Judging by repuke/conservative sites, the repukes really, really

[cali]

don't like their lineup for the nomination. Go to any dem/liberal site and you'll find passionate supporters of practically all the candidates. Go to freeperville or redstate or any other wingnut site, and you'll find a lot of bitching about their candidates.

Does this reaction reflect the greater conservative voting public? I think it does, and polls reflect a lack of enthusiasm for their guys. Is this noteworthy? I think it is. Maybe they will all coalesce around the nominee once he's chosen, but I doubt it. And even should Clinton get the nomination, the hatred for her in repuke circles is unlikely to be enough. It's hard as hell to get people jazzed just to vote against someone.

The repuke slate reflects the sad sack shape of the repuke party and the rifts within it. You think we're divided? Compared to them, we're a picture of unity.

[melody]

1. I agree ... I think their hatred of HRC (if she gets the nom) is weak at best given the climate

I suspect the average male repuke knows he'll be better off with a Clinton presidency. He may hate gays and blacks and immigrants and broads, but while the repuke male ego may be threatened by any woman President(and particularly a strong one), I think the human wish to survive will win out over their biases.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. AND, the GOP simply has too many strays who'll screw up

and call Sen. Clinton a "c*nt". You really can't blame them, being that they've been baited into this sexist crap for the past 15 years.

Such displays of hostility will (as they have in the past), I predict, backfire horribly if HRC is our nominee. She won't have to play the gender card--they will.

[texas_indy]

14. thinking like this will ensure another loss for the democrats

"They" are just like everyone else. They will have knock-down drag out fights within the "family" but they will combine to fight the outside threat.

Several points:

1. This election is not going to be anywhere close to a landslide. It's going to be a nasty fight with the winner having less than 55% popular vote. To believe otherwise is to whistle past the graveyard.

After all, Texas KNEW what our current leader was like and he still won the race for governor in both elections (1998 was a landslide for him)! As well as winning the state in both Presidental elections!!!

There were plenty of good folk who voted against him but we were out numbered by "them". (I still miss Ann Richards as gov. I would have voted for her in a heart beat for President)

2. "They" have no problem with strong woman. Remember Maggie Thatcher, or Liz Dole, our Kay Bailey as Tex Senator, and we can't forget Condi. What they don't like is strong Democratic woman.

3. Just because "they" hate, and can't stand, the current administration, DOES NOT MEAN they will vote for a democrat! They may not love their final choice, but they will do the same thing so many say on this very site say; "I'll hold my nose and vote for the party nominee before voting for the other side"!

4. The "average male repuke" will NEVER vote for Hillary. I will also add in the "average female repuke" will NEVER vote for Hillary. Just mentioning the name Hillary around them still gets their blood boiling mad (at least here in the SW).

Of course, always IMO.

[melody]

17. No, the reverse is in fact the case -- thinking like this will safeguard us against losing hope

That's what the far-right does -- it goes for the throat trying to break our spirits. They're sociopaths. They know how to do that sort of thing. We have to see the rational pattern through their distractive chaos.

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Not to get cocky, but I think their wheels have come off.

I touched upon this in the California "Voting reform" initiative's failure, but I'll bring it up here. These people are getting very desperate, even though they're trying hard not to seem that way.

I think it's absolutely crazy for them to continue to seek to split up CA's votes through a November general election initiative. This becomes a national issue if it's on the CA ballot, and not one that makes the GOP look confident at all.

Beyond that, like you said, there's a lot of polling out there to support the notion that the Republican faithful aren't at all happy about their field of candidates. I see all of them as fatally flawed and terribly vulnerable.

As to us and ours: I've asked around, both in real life and online, and while we bitch and moan about this or that candidate's mis-step, we're generally pretty happy with the batch we've got. I'm not thrilled about Hillary as our nominee, but a huge part of me would find it so sweet to shove the GOP's sexism right up their asses, were she to win, that I'm almost willing to overlook her shortcomings.

[billybob537]

3. It's hard as hell to get people jazzed just to vote against someone.

This is a repuke specialty. They don't need a candidate just look at Bush's record of failure before 2000. They rely on energizing through Hate and Bigotry. Just look at the tired lies they use daily. Blame Clinton, Al Gore invented the internet, Max Cleland didn't deserve his medals, Kerry Lied about his wounds. If this isn't enough to convince MORANS to vote against someone they will smear even their own, McCain has an Illegitimate black baby! There is no lie too low for a Scum of the EARTH Republican to use.

[gratuitous]

5. Republicans are floundering?

Get the anchors ready. We want to be sure every last one of them gets a helpful anchor tossed to them as they struggle to stay afloat. Catch, Rudy! Here ya go, Mitt! Mike, we got an extra large one for you! Fred? Fred? Huh, gone already. I guess the Republicans don't manufacture Hollywood icons like they used to. Have another, Rudy!

[Renew Deal]

6. 68% of Independents in NH plan to vote in the Democratic Race

I saw this around DU this week. 68% plan to vote in the Dem race. That means that the Dem race is where the excitement is. Also, I was looking around freeperville after the debate last week. They love Duncan Hunter. They are that 0-1% that support him, so of course they're unhappy.

The shittiest thing for them is the candidate with the most hardened support is Ron Paul, and they ban people for supporting him. :crazy:

[sam sarrha]

7. they dragged their swamp 3 or 4 times.. and those are the only corpses they came up with

[DeeDeeNY]

8. Their candidates have something the Democratic ones don't have

They have Diebold on their side.

[cali]

10. May I remind you that Diebold didn't work in 2006

and they're now in even worse shape in all departments.

[T Wolf]

11. Debatable. Some think that the Dem "victory" would have been much larger if

the pukes had not miscalculated their "math" and stolen a few more votes.

[cali]

13. That's entirely possible, but if you recall, no one expected

the dems to take back the Senate. Anyway, it misses the point I was making: Even if they cheat, the odds are more heavily stacked against them then they were 2 years ago, and the dems will still win.

[YOY]

9. They want a Reagan part II. They've already got one and the long term economic effects are showing

It's the last goddamn thing they or we or anyone needs.

They need to move away from this social issue pseudo-Christian BS and leave the religious loonies to twist in the wind. They've been fanning their flames in giving them legitimacy for too long.

The need to go back to a real "big on fiscal responsibility, small on social issues" stance. Too bad the DLC already took that market from them while they weren't looking.

[Bitwit1234]

12. Most have Reagonisists

that's why the urged Thompson to run...I guess they think if you are a movie person who is republican that gives you certification.

[Occam Bandage]

15. We're fractured in a much more unified way, so to speak.

We have an isolationist/purist contingent that finds any "capitulation" regarding foreign policy or trade to be unacceptable, and that's really the only major break in our party.

On the other hand, for Republicans:

1. The religious right can't stand Romney, since he's not a Christian. Social conservatives fear his flip-flops.
2. They also can't stand Giuliani, since he's pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. FP hawks find him the only acceptable candidate.
3. Business conservatives are terrified of Huckabee's populism, and irritated at his denial of science.
4. McCain has pissed off just about everyone.
5. Fred Thompson has the support of the Cheerleader wing (who have no real positions other than "go team!"). Everyone else thinks he's lazy as fuck.
6. Business conservatives think Tancredo would destroy America. Xenophobes love him.
7. Everyone hates Ron Paul, except ultra-libertarians--who hate everyone else.

Whoever they elect, there's going to be a huge contingent of Republicans who can't stand them. Romney seems to be the best "unifier," but even he would fracture his party more than Clinton would ours.

On the other hand, a Clinton nomination would certainly help unify the Republicans. On the other other hand, if 2004 showed anything, it's that getting people to vote against someone is almost impossible, no matter how bad that villain is.

[Vickers]

16. Is it any wonder? What a bunch of sad sacks they've come up with!

:rofl: