Here
and
Now

opinions

Primaries are what keep GOP out of the White House

22 Comments

The rise of such non-traditional Republican presidential hopefuls as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina - all non-politicians - has many political pundits insisting the 2016 election is unique. But the truth is exactly the opposite: The GOP is on a well-worn path, followed since King Primary replaced King Convention as the preferred method for selecting presidential nominees.

Republican voters, as opposed to party power-brokers, began effectively picking the party's presidential nominee in 1964. Conservative populist Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona upset the establishment favorite, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, in the defining California primary. Since then, GOP presidential-primary outcomes fall into three distinct and fascinating results:

1) Every sitting Republican president eligible to seek another term won re-nomination: Richard M. Nixon in 1972, Gerald Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1992 and George W Bush in 2004.

2) Every non-incumbent Republican primary winner who went on to win the general election would likely have been chosen by the party bosses anyway and so nominated by the old boss-controlled conventions. Nixon, the establishment choice, was a former vice president who faced little opposition in 1968. Reagan, a two-term California governor, was the overwhelming choice of Republicans across the nation in 1980. George H W Bush, Reagan's vice president, was his anointed successor in 1988. Twelve years later, his son, Texas Governor George W Bush, the clear establishment choice, beat back a serious challenge from anti-establishment maverick Senator John McCain of Arizona.

3) Every Republican non-incumbent primary winner who then went on to lose the general election almost surely would not have survived a multi-ballot convention process, traditionally geared to find a consensus choice able to win the White House. Goldwater's attacks on the "liberal Eastern Establishment" alienated key party leaders and crucial state delegations. Former Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP nominee, previously lost as the vice-presidential nominee in 1976 and made failed presidential runs in 1980 and 1988. GOP leaders had never backed a three-time loser. Party bosses also had scant interest in supporting McCain in 2008, or former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012. They both won the primaries largely by default, when more credible challengers declined to enter the GOP primary demolition derby. At a boss-run national convention, neither man would likely have been the final choice.

Those who killed the convention process and installed primary contests as the decider claimed the new format would ensure that the "will" of the people could prevail. But history has proven them wrong.

The Democratic Party's connection to the defeated Confederacy, which had seceded from a Republican-led United States, made it a certain national loser until the Depression of 1873. But party bosses regrouped.

By 1876, GOP leaders realized they could no longer take winning for granted. They gathered at their national convention every four years to strategize about the best possible candidate. Given Ohio's pivotal role in Electoral College math, they first looked to find a viable conservative presidential candidate from the Buckeye State. The formula produced five successful Republican non-incumbent winners: Rutherford Hayes in 1876; James Garfield in 1880; William McKinley in 1896; William Howard Taft in 1908 and Warren G. Harding in 1920. Another GOP non-incumbent winner, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, hailed from neighboring Indiana.

But the Great Depression transformed American politics. Democratic non-incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt won the presidency in 1932 and held it for four terms. Democrats effectively held the White House through 1968, except for retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower's two terms, from 1953 through 1961.

About the time the primary process superseded the power of conventions, Roosevelt's fabled New Deal coalition began to collapse. This gave the GOP a chance for a re-set.

But primaries have proven a curse, not a cure, for Republican woes. The people's choices who were nominated over party bosses' objections invariably lost. When the bosses and primary voters agreed, however, those candidates won. The Republican National Committee has tinkered regularly with the primary rules. But this avoids confronting the basic problem: The primary process has undercut the GOP in its search for a winning presidential candidate.

Yet primaries have worked great for Democrats. This is the opposite of what top political scientists had predicted. They had expected that the party's left wing would highjack the primary process and nominate unelectable liberals. Instead, moderates kept winning. Primaries gave the Democrats former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter in 1976, former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in 1992 and Senator Barack Obama in 2008. All three would have been unlikely to have been nominated at a Democratic National Convention.

Consider, no politician from the Deep South had been the presidential nominee since long before the Civil War. Clinton's Gennifer Flowers scandal, which emerged during the New Hampshire primary, would have scared off party bosses from the untested governor. As for Obama, party bosses might have considered him unelectable once they viewed Reverend Jeremiah Wright's videos. But Democratic Party voters proved better than the bosses when it came to picking winners.

Now comes the 2016 cycle. In days past, party bosses, concerned about the polling numbers of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the predicted front-runner, would likely have already anointed popular Ohio Governor John Kasich and told him to stay quiet, raise money and stop talking about Social Security, for gosh sakes. They would likely have chosen New Mexico's Republican Governor Susana Martinez for vice president, although Florida Senator Marco Rubio might get the nod instead.

As the bosses would know, these tickets could carry the Buckeye State, the Sunshine State and the 24 others won by Romney in 2012. This would give Republicans a 253 electoral vote base, 17 shy of the majority needed to take back the White House. It would still be uphill, though, given the Democrat's Electoral College advantage.

But under the primary system, Kasich's candidacy has barely a pulse, and Martinez is rarely mentioned for vice president. Primary voters want Trump or Carson, with Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex,) gaining as the choice of "real" conservatives. Party bosses running the convention would have written all three off long ago as certain losers.

So primaries may again create serious problems for the GOP. The party's presidential candidates have lost the popular vote five out of the last six times. The GOP's best showing has been 286 electoral votes, barely more than the 270 needed for a majority. But this includes three formerly Republican-leaning Rocky Mountain states - Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada - twice carried handily by Obama.

Trump, Carson and Cruz are all unlikely to be elected president in 2016. They would be lucky to win all the Romney states: They probably cannot win the four, possibly five, Obama states needed to reach the Oval Office. The party bosses who controlled the conventions would have known that.

Primary voters, however, do not.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

Primaries are what keep GOP out of the White House

Absilutely. I am a registered independent who has voted for candidates for both parties for President over the past couple of decades. By the primary circus is pulling the Republican party so far to the right -- since that is the base of primary voters, especially in early states like Iowa (Yes, I know it is a caucus state) and New Hampshire, that U cannot envision supporting their 2016 candidate.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The problem that the modern day Republican party cannot overcome, is that to win the party leadership, they have to each show that they are more extreme than the others. But then that extremism is on record, and six months later when they are trying to vie for the leadership of the country, they have alienated the country based on their extremism in the primaries.

As long as they tolerate the tea party extremists in their ranks, they will never be able to win a presidency. You would have thought they would have figured this out in 2012, but maybe the fact that they were running against an incumbent caused they to misdiagnose the disease. Hopefully they'll figure it out in 2016.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The game has changed. The party is now split between three factions. 1. Traditional economic conservative Republicans. 2. Mainstream voters who often associate with the GOP on social, moral and national issues. This segment often votes on tradition and not as much on economics. 3. The extreme right who are made up of many tiny factions ranging from moralists, religious fundamentalist, would be Libertarian Anti-Government types, racists, hard core gun advocates and various other extreme social conservatives.

The problem is that this third batch have grown in power and cohesion over the past decade and the GOP need to pander to them to assure their majority in any election. That pandering has led to traditional GOP candidates essentially ruling themselves out as the Trumps and Carson type can now come in and make a valid run for office over the old school GOP.

The party cannot fix this, it is a mess they embraced to help support their party and now they cannot easily detach from it without losing a lot of their followers in the process. Like training a power guard dog and then losing control over it and having it trap you in your house, the GOP have nurtured the radical right and now they are stuck with the idiocracy that goes with it.

The anti-intellectualism of that crowd makes it hard for the GOP to gain any support for an intelligent and viable candidate who can attack moderates and other thinking voters. Something they will pay dearly for.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

As long as they tolerate the tea party extremists in their ranks, they will never be able to win a presidency. You would have thought they would have figured this out in 2012, but maybe the fact that they were running against an incumbent caused they to misdiagnose the disease. Hopefully they'll figure it out in 2016

The whole reason as to why the Tea Party evovolved was a protest to the growing and out of control taxation the Obama admin. was imposing on the people. They were getting tired and wanted an end to the the socialist policies of this admin. And a protest against it. The Tea Party DID help the GOP take back congress and they want to push for less spending something that Obama seems unwilling to do and as long as they continue, they will be around to oppose it and the Tea Party is going nowhere, they are here to stay, they are a part of the culture now that hates the Washington establishment and with good reason and this is another reason why the Democrats are nervous because candidates like Trump, Fiorina and Carson pose a very serious threat, they are popular, well liked and are making serious fractions with the base, they are fired up and the biggest mistake that he left makes and they've done it twice already is NOT take the Tea Party serious and the people are not going to capitulate. The people are tired of the last failed 7 years that was wasted and want to go in a different direction. The people are really tired of all of the radical progressive policies that have the country in a vice grip. The Democrats don't get it, it was clear a few days ago at the last debate when the moderators were booed by the audience, a clear defiance to what libs think how the people should feel or vote. That just ain't gonna happen.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

While interesting I sense that it is highly unlikely the writers are or will ever be voters in Republican primaries. Outsiders looking in and scratching their heads, as if viewing some strange animals in a zoo. Kind of like what Sen Ted Cruz said of the cnbc "moderators" who were intent on creating a "cage match". Oh those dang wacky conservatives pitted against the establishment, replaying itself... not. . Sorry, No cigar is won by this opinion piece. I think we have some great candidates and a deep bench for filling in an excellent Cabinet. Personally, I have always liked Rand, and Kasich. By the way, I have a humorous wish. That Donald Trump be named our next Ambassador to the UN, to help transition that property in Kips Bay Manhattan into a Casino with special zoning status, keeping its international oasis netherworld status; the normal laws of the USA still won't apply there, but Pappa Donald will be in charge of the security to eject the poor losers. And "the enemies". Ah, just a dream. This, coming from a former RNC staffer circa 1981-82, during the early Reagan years. (I was a national advanceman.) What highly dramatic and great days those were, and in 2016+ the best is yet to come! (Oh, ps - I am just waiting for that email to me from the moderator saying "Off Topic, Opinion Removed! Happens so frequently... wonder why? )

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That and their joke candidates. not that the Dems are much better.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@RainMonster Well said.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I would say it is radical right-wing loonies that keep the GOP out of the White House.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sad, but it's the radical left-wing progressive morons that get to stay in the White House. I guess lies, bribes and deceptions do actually work.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The Republican National Committee has tinkered regularly with the primary rules. But this avoids confronting the basic problem: The primary process has undercut the GOP in its search for a winning presidential candidate.

The RNC can't even gerrymander their own sham nomination process.

So the worry isn't about anyone but the Shia Tea and what this tiny percentage will do to obstruct the Democratic process. By playing to the Shia Tea the GOP ends up looking like forty year old riding a skate board.

Every time they invoke another prejudice or blame civility as a sign of weakness, the primaries become little more than an encyclopedic guide to every piece of madness and lie the GOP has been schlepping for thirty years.

Imagine, four years to get a primary together and the RNC sticks this wet bag of oatmeal on a paper plate and calls it a feast of the best and brightest of the GOP/Tea? Someone call chef Ramsay, the kitchen at the RNC is filling with smoke and mirrors, again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The RNC can't even gerrymander their own sham nomination process.

But liberals can, right? LOL

So the worry isn't about anyone but the Shia Tea and what this tiny percentage will do to obstruct the Democratic process.

After what Hillary and Obama have done to the Democratic process, legally, morally and ethically and you can say that with a straight face?? You haven't been watching the news or kept up with this White House...

By playing to the Shia Tea the GOP ends up looking like forty year old riding a skate board.

I think Tony Hawk looks great, nice compliment from you, finally!

Every time they invoke another prejudice or blame civility as a sign of weakness, the primaries become little more than an encyclopedic guide to every piece of madness and lie the GOP has been schlepping for thirty years.

So then why don't liberals take the same advice themselves?

Imagine, four years to get a primary together and the RNC sticks this wet bag of oatmeal on a paper plate and calls it a feast of the best and brightest of the GOP/Tea?

You do know how healthy oatmeal is, right? Add some maple syrup and raisins.....

Someone call chef Ramsay, the kitchen at the RNC is filling with smoke and mirrors, again.

Even if Ramsay would come NOW to the White House with all of the King's horses and King's men, they could never, ever put this White House together again.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

However we choose them, Republicans have won a lot of recent Presidential elections. Losing only to the admitted philanderer who attracted the most women votes in history. (one assumes they were looking for a date). And then to an admitted pot and cocaine user (hopefully not while in office) showing just how wide spread drug use is in America.

What will happen in the next election is unlikely to be related to historical analysis reaching to before telephones.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Funny, but it seems that republicans and democrats have shared an equal amount of time in the white house, doesn't that fact itself rather prove that the article is tripe?

The system is rather designed to prevent anyone but those who are part of the Washington machine from ever becoming president. In Washington, political parties are generally irrelevant, they exist only to fool the people into thinking that their different interests are being represented. Obama, Bush, Clinton, or whomever, the system rewards it's players at our expense.

Funny to watch the party tools here proselytize about the merits of their particular candidates, not even realizing that they are tools. Since they identify with a party, they only vote for that party, meaning that they don't have the ability to choose. Being such, they have no voice at all in the next election. Party morons will vote along party lines, and, as is usually the case, those who don't identify with either party, and are capable of voting for either will be the ones who decide the outcome of the next election.

Unfortunately, the candidates who make it all the way to being on the ballot are not the candidates the people would prefer to have, they are the candidates which are supported by a self-rewarding and self-preserving system. In the end, there is no good or bad choice, one might as well not bother to vote at all (which is the option most will take).

Those who have the means and the sense to understand how the system works simply go along with it. The rich donate to either campaign, knowing that if they don't, and the person they didn't donate to wins, they'll be punished in the next session of congress, when tax loopholes are created or closed. They will work the system, because they have no choice, if they don't pay or play, they will be closed out. The middle and lower classes have no clue how it works, or how it effects them. They see their hours and wages fall, and their cost of living increase, and they are told by their political leaders that their suffering is caused by rich and greedy corporations and big business. This of course angers the people, and they give their politicians more power to extort from corporations and business. The end effect is that the situation becomes worse, corporations and businesses begin to leave to places where they are more welcome, which results in even further reductions in hours and wages, further price increases, and the middle and lower classes get squeezed even harder than they were before.

It is all too funny.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The primary process helps to illustrates the reasons why voters should not vote Republican. If Republicans were more in touch with reality, the primary process would not be blamed for exposing their weaknesses.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The whole reason as to why the Tea Party evovolved was a protest to the growing and out of control taxation the Obama admin. was imposing on the people.

Ehh... in the country I live in, the House of Representatives "imposes taxes on the people", not the White House. Sure, the White House could veto or sign a proposed tax change that adds or subtracts, but it can't ADD a tax change that Congress hasn't already authorized. If you're going to complain about taxes, put the blame where it rightfully belongs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think it's odd for these two writers to use the term "party bosses" and make comparisons from 2016 with 1876. Rolling out Gilded Age Presidents such as Rutherford Hayes in 1876; James Garfield in 1880; William McKinley in 1896. Sure these presidents were hand picked by Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and the like, and then say Trump has no chance.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@bass4funk

The whole reason as to why the Tea Party evovolved was a protest to the growing and out of control taxation the Obama admin. was imposing on the people.

Bull****. Taxes were lower than they had been in 30 years up to the end of Obama's first term. Probably still are.

They were getting tired and wanted an end to the the socialist policies of this admin. And a protest against it.

Which socialist policies are you talking about? The ones that bailed out the corporations and banks after the economic collapse? You'd have a point there, but that's hardly the biggest complaint I hear from your side.

this is another reason why the Democrats are nervous because candidates like Trump, Fiorina and Carson pose a very serious threat

The Democrats are loving it. Establishment Republicans are scared. Again, you have things completely backwards.

The people are tired of the last failed 7 years that was wasted and want to go in a different direction.

What exactly is worse now than when Obama inherited the collapsed economy from Bush?

The people are really tired of all of the radical progressive policies that have the country in a vice grip.

Again what are all these progressive policies you're talking about? Specific examples would be nice. Obamacare? Even most Republican voters like the plan when it's explained to them without "Obamacare" in the title.

The Democrats don't get it,

You're the one that doesn't seem to get it. You seem to be simply parroting Republican talking points that are rarely based on facts. They're cynical ploys to gather votes from uneducated voters, and they've been pandering to them for too long. That's why the party is a joke now.

it was clear a few days ago at the last debate when the moderators were booed by the audience, a clear defiance to what libs think how the people should feel or vote.

Most things Republican audiences boo or cheer either scare or baffle me. Yeah, some of the moderators asked questions that seemed designed to instigate argument, also known as debate. All of them were based on statements the candidates had actually made though. This whole whining about "gotcha" questions is really pathetic. Most "gotcha questions" used to be called "questions" before Palin came along and proved she couldn't handle them.

@sangetsu03

I agree with the first half of your post, and Larry Lessig not even getting a chance to fail seems to prove it, but the second half of your post seems to be defending corporations that would move away rather than pay livable wages to it's workers.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bull****. Taxes were lower than they had been in 30 years up to the end of Obama's first term. Probably still are.

Probably not.

So Obama’s first priority was, once again, to raise taxes on the American people. A total of $320 billion in new and higher taxes this time. Obama called for increasing the capital gains tax from 23.8 percent to 28 percent. (Bill Clinton signed a Republican bill to reduce the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent.) Cutting the capital gains tax in 1978, 1981, and 1997 increased the revenue from capital gains taxes because the tax cut was a great incentive to work, save, and invest. Increases in the capital gains tax in 1969 and 1990 and 2012 have resulted in reductions in the money raised through that tax. Reagan knew this. Obama doesn’t care. There are many other tax hikes in Obama’s budget, including: A stealth, effectively second death tax rate, from 40 percent to nearly 60 percent. Under current law, when you inherit an asset your basis in the asset is the higher of the fair market value at the time of death or the decedent’s original basis. Almost always, the fair market value is higher. Under the Obama proposal, when you inherit an asset, your basis will simply be the descendant’s original basis. Conceivably, an accumulated capital gain could face a 40% death tax levy and then a 28% capital gains tax on what is left. Do the math, and that’s an integrated federal tax of just under 60% on inherited capital gains. Bank Tax. A new 7 basis point (0.07%) tax on the liabilities (not assets) of the 100 or so U.S. firms with assets over $50 billion. Like all taxes, the burden will fall to these firms’ customers and employees, since businesses don’t pay taxes — people do. Tax Increases in Retirement Plans. There would be a new cap in the amount one could accumulate in the aggregate in all IRA and 401(k) type accounts of $3.4 million. After that, you can’t save any more new dollars. The idea is that this is enough to secure a $210,000 annual distribution in retirement, which the government apparently deems “enough” for a retiree. The Obama plan eliminates the dependent-care Flexible Spending Account that many workers use. Tax Increase on Families Saving for College. Under current law, 529 plans work like Roth IRAs: you put money in, and the money grows tax-free for college. Distributions are tax-free provided they are to pay for college. Under the Obama plan, earnings growth in a 529 plan would no longer be tax-free. Instead, earnings would face taxation upon withdrawal, even if the withdrawal is to pay for college. This was the law prior to 2001. The plan also effectively eliminates Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. One theme of Obama’s campaign speech—delivered January 20 before much of Congress—was a promise to help the middle class. He had a list of projects and policies his left-of-center worldview informs him would do this. Oddly, this is by definition a list of things he has not done in the past six years. What was he waiting for? Republican control of both houses? Granted that the State of the Union was a political wish list of things that will never happen during his presidency, it is still amazing that one of his capital demands was to destroy the 529 College Savings Plans that were enacted in 2001, made permanent in 2006. Today 12 million Americans have 529 college savings plans. The average amount in each account is $19,584. This is a tax free savings account that makes it possible for millions of American to save for their children’s college education. Obama demanded the program be destroyed by taxing it so heavily no one would ever put another dollar in such an account.

Which socialist policies are you talking about? The ones that bailed out the corporations and banks after the economic collapse? You'd have a point there, but that's hardly the biggest complaint I hear from your side

Obama should have let them fail and file and use the bankruptcy laws.

The Democrats are loving it. Establishment Republicans are scared. Again, you have things completely backwards.

How? Trump and Carson are ahead. I think you have it backwards, but I know how libs hate the truth....

What exactly is worse now than when Obama inherited the collapsed economy from Bush?

Wages down, median household incomes are down, unemployment benefits up 39%, 46 million people on food stamps, open borders, influx of illegal immigrants from Central America, people finding it more difficult to pay their healthcare premiums and we won't even get into how bad the guys foreign policy is.

Again what are all these progressive policies you're talking about? Specific examples would be nice. Obamacare? Even most Republican voters like the plan when it's explained to them without "Obamacare" in the title.

Not a single Republican voted for that bad legislation and if the GOP really did like it, they wouldn't be so beside themselves to wanting to repeal it.

You're the one that doesn't seem to get it.

No, I really do.

You seem to be simply parroting Republican talking points that are rarely based on facts.

You mean based facts Dems choose NOT to believe, because Dems never liked bluntness and the truth.

They're cynical ploys to gather votes from uneducated voters, and they've been pandering to them for too long. That's why the party is a joke now.

So that's why the DNC opposes ID for voters? Because they are so honest, honest like in the 2012 election where the unemployment numbers dropped from 9% to about 5% just right before the election and just within a few months time span? Just like when the Democrats said, if you like your doctor, you can keep him or that Al Qaida is on the run? Now that is a joke and the party that peddled that crap.

Most things Republican audiences boo or cheer either scare or baffle me. Yeah, some of the moderators asked questions that seemed designed to instigate argument, also known as debate.

No, that's not how you do a debat-period. That was pure antagonistic dirty gutter sniping.

All of them were based on statements the candidates had actually made though. This whole whining about "gotcha" questions is really pathetic.

So everyone, even former Democratic strategist to Howard Dean, a hardcore liberal, no conservative, even admitted what the moderators did was beyond bad.

Most "gotcha questions" used to be called "questions" before Palin came along and proved she couldn't handle them.

Ahhh, so then why doesn't the president or Hillary go on FOX or any of the FOX debates? Surely, they are smarter, more clever. They have nothing to hide and I'm sure they could handle any questions they would throw at them. But that would never happen because unlike conservatives that WILL go on EVERY liberal debate, the opposite doesn't hold true for the cowardly Dems and liberals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So Obama’s first priority was, once again, to raise taxes on the American people.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-obama-caused-massive-tax-increase-middle-/

"It’s not accurate to call the tax increases for the middle class 'massive.' Some individuals might see their tax bill go up, while others see the tax benefits of the health care law outweigh the costs, and some might experience a change so small they don’t notice it."

it is still amazing that one of his capital demands was to destroy the 529 College Savings Plans that were enacted in 2001, made permanent in 2006.

It was a well-intentioned mistake. A mistake he realized after criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. He withdrew the proposal, so why continue to moan about something that didn't even go through?

Obama should have let them fail and file and use the bankruptcy laws.

Maybe, but then you'd be complaining about how he let the economy tank even further. Because it definitely would've without the bailouts.

How? Trump and Carson are ahead.

They're ahead in the Republican primaries. If you think either of them stand a chance in the general election, you're delusional.

Wages down, median household incomes are down, unemployment benefits up 39%, 46 million people on food stamps, open borders, influx of illegal immigrants from Central America, people finding it more difficult to pay their healthcare premiums and we won't even get into how bad the guys foreign policy is.

http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/economy-markets/economic-data-news/how-has-the-economy-performed-under-barack-obama

Why do you guys always ignore the fact that Obama inherited one of the worst economic disasters is recent history? You complain about him bailing out the banks (which would've set us back even further) and at the same time complain that he hasn't improved the economy enough. These things take time.

So that's why the DNC opposes ID for voters?

Another fake controversy created by Republicans. Voter fraud is a nonexistent problem. It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone multiple times. So why the recent push by Republicans? Because it punishes the poor who often don't have drivers licenses, which is what most people use for ID. This group also tends to be made up overwhelmingly of minorities who would likely vote Democrat.

Just like when the Democrats said, if you like your doctor

Obamacare isn't perfect, but there are 16.4 million less uninsured people in America because of it.

you can keep him or that Al Qaida is on the run? Now that is a joke and the party that peddled that crap.

I don't like Obama's over willingness to go to war either, so I won't argue much with you there. Republicans are no better on that front though.

That was pure antagonistic dirty gutter sniping.

The moderators weren't the best, but really, it's that kind of environment where Trump thrives. When he or Carson do get asked about policy, they show how completely out of their depth they are. As much as I might disagree with them, Rubio and Kasich seem like more serious candidates, but it looks like your base has chosen.

Ahhh, so then why doesn't the president or Hillary go on FOX or any of the FOX debates?

They avoid Fox because it's a joke. Granting Fox interviews implies that the network is in some way credible. Keep in mind this is the network that elevated Sarah Palin to the level of a political commentator. How can you take that seriously?

All mainstream news media has a bias (usually toward money for their network), but Fox takes the cake in it's single-minded pushing of conservative agenda through outright lies and deception.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/

It's laughable but also depressing that there are actually people out there that believe Fox even tries to be "fair and balanced."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-3-million-more-children-in-poverty-under-obama-22-of-all-kids/article/2568686

Maybe, but then you'd be complaining about how he let the economy tank even further. Because it definitely would've without the bailouts.

No, That's what the bankruptcy laws are for, let them fail, restructure and start all over and GM still didn't learn its lesson.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-03-25/gms-really-seriously-huge-liability-trouble

Last year and things are still the same, never learned their lessons and all that money wasted for nothing.

They're ahead in the Republican primaries. If you think either of them stand a chance in the general election, you're delusional.

Yeah, the libs said the same thing when Trump announced his bid for the White House and look, not only is the man standing, there is nothing, No scandal that will keep him down or out and same with Carson. Libs laughed and they thought it wasn't anything to be serious about. Trump is breaking all records and Carson in a way, more so. Anyone even denying that IS delusional.

Why do you guys always ignore the fact that Obama inherited one of the worst economic disasters is recent history?

No one does, everyone acknowledges it, on the other hand, liberals selectively refuse to acknowledge the $20 Trillion that Obama has been racking up over the last 7 years and the man has 1 more year to go and that means, we will exceed $20 Trillion, lovely.

Another fake controversy created by Republicans. Voter fraud is a nonexistent problem. It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone multiple times.

That was just the biggest hunk of crock of BS. Of course, it is a problem that exists, because if it didn't and if the facts weren't true, liberals wouldn't be so panicking about it-period! It's that simple and NO, it's not hard to get people to vote, I'm from L.A. so I know first hand what's going on, please don't peddle that lie. We have had a long history of illegals and dead people voting and voter ID would put a complete halt to that.

So why the recent push by Republicans? Because it punishes the poor who often don't have drivers licenses, which is what most people use for ID.

So then the poor don't need an ID for Food Stamps EBT cards, Drivers licenses, ID when they go to the medical doctors, right? It's all an impediment to the poor. Absolutely laughable!

This group also tends to be made up overwhelmingly of minorities who would likely vote Democrat.

So now you are lumping and saying that all minorities are monolithic in their thinking when it comes to voting?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/poll_shows_trump_receiving_25_of_black_vote_against_hillary.html

This should be a wake up call to all liberals.

Obamacare isn't perfect, but there are 16.4 million less uninsured people in America because of it.

That's not the issue, the issue is, the people were sold a bag of goods and were lied to, front and center. For the poor it's a good thing, no doubt about it, but for the rest of the majority of Americans that were fine with their healthcare, there was absolutely NO reason to overhaul the entire system, just fix it for the 15 million that didn't have it, but as we know. Gruber, Emmanuel and Obama were trying to find a way to get their hands on the Cadillac tax which will kick in once Obama is out of office and when that happens, you just might start to see another revolution on your hands. Again, this is why the people don't trust career politicians.

I don't like Obama's over willingness to go to war either, so I won't argue much with you there. Republicans are no better on that front though.

Yes, just let ISIS and Al Qaida plot, kill, behead people and continue to expand their caliphate. He doesn't have to want to go to war, but the Jihadists want a war with us, either way, war is inevitable.

The moderators weren't the best, but really, it's that kind of environment where Trump thrives. When he or Carson do get asked about policy, they show how completely out of their depth they are.

And Hillary won't go into details about Benghazi and we should just trust her because she says so? If Trump and Carson should be more transparent about their polices and the truth, the same should standard should be applied to Hillary as well.

As much as I might disagree with them, Rubio and Kasich seem like more serious candidates, but it looks like your base has chosen.

There is still time that the voters can pick a more viable candidate. Herman Cain was almost equally as Big the last time around and he fell out.

They avoid Fox because it's a joke.

Again, BS nonsense, if anything, they should be glad to get on FOX, they would get THE most exposure on TV-period.

Granting Fox interviews implies that the network is in some way credible.

It already is, that's why they are the most watched and trusted, even among a huge portion of liberals (at least the logical and rational ones)

Keep in mind this is the network that elevated Sarah Palin to the level of a political commentator. How can you take that seriously?

They had Hillary, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Michael Moore and other out of control liberals. The problem is, liberals want to control the narrative, I know, I used to work at NBC/msnbc and liberals have a VERY, VERY difficult time hearing another point of view or perspective, if it doesn't fit with theirs, it just gets outright dismissed as being invalid. Libs go on msnbc, they are NEVER challenged, NEVER! They just get to plug away and bloviate as long as they want, they will never happen on FOX and to some extent CNN. The GOP has absolutely NO problem with taking on ANY liberal or going on the liberal networks, but the Democrats are too chicken, you can sugarcoat it if you like, Dems don't like hard questioning, because it exposes to many of their flaws. That's why I like people like Joe Trippi, hardcore liberal, former Howard Dean advisor and Democratic strategist. The man is on FOX all the time, he said the same thing, liberals should go on a FOX debate take them on, but we know they won't, they're too scared. He tells it like it is, he believes in what he believes and that's good, but he won't shy away from a fight. Wonder if Al Sharpton would, but we all know the answer to that.

All mainstream news media has a bias (usually toward money for their network), but Fox takes the cake in it's single-minded pushing of conservative agenda through outright lies and deception.

And even if that were true, if that really were, CNN, NBC, PBS, msnbc (in particular) HLN, CNBC push a far left agenda as well as the majority of the media being 98% liberal bias or are you saying, and that's ok? If all the MSM is virtually liberal and you have 1 network that tilts a bit conservative and I say that because you have a lot of liberals, libertarians and traditionalists working at FOX are a lot. Also FOX had the least amount of retractions compared to other news outlets. The other networks.....crickets

It's laughable but also depressing that there are actually people out there that believe Fox even tries to be "fair and balanced."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites