House GOP fears retirement wave will lead to tsunami

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes, we need to STOP electing the same people.  I couldn't agree more.  Problem is, that very often, there isn't a conservative who challenges the incumbents.  Therefore, choices are limited; abstain from voting for the undesirable incumbent, vote 3rd party or vote DEM. 

At this point in time, in the case of President Trump, for myself, I just don't see abstaining or voting DEM as an alternative.  I wish the Constitution Party would actually succeed to where they're on the ballot in all 50 states -- that's never happened -- even as a write in.

So here we sit.  As stated before, I voted 3rd party during the Bammy/McCain election -- and -- didn't make a darn bit of difference, nor did losing that election wake up the GOP.

So again, and I'm just not addressing you in particular -- what is our alternative in 2020??  No one is challenging Trump.

Close, but the problem actually is that those already in office refuse to step down.  They like their little fiefdom and percs and do not like it disturbed.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Every congressional house seat is up every two years.  A retirement from a house seat presents an open seat.

(Just trying to set the nomenclature for rounds three and four of this great debate.)

What has that to do with the comment on the Senate going to the Dems?

[DCPatriot]

Applewood wrote:
"Since Republicans lost the house after Trump became president, I don't think congressional Republicans have benefitted all that much from his presidency."

Gee...
Ya think if they'd cooperated with him and pushed through his agenda during the first two years, when they were in the majority, that they might not have squandered and LOST that majority ....?

 

DOWN GOES FRAZIER!  DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!   

[sneakypete]

There was still a bit of an ordered approach to where and how spending bills were generated and sent up for approval even under King Franklin I.

They didn't really start becoming the norm IIRC until Tipsy O'Neill was Speaker and it was used as a weapon of sorts to try and blunt the reforms Reagan was trying to enact.

@txradioguy

Therein lies the root of the problem. The career pols from both branches of the ruling party are only there to serve themselves,not the nation. Trump breaks this mold because he is there to serve his ego instead of his bank account,and that has all the professional elected thieves foaming at the mouth.

If you never understand anything else about politics,understand this. Trump can't be bought. He was born into money and will have money all his life regardless of what happens.  His ego and his place in the history books is what drives him,and this can be nothing BUT bad news for the entrenched pols who have became wealthy from selling their offices.

[musiclady]

   How soon they forget that we offered a 'VIABLE' alternative up until they turned our mics off at the GOP Convention.

Needs to be repeated.

The Conservatives in the Republican party were told we weren't needed or wanted in 2016.

I personally don't understand why the Trump GOPe party that exists now is upset that we haven't embraced their god.

Their god told us to get lost.

[sneakypete]

But imagine how much better off if so many people hadn't bought into the notion...fictitious as it was...that Trump was our only hope of beating Hillary.

@txradioguy

Really? Don't tell me,let me guess,ok. Ted Cruz,your homie,right?

[DCPatriot]

Needs to be repeated.

The Conservatives in the Republican party were told we weren't needed or wanted in 2016.

I personally don't understand why the Trump GOPe party that exists now is upset that we haven't embraced their god.

Their god told us to get lost.

And yet, here you are!   

[Smokin Joe]

The situation is fluid.   Remember,  it has only been in the last three weeks that Trump has tweeted for folks to go back to their own countries and denounced an entire city as unfit for human habitation.    It is now, just within the last three weeks,  that the mainstream media has given up all pretense of respect for the Presidency and concluded that Trump is "racist" and deserves not re-election but prison.   

Cannot folks see that this is all becoming a fatal distraction from the issues that matter -  growth, immigration,  conservative judges?  We can win on these issues - but can we do so through the dense fog of unrelenting Trump-hate?    I want to plant the seed that Trump's nomination and likely defeat is NOT inevitable,  and that his reason and legacy CAN be appealed to. 

I think sometimes that folks are resigned to riding this runaway train all the way to the bottom.    That's nuts.   It is time to suggest to the President that he has done well by changing the nation's direction,  but that a new leader is needed to prevent a reaction that will destroy all that he has accomplished.

So, Which Republican would you have become the focus of the Left's frustration and hatred for not hastening to bind America in the chains of Global Socialism/Communism?

Really, if you extrapolate Leftist policies to their conclusion, that is what we are trying to keep from devolving into. The Left will vent on whomever stands in the way with all the shrill vitriol to which they have become accustomed. Only under a Leftist, there will be little to stand in the way of their Communist Dreams.

Remember, these people proudly wear T-shirts with the image of a murderer of peasant farmers and call that a cry for freedom.

You fight with the Army you have, not the one you want. Problem is, that the open borders crowd in the GOP hasn't been putting forth a full effort against the Leftists because they share some goals, just for different purposes.

[Victoria33]

Ah.  How soon we forget.  THX!

@The Ghost

Thanks for @txradioguy filling you in on Kasich.  I hated that he left congress, but he needed to start the rest of his life.  He married, worked for a Wall Street financial company, had children, then became the Governor of Ohio.  Some here can't stand Kasich, but Bob's son, who is a definite conservative, feels Kasich has done a good job as Governor.

We continue to go to St. Francis Catholic Church; we are in a big building phase - updating the present sanctuary part, and building another building to have another sanctuary, meeting rooms, school rooms, etc.  We have been out of the present sanctuary since June, be back in it in September.   

[Smokin Joe]

And yet, here you are!   

Yep, got a ringside seat, and no dog in the fight. At best it's a question of who to vote against.

If I had my druthers, there'd be an option to fire everyone and start with a clean slate.

[musiclady]

And yet, here you are!   

Yep.

Cause I don't obey the dictates of false gods.

[DCPatriot]

Yep.

Cause I don't obey the dictates of false gods.

You referred to him as a god.  Not me.

Relax.  Buy a new pair of shoes or something.   

Did you know the secret to perfect Clams Casino is the breadcrumbs?     

[musiclady]

You referred to him as a god.  Not me.

Relax.  Buy a new pair of shoes or something.   

Did you know the secret to perfect Clams Casino is the breadcrumbs?     

Hint: FALSE god.

And as much as I love the condescension, I hate shopping.... especially for shoes.   

[Bill Cipher]

Good to see the CF is still going

[musiclady]

Good to see the CF is still going

Doing my duty to DC. 

[edpc]

Did you know the secret to perfect Clams Casino is the breadcrumbs?     

It’s actually the bacon - I prefer pancetta.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So here we sit.  As stated before, I voted 3rd party during the Bammy/McCain election -- and -- didn't make a darn bit of difference, nor did losing that election wake up the GOP.

People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates.  However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:

1) A non-vote could be for any number of reasons -- the candidate was perceived as too conservative, too liberal, too corrupt, too or not enough...whatever.  And that means a non-vote can be interpreted any number of ways by whomever you are trying to target with that "message".  Maybe the excuse/explanation will be "right candidate, bad campaign."  Maybe it's that the candidate wasn't aggressive enough, or had one particular gaffe, or was right/wrong on a particular issue.  Whatever it is, "non-votes" don't come with annotations that let anyone know why you didn't vote.  So if people don't vote to "send a message", the message being received may not be anything like the message they intended.

2) And exactly who is someone trying to reach with that message?  The real culprits for the wrong person getting nominated are the primary voters, not "the party".  And the odds on all those other voters understanding clearly the message someone intends to send with a non-vote, and then reacting to that non-vote as hoped, is miniscule.

[Jazzhead]

A vote is a vote;  it doesn't send a message.   Sending messages is what we're doing now,  advocating our positions in the public sphere when such advocacy just might have an impact.

It appears too many Republicans are fatalistic about this election,  aware that Trump's vulnerabilities may well propel the Dems to total victory but resigned to that inevitability based on some notion that Trump is fundamentally selfish and egotistical and would rather go down fighting.   Or maybe relishing that martyrdom right along with him.   

I refuse to accept that inevitability.   There is both time and precedent (LBJ) for a President to be persuaded that his own legacy requires the changing of the guard.   And if a lifetime politico like LBJ can be persuaded,  then why cannot a citizen politician like Trump who ran for the purpose of starting a fire?     If Trump wants that fire to continue,  he needs to recognize the wisdom of passing the torch to another.   

[libertybele]

People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates.  However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:

1) A non-vote could be for any number of reasons -- the candidate was perceived as too conservative, too liberal, too corrupt, too or not enough...whatever.  And that means a non-vote can be interpreted any number of ways by whomever you are trying to target with that "message".  Maybe the excuse/explanation will be "right candidate, bad campaign."  Maybe it's that the candidate wasn't aggressive enough, or had one particular gaffe, or was right/wrong on a particular issue.  Whatever it is, "non-votes" don't come with annotations that let anyone know why you didn't vote.  So if people don't vote to "send a message", the message being received may not be anything like the message they intended.

2) And exactly who is someone trying to reach with that message?  The real culprits for the wrong person getting nominated are the primary voters, not "the party".  And the odds on all those other voters understanding clearly the message someone intends to send with a non-vote, and then reacting to that non-vote as hoped, is miniscule.

Agreed.  Though I wasn't trying to send any message by voting 3rd party.  I truly wanted the candidate that I voted for seated in the oval office.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It appears too many Republicans are fatalistic about this election,  aware that Trump's vulnerabilities may well propel the Dems to total victory but resigned to that inevitability based on some notion that Trump is fundamentally selfish and egotistical and would rather go down fighting.   Or maybe relishing that martyrdom right along with him.

From what I recall, your hope is that Mitch McConnell could approach Trump, suggest to him that the only way to preserve his legacy is to step aside, and that Trump would do so.  Okay, I think that's farfetched, but whatever.

But exactly what is it you expect the rest of us to do in the meantime?

I refuse to accept that inevitability.   There is both time and precedent (LBJ) for a President to be persuaded that his own legacy requires the changing of the guard.   And if a lifetime politico like LBJ can be persuaded,  then why cannot a citizen politician like Trump who ran for the purpose of starting a fire?     If Trump wants that fire to continue,  he needs to recognize the wisdom of passing the torch to another.   

Just as you refuse to accept the inevitability that Trump will be the nominee, Trump would refuse to accept the inevitability that he will lose to the Democrat nominee in the general election.  And based on what happened in the 2016 election, where so many of the people who want him to step aside because he couldn't win then are claiming he can't win in 2020...I can't say I blame him.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Agreed.  Though I wasn't trying to send any message by voting 3rd party.  I truly wanted the candidate that I voted for seated in the oval office.

I understand -- I was just riffing off you're observation that the wake-up call didn't happen.  They never do.

[sneakypete]

People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates.  However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:

1) A non-vote could be for any number of reasons -- the candidate was perceived as too conservative, too liberal, too corrupt, too or not enough...whatever.  And that means a non-vote can be interpreted any number of ways by whomever you are trying to target with that "message".  Maybe the excuse/explanation will be "right candidate, bad campaign."  Maybe it's that the candidate wasn't aggressive enough, or had one particular gaffe, or was right/wrong on a particular issue.  Whatever it is, "non-votes" don't come with annotations that let anyone know why you didn't vote.  So if people don't vote to "send a message", the message being received may not be anything like the message they intended.

2) And exactly who is someone trying to reach with that message?  The real culprits for the wrong person getting nominated are the primary voters, not "the party".  And the odds on all those other voters understanding clearly the message someone intends to send with a non-vote, and then reacting to that non-vote as hoped, is miniscule.

@Maj. Bill Martin

You are making too much sense.

 Who knows where that sort of thing can lead?

Stop that! Stop that now,before you break the internet!

[sneakypete]

From what I recall, your hope is that Mitch McConnell could approach Trump, suggest to him that the only way to preserve his legacy is to step aside, and that Trump would do so.  Okay, I think that's farfetched, but whatever.

But exactly what is it you expect the rest of us to do in the meantime?

 

@Jazzhead  @Maj. Bill Martin

Break into  hysterical laughter?

[libertybele]

@Jazzhead  @Maj. Bill Martin

Break into  hysterical laughter?

Exactly.  Mitch seems to be afraid of his own shadow -- having a coke and burger with Trump and suggesting that he needs to step aside for the good of party???   

[Jazzhead]

Exactly.  Mitch seems to be afraid of his own shadow -- having a coke and burger with Trump and suggesting that he needs to step aside for the good of party???   

Like many, you underestimate Mitch.    He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch.   He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.