Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Why most candidates don't run again after losing twice


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I saw this, but I don't think it should be a barrier, depending on the situation. For instance, I think Beto O'Rourke could run against Ted Cruz again and have a chance at winning. The state is getting Bluer and Cruz isn't getting any more popular. O'Rourke is a better TX politician than a national figure too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I saw this, but I don't think it should be a barrier, depending on the situation. For instance, I think Beto O'Rourke could run against Ted Cruz again and have a chance at winning. The state is getting Bluer and Cruz isn't getting any more popular. O'Rourke is a better TX politician than a national figure too. 

I think Beto was overrated. His votes were mainly anti-Cruz votes, IMO.  Any other nominee might be able to pick those votes as well.  Also, Ted Cruz can just play Beto's statement about taking away AR-15s and AK-47s in an ad.

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I saw this, but I don't think it should be a barrier, depending on the situation. For instance, I think Beto O'Rourke could run against Ted Cruz again and have a chance at winning. The state is getting Bluer and Cruz isn't getting any more popular. O'Rourke is a better TX politician than a national figure too. 

True I wouldn't say someone should not run after two losses. However, it's an issue I've already thought about when it comes to John James. I am not sure if he should challenge Whitmer next year, despite I believe he's a formidable candidate. I think James Craig could be in a stronger position by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Timur said:

I think Beto was overrated. His votes were mainly anti-Cruz votes, IMO.  Any other nominee might be able to pick those votes as well.  Also, Ted Cruz can just play Beto's statement about taking away AR-15s and AK-47s in an ad.

I agree. I think Texan Democrats need to nominate a moderate, pro-gun Democrat. Or people like the Castro brothers. Julian or Joaquin would be good nominees to take on Cruz. Moderate enough and will keep Latino turnout high, especially against Cruz. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I agree. I think Texan Democrats need to nominate a moderate, pro-gun Democrat. Or people like the Castro brothers. Julian or Joaquin would be good nominees to take on Cruz. Moderate enough and will keep Latino turnout high, especially against Cruz. 

I'd choose Henry Cuellar or obviously Matthew McConaughey.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I saw this, but I don't think it should be a barrier, depending on the situation. For instance, I think Beto O'Rourke could run against Ted Cruz again and have a chance at winning. The state is getting Bluer and Cruz isn't getting any more popular. O'Rourke is a better TX politician than a national figure too. 

I would say just the opposite. Beto ruined all credibility within his homestate with his disastrous comments on gun control. That's something you say when you're running in Massachusetts... MAYBE. But in Texas? Hell no. That's turning away any moderates who might be dissatisfied with Governor Abbot's handling of COVID or otherwise. Beto is damaged goods at this point, and I say that as someone who was at one point the original forum's biggest Beto proponent. Unless he can seriously walk back that comment and find some way to completely neutralize any argument that he's not a Democratic extremist on gun policy, he's dead in the water in Texas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

 

It's amazing how a, "right," conceived in the context of a frontier, pioneer nation with undefended, hostile border, lax law-enforcement, brazen wild animals, Native and other insurgencies, pirates, bandits, land encroachers, etc. and where men brought their own guns (and horses) to answer the call of military duty, not issued them on the Government, and the concept of militias armed with personal firearms holding the Government was realistic, remains such a huge and militant dividing, even uncompromising, when the need and context that the, "right to bear arms," even being relevant long since passed it's sell-by date, and has, become, instead, a cause of massive amounts of violent crime, and addressing the gun fetish of the nation as one of it's biggest sources has become a ridiculous elephant in the room.

Each country to its own situation. Look at Iceland. Though, I personally am fine with gun control. South Korea has one of the strictest laws on guns in the world, and I'm totally for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cal said:

I would say just the opposite. Beto ruined all credibility within his homestate with his disastrous comments on gun control. That's something you say when you're running in Massachusetts... MAYBE. But in Texas? Hell no. That's turning away any moderates who might be dissatisfied with Governor Abbot's handling of COVID or otherwise. Beto is damaged goods at this point, and I say that as someone who was at one point the original forum's biggest Beto proponent. Unless he can seriously walk back that comment and find some way to completely neutralize any argument that he's not a Democratic extremist on gun policy, he's dead in the water in Texas. 

I'm from Texas, and lived there for 31 or 32 of my 42 years. Just about every liberal in Texas and many moderates and independents favor gun control, even those that own guns. There's a lot of guns in Texas and many Texans favor reasonable gun control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

It's amazing how a, "right," conceived in the context of a frontier, pioneer nation with undefended, hostile border, lax law-enforcement, brazen wild animals, Native and other insurgencies, pirates, bandits, land encroachers, etc. and where men brought their own guns (and horses) to answer the call of military duty, not issued them on the Government, and the concept of militias armed with personal firearms holding the Government was realistic, remains such a huge and militant dividing, even uncompromising, when the need and context that the, "right to bear arms," even being relevant long since passed it's sell-by date, and has, become, instead, a cause of massive amounts of violent crime, and addressing the gun fetish of the nation as one of it's biggest sources has become a ridiculous elephant in the room.

America does indeed have a gun fetish in many cases but I think the right for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm should be permitted, and is permitted. Nothing wrong with owning a gun for hunting, and self defense. I personally enjoy going to the shooting range every once and a while. Background checks are good and I think gun safety courses should definitely be a mandate. 

The majority of criminals according to numerous studies, afaik, retrieve their firearms illegally.

Cracking down on this kind of stuff is where the root of the problem is. But more importantly, creating a safer environment for people, and furthering education in general is also part of the root of the problem when it comes to gun violence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Texas, and lived there for 31 or 32 of my 42 years. Just about every liberal in Texas and many moderates and independents favor gun control, even those that own guns. There's a lot of guns in Texas and many Texans favor reasonable gun control. 

I still have doubts about Beto. People had high expectations concerning him, but his Presidential campaign ended up being a disaster.

(Anyhow, I don't like either of them. Anybody running for a third-party? Is there a write-in option?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

But saying one taking an irrationally and lapsing in practical thought viewpoint to an issue that would have similar effects if the case in any nation based on anachronistic, unrevised old ideals means that Sharia Law, or the abuses of the Buddhist Thai Monarchy, cannot be externally criticized by that logic.

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Timur said:

I still have doubts about Beto. People had high expectations concerning him, but his Presidential campaign ended up being a disaster.

(Anyhow, I don't like either of them. Anybody running for a third-party? Is there a write-in option?)

I don't think he wanted to run for president. I think he was pressured to. He was not the same person on the national stage as he was on the state stage. Clear psychological difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

I don't think he wanted to run for president. I think he was pressured to. He was not the same person on the national stage as he was on the state stage. Clear psychological difference. 

I still think he was overrated, but agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Texas, and lived there for 31 or 32 of my 42 years. Just about every liberal in Texas and many moderates and independents favor gun control, even those that own guns. There's a lot of guns in Texas and many Texans favor reasonable gun control. 

Sure but there’s a difference between say, a universal background check, and “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15 away” one is common sense, and the other is loony government overreach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, if George W. Bush, who was a former Texas Governor before being President, shows from international analog what, "self-defense," means between private citizens, it's no wonder things are so bad... 😬

Defending your home from invaders is in no ways similar to invading Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I saw this, but I don't think it should be a barrier, depending on the situation. For instance, I think Beto O'Rourke could run against Ted Cruz again and have a chance at winning. The state is getting Bluer and Cruz isn't getting any more popular. O'Rourke is a better TX politician than a national figure too. 

I think Beto probably killed his chances with his extreme take on gun control. The Democrats should run one of the Castro bros in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

No private citizen needs to own an AR-15 or AK-47, or should own one, unless their nation is in a state of civil war or violent revolution. These are NOT hunting weapons (at least for hunting game animals).

That would be an interesting scenario. Hunting animals with AK-47s.:classic_tongue:🐻 🔫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

No private citizen needs to own an AR-15 or AK-47, or should own one, unless their nation is in a state of civil war or violent revolution. These are NOT hunting weapons (at least for hunting game animals).

I've used both of these weapons at a shooting range before. 

What's wrong with that? 🤨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Patine said:

No private citizen needs to own an AR-15 or AK-47, or should own one, unless their nation is in a state of civil war or violent revolution. These are NOT hunting weapons (at least for hunting game animals).

Rights aren't based on "need".  Nobody needs to say every stupid thing that pops into their head but they have that right.  Nobody needs to publish a newspaper, but they have that right.  You didn't need to make this post, but you had the right to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Patine said:

Maybe the point I've been making about the, "right," to bear arms, and the context it was born in, and, unlike most other U.S. Bill of Rights, "rights," has not aged well, no longer the circumstances of the U.S. today, and, in fact, causes more harm and unneeded division than any good.

You're gonna need to diagram this sentence for me.  Either you've left out some words or you're suggesting your point might cause more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

No private citizen needs to own an AR-15 or AK-47, or should own one, unless their nation is in a state of civil war or violent revolution. These are NOT hunting weapons (at least for hunting game animals).

It's a good thing we don't have the 2nd Amendment for hunting animals (or even self defense) then. Rather, it is to shoot back at tyrants, which may be needed sooner rather than later with the craziness that has gone on recently!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...