dispersed field.



3. Look across the first few rows, and you'll see many household names of American politics. Name recognition plays a big role in early voter preferences, but as the tale of Mayor Rudy Giuliani teaches, this can evaporate quickly with poor performances in early contests.

4. And lastly, each eventual victor in the past five cycles has at least been in the mix of top candidates at this stage. Both father and son Bush were clear favorites, but Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney were among the candidates with the most support in recent cycles. Having clear support early does not assure victory, but it's not a bad thing either.

Of course, given so many candidates are so tightly packed this year, it's quite possible the 2016 GOP nominee isn't in the top three right now.

[libertybele]

IF the GOP backs and runs another moderate/RINO they WILL lose.  Good grief we don't need another Bush, this would be Romney's 3rd run, Huckabee, Santorum and Ryan have all run before and Christie is a liberal's dream.  I wonder what part of LOSING because of running RINO's that the GOP establishment doesn't get?

We need a true conservative period. 

Ted Cruz is Golden!

[truth_seeker]

IF the GOP backs and runs another moderate/RINO they WILL lose. 

That sound like your opinion, not a fact supportable by evidence.

Goldwater was the "true conservative" of that day. Eisenhower, Bush and Bush might be classified as moderates, and all won.

In 2008 and 2012 the democrats won because of a charismatic speechmaker.

The notion that there exists some potential for "conservative" votes coming from the woodwork ONLY when the candidate is conservative enough for them, is not a proved fact.
Third party blabber does nothing, but lose elections. Perot cost Bush the win in 1992.

But the talk vastly exceeds the reality. FR darling-boy Buchanan got a whopping 1/2%.

Now we find darling boy Cruz in the middle or bottom portion of the pack, persistently.
 

[katzenjammer]

You will get all the proof/evidence that you need if they run another piece of crap like McCain or Romney in 2016.

[Oceander]

Just a little reminder:  Ronald Reagan was not a "true conservative."

[truth_seeker]

You will get all the proof/evidence that you need if they run another piece of crap like McCain or Romney in 2016.

Or the flipside if they succeed running somebody like Cruz and lose like Goldwater (and McGovern) lost.

[katzenjammer]

Or the flipside if they succeed running somebody like Cruz and lose like Goldwater (and McGovern) lost.

Come the first Tuesday in November of 2016, only one of these hypothesis will have the chance to be tested.

We will see which one it is.

[katzenjammer]

Just a little reminder:  Ronald Reagan was not a "true conservative."

I would counter that he was a "true conservative" of his time.

[jmyrlefuller]

Or the flipside if they succeed running somebody like Cruz and lose like Goldwater (and McGovern) lost.

Unless the unthinkable happens, there's no way he's going to “lose like Goldwater.”

[truth_seeker]

Just a little reminder:  Ronald Reagan was not a "true conservative."

Certainly not by today's criteria. Plus he actually sold conservatism, growing the ranks of supporters and voters, persuading and converting people. Almost unheard of today.

[Oceander]

I would counter that he was a "true conservative" of his time.

Define a "true conservative".

I disagree because he went along with a number of programs and entitlements that the "true conservatives" now call anathema.  He also had much more of a focus on the positive than today's "true conservatives" do.

[katzenjammer]

Unless the unthinkable happens, there's no way he's going to “lose like Goldwater.”

He may if he is savaged by the establishment as Goldwater was....

[katzenjammer]

Define a "true conservative".

I disagree because he went along with a number of programs and entitlements that the "true conservatives" now call anathema.  He also had much more of a focus on the positive than today's "true conservatives" do.

Well I can't.  For the very reason that we both put it in quotation marks.  (I don't think that anyone has successfully defined the term yet.)

(I don't think that we will see another RR in our lifetimes.)

[Oceander]

Well I can't.  For the very reason that we both put it in quotation marks.  (I don't think that anyone has successfully defined the term yet.)

(I don't think that we will see another RR in our lifetimes.)

Then that may very well be because there is no such thing as a "true conservative" and that the term is essentially code for shutting down further conversation when the person who uses it can no longer defend their position.  Similar to the way that "racist" is used by progressives/democrats to shut down a discussion they're losing.

[katzenjammer]

Then that may very well be because there is no such thing as a "true conservative" and that the term is essentially code for shutting down further conversation when the person who uses it can no longer defend their position.  Similar to the way that "racist" is used by progressives/democrats to shut down a discussion they're losing.

Yes, that is why I never use it (except in reply to a post like yours in which you introduced it into the conversation).

[Oceander]

Yes, that is why I never use it (except in reply to a post like yours in which you introduced it into the conversation).

And I used it precisely because it's code that way too many people, including people on this forum, use to obfuscate rather than clarify.

[katzenjammer]

And I used it precisely because it's code that way too many people, including people on this forum, use to obfuscate rather than clarify.

We are in agreement!!

[truth_seeker]

Define a "true conservative".

I believe the definition which true conservatives themselves would agree upon, is so narrow as to guarantee minority status.  There are simply not enough people that agree with their positions.

Consequently the true conservatives struggle to get primary wins, let alone general election wins.

Example: Several Tea Party, true conservatives lost while holding the unpopular view that abortions should be illegal, even in cases of Rape. Angle, O'Donnell, Mourdock, Akins, Buck, to be specific.

The Tea Party's decline in approval of approximately 10% has conincided with its stepped up embrace of social conservative themes.

Independents lean left on social issues, and lean right on fiscal issues.

Stated another way, for true conservatives they define themselves such that the numbers are simply not there. Usually as voters get to know them better, they like them less--because over time they learn some of their fringy views.

[libertybele]

That sound like your opinion, not a fact supportable by evidence.

Goldwater was the "true conservative" of that day. Eisenhower, Bush and Bush might be classified as moderates, and all won.

In 2008 and 2012 the democrats won because of a charismatic speechmaker.

The notion that there exists some potential for "conservative" votes coming from the woodwork ONLY when the candidate is conservative enough for them, is not a proved fact.
Third party blabber does nothing, but lose elections. Perot cost Bush the win in 1992.

But the talk vastly exceeds the reality. FR darling-boy Buchanan got a whopping 1/2%.

Now we find darling boy Cruz in the middle or bottom portion of the pack, persistently.
 

????  To compare the Republicans and Democrats during Goldwater times vs. now is pretty futile as  both parties have changed significantly.   I would love to hear your opinion on what you feel is conservatism. Talk the talk?  How much more evidence do you need?  McCain (RINO) vs. Obama = LOSER   Romney (RINO) vs. Obama = LOSER
   
Bush, Romney, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Huckabee, Paul are all RINO's. Unfortunately Congress is full of them.    They are the ones that should be running under a 3rd party umbrella as they are NOT conservatives.   ALL of them have compromised their principles and in essence have compromised the party itself.  During the McCain/Obama/Clinton contest, I actually did a cross comparison of how McCain voted and his opinion on issues and how Clinton voted and her opinion on the issues and I actually found Clinton to be the more conservative of the two.

Ultimately the ONLY thing this country really has to fall back on is what has made it great and what many other countries have now tried to copy ... the Constitution.  Deviating, abusing, ignoring, side-stepping the Constitution is one of the major contributing factors to why this country is on the brink of collapse.  The other major contributing factor to our problems are people voting for party, name, and money rather than the person who will do the country the most good.  Last but not least, "We the People" have contributed to the demise of this country for not holding our elected officials responsible because of party affiliation.

[truth_seeker]

"To compare the Republicans and Democrats during Goldwater times vs. now is pretty futile as  both parties have changed significantly.   I would love to hear your opinion on what you feel is conservatism. Talk the talk?  How much more evidence do you need?  McCain (RINO) vs. Obama = LOSER   Romney (RINO) vs. Obama = LOSER
   
Bush, Romney, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Huckabee, Paul are all RINO's. Unfortunately Congress is full of them.    They are the ones that should be running under a 3rd party umbrella as they are NOT conservatives.   ALL of them have compromised their principles and in essence have compromised the party itself.  During the McCain/Obama/Clinton contest, I actually did a cross comparison of how McCain voted and his opinion on issues and how Clinton voted and her opinion on the issues and I actually found Clinton to be the more conservative of the two."

Listening to contemporary discussions about the definition of "conservative" is repetition, towards no useful end.

Yesterday I wrote that Reagan was the ONLY conservative since 1932. Two responses; 1) Eisenhower was a good President, and 2) something about Coolidge, which was before 1932. But not a single refutation of my claim that none of them were conservatives, and I should have added, by today's standards.

So why waste time "defining conservatism?" No dispute that Nixon, Ford, Bush I or Bush II were NOT conservatives, but held office for 20 years.

Goldwater lost very badly, just like McGovern lost very badly. Too far from the center. And it will happen AGAIN if by some fluke the GOP runs somebody else too far from the center.

I wrote yesterday that the definition of "conservative" which "true conservatives" themselves would agree with, is too far from the center to get him/her elected. The ONLY qualification I place on that statement is charisma and likability. Reagan had it, like hardly any others.

And here we have our only undisputed "conservative" president since 1932, and he was severely flawed, regarding immigration, abortion, raising taxes, defending our troops in Lebanon, etc.

So nobody has been perfect.

I have also cited repeatedly that the Tea Party morphed from inception with strictly fiscal topics, too soon embrace the social agenda of the religious right; a direct contradiction of the founding concept. As a result in 2012 the TP candidates lost with Angle, O'Donnell, Akin, Mourdock, Buck and ALL believed abortion should be illegal EVEN in cases of rape.

A Gallup poll found only 22% of those surveyed shared that view, versus 75% who opposed the view. That is an example of a "conservative" definition too far from the center.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

The idea of nominating a Republican who can win the primaries, but lose the general election seems to me both absurd and pointless.

But endlessly debating the definition of "conservative" is likewise absurd and pointless.

First should come a broad commitment to pursue the most conservative candidates THAT CAN WIN.

So every time I read the claim the GOP will lose unless they run a "conservative" I have to look back on Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush I and II and wonder how they made it? And why didn't Goldwater make it?

Finally you wrote "walk the walk."  I vote Republican every time, because I know he/she will be closer to my views than the democrat, and that 3rd party is a wasted vote.

If you disagree with my final statement, there is no reason for further discussion IMO. Common sense is not so common.