GOP Woes: It's the Candidates, Stupid!

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I demur. It's not the message; it's the messenger. At least in this instance—in fact in too many recent instances—it's the candidate, stupid.

It's time for the Republican Party to ask itself why it is running such abysmal candidates. First with Roy Moore for the senator from Alabama, of all places, and now with Rick Saccone in Pennsylvania, the GOP seems to be picking some of the least charismatic, most old-fashioned dullards in the country. They are reinforcing the cliché that to be a Republican is to be out of synch with the modern world.

Think of this from the perspective of the younger voter, anyone under forty for that matter, and you will see what I mean. Moore, and to a somewhat lesser extent Saccone, seems to come from another era.




GOP Woes: It's the Candidates, Stupid!
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
I demur. It's not the message; it's the messenger. At least in this instance—in fact in too many recent instances—it's the candidate, stupid.

It's time for the Republican Party to ask itself why it is running such abysmal candidates. First with Roy Moore for the senator from Alabama, of all places, and now with Rick Saccone in Pennsylvania, the GOP seems to be picking some of the least charismatic, most old-fashioned dullards in the country. They are reinforcing the cliché that to be a Republican is to be out of synch with the modern world.

Think of this from the perspective of the younger voter, anyone under forty for that matter, and you will see what I mean. Moore, and to a somewhat lesser extent Saccone, seems to come from another era.




GOP Woes: It's the Candidates, Stupid!
Click to expand...

This may ALSO be true - but to lose a 20 point advantage in a conservative district is nothing to ignore.
It's true that, like the other Democratic wins recently, the GOP candidate was vastly outspent and as I've observed often,
money USUALLY wins these kinds of races -

But that's a big lead to lose. This district has only elected two Democrats since the 1880's, although both have been fairly recent.
Like a lot of PA - it is VERY white. It's blue collar. It's a coal district. It even has 35,000 more Democrats than Republicans, so the Democrats are still voting
with the GOP - for years.

It also didn't hurt that, at least publicly, Lamb embraced a lot of conservative ideas - even went out on a limb to eschew Pelosi -
but past observation is they change their tune quickly once in Washington. They WON'T be voting on the conservative side of an issue -
they WILL vote with the party if they want its continued support.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
It also didn't hurt that, at least publicly, Lamb embraced a lot of conservative ideas - even went out on a limb to eschew Pelosi - but past observation is they change their tune quickly once in Washington.
Click to expand...

:yay:

as I have pointed out, running on Conservative Ideals in the Home District, the DNC still controls the Agenda in DC
Expect MORE of this in 2018

SamSpade said:
They WON'T be voting on the conservative side of an issue - they WILL vote with the party if they want its continued support.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

wouldn't matter if he did ... his JOB only lasts until Nov.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
transporter said:
And for those who are looking for a more realistic viewpoint (which makes posting to this site irrelevant...but GURPS needs his nickles)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pennsylvania-18-district-lamb-results/
Click to expand...

So, what I got out of that is that Hillary was not on the ticket, so Democrats decided to vote this time. Makes sense, since this was historically a blue district.


Oh, wait, that's not what this district was, was it? So, why in an area where voter ID is not required did Democrats come out to vote in such amazingly unusually strong numbers? Well, it's a mystery, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top