re: #27 EiMitch

You’re looking at individuals and ignoring the bigger picture. So what if some inept candidates lost? The tea party as a whole won in 2010, held onto their gains in 2012, and just won more power. Meanwhile, they’ve been pushing extremist agendas. That hasn’t hurt their overall chances.

Not to mention, you assumed I was talking about bringing in extremists? Why I never! I thought I made it clear that I meant bringing in fresh blood who had the energy and motivation to effectively fight back against the tea party. Something that older democrat politicians are clearly unwilling/unable to do. What is it about that which made you think of a modern day weatherman idolizing Che Guevara?

Incumbent presidents aside, predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong. Also, most people hadn’t heard of Obama and Romney before their respective PotUS campaigns.

I wouldn’t. Its been the oligarch candidates who’ve won each primary, not the theocrats. It happens precisely because theocrat candidates wouldn’t stand a chance in the general election. More than enough teabaggers showed they understood this 2012. They’re not that kind of delusional. Despite their gripes with the oligarchs, they know they need each other. The theocrats know they need the oligarchs relatively respectable facade, and the oligarchs know they need the theocrats fanatical turnout. That much didn’t change with the teabaggers’ rise to power.

Which calls back to when I said that they know what they’re doing.

Like I said in my first post on this topic, I see this mid-term as a symptom, not as a problem by itself. Don’t forget that 2012 was more of a stalemate than a victory. We merely maintained the status quo at the time. We didn’t turn the tide at all. If “same ol’ same ol’ but this time we mean it we promise pretty please give us another chance” gets the job done in 2016, I’ll be surprised.

I’m sorry I have to object to

“Incumbent presidents aside, predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong. Also, most people hadn’t heard of Obama and Romney before their respective PotUS campaigns.”

The strategy I’m using here is “if there is no Republican incumbent, pick the person who came in second to the prior Republican candidate.”

Contrary to almost No one having heard of Mitt Romney before his PotUS bid in 2012, he came in second place to John McCain in the 2008 primary and he was who they ran they ran in 2012.

John McCain came in second to George W Bush in the Primaries in 2000, and he was who they ended up running in 2008.

Bob Dole came in second to George HW Bush in 1988, he was who they ran in 1996.

George HW Bush came in second to Reagan in 1980, he was who they ran in 1988.

In 1976 Reagan came in second to Gerald Ford, he was who they ran in 1982.

George W Bush is like the only exception to this pattern between today and Nixon’s win 1968, so maybe exceptions can be made for the son of a President.

In turn maybe that means Jeb Bush will win the primary and he’ll be the oligarchs candidate of choice in 2016, he’s about the only oligarch candidate who is currently planning on running (barring Mitt Romney again) but still, if my predicting pattern has been right with only one failure going back to the birth of the Modern Day GOP (Nixon) I don’t feel it can simply be dismissed with a “predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong.” this pattern is in point of fact “pretty much always right” if you apply it to the GOP for the last 30+ years a not inconsiderable portion of time.