Who will get 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination?

[Argus]

I can see you responded to the best of your ability. If you honestly can't respond with an intelligent or empathetic response, why bother responding?

Because I felt like it and I don't need to have some old nag approving my posts before I make them?

[Argus]

It was humour.

Not something her type has much understanding of...

[Argus]

Is it possible to have a redneck lesbian.

Lesbian cowgirls riding herd on the cattle? Didn't they make a movie about that?

Oh wait, maybe it was a uhm, video...

[Argus]

It wasn't insulting.

Certain people really can't stand the use of logic in a conversation.

Emotion is soooo much more satisfying to them.

[kimmy]

I would hope that they would be smart enough to nominate someone who is fairly moderate. I don't think one makes President by being a radical.

Except that the litmus tests one must go through to obtain the Republican nomination requires making statements that inherently alienate people who are fairly moderate. You have to kiss up to the Religious Right Moral Majority types, the Tea Party types, the Grover Norquist Tax Pledge types, and by the end of the process you've inevitably said stuff that pisses off moderate voters.

Romney's advisor Eric Fehrnstrom said something to this effect during the Republican nominations... the plan was to move to the right during the nomination to try to appeal to those people, then once the nomination was secured, walk back towards the center to win back moderates and independent voters. Except that leaves you with two problems: the first being a bunch of youtube clips and soundbites and quotes that you can't just erase once the nomination is wrapped up. The second is that nobody-- moderates or conservatives-- is really sure what you actually stand for.

-k

[LemonPureLeaf]

Except that the litmus tests one must go through to obtain the Republican nomination requires making statements that inherently alienate people who are fairly moderate. You have to kiss up to the Religious Right Moral Majority types, the Tea Party types, the Grover Norquist Tax Pledge types, and by the end of the process you've inevitably said stuff that pisses off moderate voters.

Romney's advisor Eric Fehrnstrom said something to this effect during the Republican nominations... the plan was to move to the right during the nomination to try to appeal to those people, then once the nomination was secured, walk back towards the center to win back moderates and independent voters. Except that leaves you with two problems: the first being a bunch of youtube clips and soundbites and quotes that you can't just erase once the nomination is wrapped up. The second is that nobody-- moderates or conservatives-- is really sure what you actually stand for.

-k

Doesnt make any sense. The extreme right will never vote for the Democrats so they should be ignored largely and concentrate on the moderates to win. Throw the hard right some meat of course but concentrate on winning the soccer moms and the Latino vote which is very important as well. The middle of the road people who have some conservative leaning but who sometimes vote Democrat...Those are the votes that can be won.

[Argus]

Doesnt make any sense. The extreme right will never vote for the Democrats so they should be ignored largely and concentrate on the moderates to win. Throw the hard right some meat of course but concentrate on winning the soccer moms and the Latino vote which is very important as well. The middle of the road people who have some conservative leaning but who sometimes vote Democrat...Those are the votes that can be won.

In an election, yes.

But those are not the kind of people who get to decide who will be the Republican nominee. Those are not the people who fork over money to travel to conventions, and put in time and effort on behalf of a potential Republican nominee.

[August1991]

Except that the litmus tests one must go through to obtain the Republican nomination requires making statements that inherently alienate people who are fairly moderate. You have to kiss up to the Religious Right Moral Majority types, the Tea Party types, the Grover Norquist Tax Pledge types, and by the end of the process you've inevitably said stuff that pisses off moderate voters.

The same could be said of the Democrats. Hillary has to kiss up to the NPR/Lesbians/Gays/Unions/Hollywood/New York Jews to ensure the support/base/money. And at the end of the process, she's pissed off moderate voters.

=====

And frankly, I have always considered the Left more fractious than the Right so I reckon that Mulcair faces a bigger problem than Harper ever did. It is an irony (yes Kimmy, the Gods are laughing) since the Left wants a single payer/decider/informed socialist State monopoly/Obamacare and yet Leftists can never agree among themselves.

Oh, the irony!

Edited March 9, 2015 by August1991

[kimmy]

It is an irony (yes Kimmy, the Gods are laughing) since the Left wants a single payer/decider/informed socialist State monopoly/Obamacare and yet Leftists can never agree among themselves.

I've read that sentence at least 10 times and still have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

But you're wrong in the rest of your post. The leftish groups you mentioned have neither the amount of pull in the nomination process nor the degree of public distaste that the Tea Partyists and the Moral Majority blowhards possess.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

The same could be said of the Democrats. Hillary has to kiss up to the NPR/Lesbians/Gays/Unions/Hollywood/New York Jews to ensure the support/base/money. And at the end of the process, she's pissed off moderate voters.

Even looking at your list it should be obvious how limited the left's influence is in America. Gays ? Gay marriage has largely come in through the judiciary, and although Obama had to lie and say he didn't support equal marriage he know that the political risks were low and they were. Even the Republicans just have to quietly recant their rhetoric of the past to get around this issue. Gay marriage won't be a factor in 2016.

Hillary is mainstream.

[Shady]

I'm starting to wonder if there should be a Who will get the 2016 Democrat nomination. Hillary's had gaffe after gaffe after gaffe lately. The latest email scandal is another incident that now has new contenders emerging. Governor Martin Malloy has been gaining popularity of late, and will probably enter the primary process. Next could be somebody like Elizabeth Warren.

[Bonam]

I'm starting to wonder if there should be a Who will get the 2016 Democrat nomination. Hillary's had gaffe after gaffe after gaffe lately. The latest email scandal is another incident that now has new contenders emerging. Governor Martin Malloy has been gaining popularity of late, and will probably enter the primary process. Next could be somebody like Elizabeth Warren.

I would think Warren would be a lot more appealing than Clinton to most Democrat voters.

[August1991]

I've read that sentence at least 10 times and still have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

The Liberals and the NDP want a health system without freedom to choose, and yet the Liberals and NDP cannot agree on having a single party. The irony is that Trudeau Jnr and Mulcair, leftists, are free to choose to disagree yet they both desire a society where we, the people, are not free to choose.

Irony? God laughing? Leftists want to restrict choice; yet leftists never agree among themselves.

----

Now then, who is the most likely US right-wing federal candidate in 2016?

Edited March 15, 2015 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

The Liberals and the NDP want a health system without freedom to choose...

Do you have some inside information that the Conservatives are going to de-socialize Health Care in Canada ?

[cybercoma]

The Liberals and the NDP want a health system without freedom to choose

This is completely off topic, but you've said this before and I've pointed out that you were wrong then and you're still wrong now.

Across Canada every province has a single-payer system. We do not have a single-provider system. Providers are mostly independent and private. Healthcare in Canada is not like the UK where they have the National Health Service. In the UK, healthcare is paid for and provided by the government. So to break it down for you:

UK: public delivery, public payer

US: private delivery, private payer

CA: private delivery, public payer

So explain to me clearly how this means there is no choice in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

So explain to me clearly how this means there is no choice in Canada.

Well, the Republicans said that in Canada you can't choose your doctor so maybe we're supposed to just listen to that as a kind of free market lullaby.

[cybercoma]

Well, the Republicans said that in Canada you can't choose your doctor so maybe we're supposed to just listen to that as a kind of free market lullaby.

But I can choose my doctor. That's simply not true.

[Michael Hardner]

But I can choose my doctor. That's simply not true.

Lullabies aren't SUPPOSED to be true silly. What would you have done if your father had actually bought you a mockingbird ?

[Argus]

Well, the Republicans said that in Canada you can't choose your doctor so maybe we're supposed to just listen to that as a kind of free market lullaby.

It's actually not that far from being true in many locations. When the doctor shortage is severe you take any doctor you can get. A friend of mine doesn't like her doctor. She'd like to switch, but as I understand it, she first has to sever ties with her own doctor before she can be put on a waiting list to find another one. That leaves her without a doctor for a probably significant period of time.

Why is there a doctor shortage? Because the governments decide how many doctors will be trained, and they're trying to save money by keeping the numbers low.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is there a doctor shortage? Because the governments decide how many doctors will be trained, and they're trying to save money by keeping the numbers low.

Doctor shortage ? What ?

http://healthydebate.ca/2012/09/topic/underemployed-mds

A growing number of Canadian doctors are underemployed after finishing their training.

There are a number of likely causes, including a lack of infrastructure funding, delayed retirements, and a lack of health human resource planning at the national level.

After about two decades of strongly worded public headlines and numerous government reports about doctor shortages, there have recently been a number of reports of newly graduating Canadian doctors who are either unemployed or underemployed.

Jonathan DellaVedova, president of the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario says, “This problem wasn’t even on our radar five years ago, but there are a growing number of specialists who are having trouble finding work after graduation.”

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, the U.S. is a mix of private and public delivery/payer (i.e. V.A., Medicare, Medicaid, state health insurance, public hospitals/clinics). But don't let the facts get into the way of the usual ignorant rhetoric.

[cybercoma]

Doctor shortage ? What ?

http://healthydebate.ca/2012/09/topic/underemployed-mds

Exactly so. We have enough trained doctors, but provinces, like New Brunswick for example, do not issue enough billing numbers so they can practice. It's to keep the cost of healthcare artificially low and to mask the true amount of crap the province is in.

[cybercoma]

Actually, the U.S. is a mix of private and public delivery/payer (i.e. V.A., Medicare, Medicaid, state health insurance, public hospitals/clinics). But don't let the facts get into the way of the usual ignorant rhetoric.

Your public payer is minimal. Saying you have public healthcare is like claiming the United States is a socialist economy. For all intents and purposes it's capitalist, despite mixed elements. There aren't any other advanced industrial nations that have less public coverage than the US. So you can split hairs all you want. The United States is aptly considered private payer, private delivery.

[Shady]

This is completely off topic, but you've said this before and I've pointed out that you were wrong then and you're still wrong now.

Across Canada every province has a single-payer system. We do not have a single-provider system. Providers are mostly independent and private. Healthcare in Canada is not like the UK where they have the National Health Service. In the UK, healthcare is paid for and provided by the government. So to break it down for you:

UK: public delivery, public payer

US: private delivery, private payer

CA: private delivery, public payer

So explain to me clearly how this means there is no choice in Canada.

As has already been stated, the US is both private and public. Anyone over 65 is in the public system. So is anyone in Medicaid and Chip. If you know what those are.

[On Guard for Thee]

As has already been stated, the US is both private and public. Anyone over 65 is in the public system. So is anyone in Medicaid and Chip. If you know what those are.

Or maybe not...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/11/30/u-s-healthcare-for-seniors-ranked-poorly-compared-to-10-other-countries/