2012 Presidential Campaign

[GrantDawg]

It is that time again! I know there is some discussion of this in the Obama thread, but I think it is time for a dedicated thread since the canidates have started their official announcements, and I am really interested in the breakdown from some of our political commentators/experts on this board. At this point, it is discussion of mostly the Republican field, unless there is some nut that is going to come out of nowhere to try act as spoiler for the Obama corination on the Democratic side.

For all of the Trump press for the last couple of months, it looks like he has dropped down in the field right now, with Huckabee and Romney in the front seats. Huckabee is a maybe to run (annoucing tonight), but looks to have an inside track if he does. Romney has the money, but looks weak and will be attacked heavy by the tea-party wing of the party. I just don't think he can survive.

Who else looks like they have a chance? Who is most likely to take Obama down? Who is least likely? Inquiring minds wants to know!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

538 always a great place to start (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/a-polling-based-forecast-of-the-republican-primary-field/)

I think he pretty fairly concludes that we really have no idea right now.

[JPhillips]

I don't like Huckabee and still think his pardon is going to be a big issue, if he manages to gain some traction I think he's the best politician of those running. He's great at making far right ideas sound like folk wisdom.

[SackAttack]

Trump seemed like a one-issue guy, and he shot that wad already.

A lot of his other current stances are in drastic opposition to things he said even 10-15 years ago, and he'd get beat upside the head with them in any Republican primary. I don't think he's running.

Huntsman and Romney I think are both solid candidates, but I don't think they can win the nomination in the current environment. The areas where they show moderation are areas that would make the South and the Tea Party in general hiss and recoil.

Ron Paul is a guy who has had a strong Internet following in the past, and may be able to translate that into additional success with the Tea Party movement, but I'm not sure if he fits that demographic beyond "government is bad, mmkay?"

Huckabee scares me, a little. If he runs, the evangelical background and the way he translates those to ideas about governance will play well in certain parts of the country (though likely not the Atlantic Seaboard or the West Coast), and the folksy "have a beer/BBQ with me" charm that he exudes plays well with the people who think the President should be an everyman.

I don't know much about Mitch Daniels.

It wouldn't shock me to see Scott Walker declare if the GOP manages to survive the upcoming WI recall elections. I can't imagine he declares if the GOP lose control of the WI Senate, but I could see him doing so if they retain control.

The WI Democratic Party is going to be coming after Walker in January either way, but if they're coming after him with some scalps in the belt already, it would be a major distraction in terms of media cycles just as the primaries would be getting underway.

Sarah Palin is going to amount to fuck-all this time around, if she even bothers to run. She's more interested in making money off of her name and visibility than being President.

If the economy improves, I'm not sure any of those candidates are likely to beat President Obama.

I'm not sure any of them would beat him if the election were held today.

But the candidates I think have the most challenge potential for him are, depending on events, Huckabee, Walker and Romney.

I say 'depending on events,' because all three of those folks need something to break right for them. Huckabee would have to declare and hope that the momentum he showed in 2008 was pro-Huck and not "McCain protest vote".

Walker needs to emerge from the upcoming recall elections with his party still in control of the state apparatus. Losing the Senate would show weakness for his own position in January, and getting recalled as Governor would be a potentially damaging blow just as primaries got underway.

Romney needs to be able to articulate a position that gets people to look past "Mormon" and "I implemented ObamaCare when it was RomneyCare." Both of those things would pose difficulties for him with the evangelicals and Tea Party folks.

[SackAttack]

Dola: what does it say that I went through all of that and completely ignored Newt Gingrich?

[GrantDawg]

Dola: what does it say that I went through all of that and completely ignored Newt Gingrich?


That you are well reasoned and logical. I don't think he can even win his own states primary. Honestly, even as a non-Republican, I like Newt. He is smarter than you might think (a professor, who has championed foward thinking causes in the past), but he is not trustworthy. I don't give him a snow-balls chance to get out of the early stages of the election processes.

[JPhillips]

I was surprised at the beating Romeny got from former supporters like National Review.

[GrantDawg]

I don't like Huckabee and still think his pardon is going to be a big issue, if he manages to gain some traction I think he's the best politician of those running. He's great at making far right ideas sound like folk wisdom.


They all (and everyone always will) have baggage to carry, but I agree with you that he has the best ability to overcome it with his "aw-shucks" salesman ability. I think he is right-wing with moderate-type sale-ability. He could win it all. The thing is, he might not want to leave behind the comfy life and the stacks of money he is making right now. He and Palin are the most interesting of figures. They have made a fortune off of losing a national campaign, and playing like they might take on another. They both might not want to stop the money train by actually running again.

[SackAttack]

That you are well reasoned and logical. I don't think he can even win his own states primary. Honestly, even as a non-Republican, I like Newt. He is smarter than you might think (a professor, who has championed foward thinking causes in the past), but he is not trustworthy. I don't give him a snow-balls chance to get out of the early stages of the election processes.

Hm.

I wouldn't say 'not trustworthy,' although his ex-wives might disagree. I mean, I completely believe that he'd pursue the agenda he's said he would. I think we can take him at his word on issues that pertain to what he would do as President.

But with respect to his character in general, I'd say 'disingenuous.' This is a guy who has essentially called the President a liar with respect to faith, calling his Administration "anti-Christian," while at the same time playing the faith card with his own candidacy, which is a little amusing when you look at his personal background.

I guess I just consider it a loser to be playing the faith card against the sitting President and calling him 'anti-Christian' when you've got two affairs and subsequent divorces in your own background. Saying "that guy isn't what he claims to be, but trust me, I'm not the man I used to be" just...doesn't fly for me.

If you're gonna nominate a candidate who makes faith a big deal, you might as well go for Huckabee. Gingrich just strikes me as too cynical on the matter, and I think maybe subconsciously I suspect the electorate would get the same vibe.

[GrantDawg]

Hm.

I wouldn't say 'not trustworthy,' although his ex-wives might disagree. I mean, I completely believe that he'd pursue the agenda he's said he would. I think we can take him at his word on issues that pertain to what he would do as President.

But with respect to his character in general, I'd say 'disingenuous.' This is a guy who has essentially called the President a liar with respect to faith, calling his Administration "anti-Christian," while at the same time playing the faith card with his own candidacy, which is a little amusing when you look at his personal background.

I guess I just consider it a loser to be playing the faith card against the sitting President and calling him 'anti-Christian' when you've got two affairs and subsequent divorces in your own background. Saying "that guy isn't what he claims to be, but trust me, I'm not the man I used to be" just...doesn't fly for me.

If you're gonna nominate a candidate who makes faith a big deal, you might as well go for Huckabee. Gingrich just strikes me as too cynical on the matter, and I think maybe subconsciously I suspect the electorate would get the same vibe.

I call him "untrustworthy" because I remember the "contract with America." His brain-child that gave him the power as speaker of the House, which he immediately ignored every power-control element of once he had power. He was not a trust-worthy speaker of the House, so how could he be a trust-worthy President?

[JPhillips]

Hm.

I wouldn't say 'not trustworthy,' although his ex-wives might disagree. I mean, I completely believe that he'd pursue the agenda he's said he would. I think we can take him at his word on issues that pertain to what he would do as President.

But with respect to his character in general, I'd say 'disingenuous.' This is a guy who has essentially called the President a liar with respect to faith, calling his Administration "anti-Christian," while at the same time playing the faith card with his own candidacy, which is a little amusing when you look at his personal background.

I guess I just consider it a loser to be playing the faith card against the sitting President and calling him 'anti-Christian' when you've got two affairs and subsequent divorces in your own background. Saying "that guy isn't what he claims to be, but trust me, I'm not the man I used to be" just...doesn't fly for me.

If you're gonna nominate a candidate who makes faith a big deal, you might as well go for Huckabee. Gingrich just strikes me as too cynical on the matter, and I think maybe subconsciously I suspect the electorate would get the same vibe.

He only had affairs because he loved America too much.

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate"

[fpres]

On the issue of trustworthiness...

I'm trying to remember the last President who could be considered trustworthy based on their words and their subsequent actions. I'm having trouble finding one. Maybe I've just grown completely cynical at this stage in my life (honestly, I'm not excited by any of the potential candidates on either side of the aisle).

[RainMaker]

Newts your stereotypical politician, something I think people are not looking for. His negatives are far too high to win a general. He'll be able to dictate some of the discussion during the campaign, but I don't think he stands a reasonable shot at swaying any new voters to his side.

Romney seems like a safe pick. Conservatives probably don't trust him fully because of his past, but they can probably bite their tongue and hope what he says now is what he'll pursue. His business background will play strong if the economy plays a role moving forward. I think he'd be the frontrunner at the moment.

Huckabee is a bit of a wildcard. He's one of those guys who can attack but come across likeable when doing it. He's got some of the social conservative chops although fiscally he's been bad for them. He seems like a guy who could gain momentum and win it since he comes across so well to people.

Trump was looking for ratings for his TV show. I doubt he's ever been serious about running. And the establishment would destroy him before he put his boots on the ground.

Palin is just too polarizing. Has a core but that's it. She'd be better off making a shitload of money giving speeches.

The other people who are around don't seem to be serious contenders. Pawlenty is just boring. Daniels is too unknown. And Bachmann is only a Representative (and crazy). Still far too early but I really don't think this election will be like the last. Republicans have typically been in favor of going with safe picks, so I think Romney would be the guy I think has the best chance to win.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That you are well reasoned and logical. I don't think he can even win his own states primary. Honestly, even as a non-Republican, I like Newt. He is smarter than you might think (a professor, who has championed foward thinking causes in the past), but he is not trustworthy. I don't give him a snow-balls chance to get out of the early stages of the election processes.

Newt is not only genuinely smart, he's also the most charismatic person one-on-one I've ever met, almost to the point of being frightening how good he is (or was back in the day) in very small groups.

edit to add: FTR, I'm a good distance away from even having Newt as a top 5 choice for me personally, so don't anyone mistake my comment for an endorsement or whatever. Just making an observation based on some experiences with him back in my media days.

[GrantDawg]

Well, it doesn't matter what we think of Huckabee. He staying out and keeping the money. Not a surprise since he told staffers in South Carolina over a month ago to go ahead and find new jobs with other campaigns. He would have made things interesting at least.

[Abe Sargent]

On the issue of trustworthiness...

I'm trying to remember the last President who could be considered trustworthy based on their words and their subsequent actions. I'm having trouble finding one. Maybe I've just grown completely cynical at this stage in my life (honestly, I'm not excited by any of the potential candidates on either side of the aisle).

Jimmy Carter

[kcchief19]

Newt is not only genuinely smart, he's also the most charismatic person one-on-one I've ever met, almost to the point of being frightening how good he is (or was back in the day) in very small groups.
If you replaced the name "Newt" with "Bill Clinton," this sentence would also be true. Very similar guys in many respects.

[kcchief19]

In the modern presidential primary era, I think it's noteworthy that we're on a run of 20 years of presidents who had never before run for the office before.

While some candidates have earned their party's nomination on a second bid, none of them have won. I think there is something to be said for the fact that running once and failing hurts your reputation. But I think the bigger factor is that the more voters know you, the higher your negatives are.

If past failure continues to a barometer for presidential success, Romney and Gingrich could theoretically get the nomination but would appear to have little chance to win. I'd include Palin in that group, since I think at this point she's been vetted like a presidential candidate, even if she only ran for VP. Given the choice of Romney, Gingrich, Palin or the field, I'd take the field.

The GOP field is just ... odd. I've met Tim Pawlenty and while he seems like a nice guy, he seemed more like a next door neighbor who owns his own insurance agency than president. I've seen Hermain Cain speak, and he's a little crazy.

Is there any name who really excites anyone? Maybe someone who seems like a lightweight will emerge from the field. Obama started building buzz in 2004, and there's just no one that seems to excite anyone right now.

[JPhillips]

But if you zoom out a little it looks a bit different. For the Dems running and losing has been the kiss of death for future ambitions, but that isn't true for the GOP. Since 1968 only Bush2 has been elected president without having run and lost previously and only Ford, who is an historical oddity, has been nominated by the GOP without having lost previously.

I don't have any theory on why this is so, and it's still a small sample size, but losing almost seems a prerequisite for the GOP nominee.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is there any name who really excites anyone?

I don't know if that's the question so much as "is there any name that excites enough people"?

I mean, yeah, there's at least one candidate I find especially appealing at this point despite at least one major flaw but if I'm part of only 10% (of primary voters) who has that reaction then that's not enough to matter.

The real issue will be whether there's a candidate that, at the end of the process, can excite enough people to matter. Some seem to be obvious failures on that count (yeah Mitt, I'm looking at you) while others might not be option 1 for many people at the moment but still be not only supportable but eventually supportable with enthusiasm if they lack the baggage or negatives that'll hamstring others. It's that group that I figure will produce the eventual nominee.

[Crapshoot]

Who the heck do you like JIMGA? Palin or Bachmann?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Who the heck do you like JIMGA? Palin or Bachmann?

My thoughts on Palin are fairly well established here I think, or should be since I've discussed them several times. She's an interesting character I see some positives in but have never quite been able to put my finger on why she seems to connect to so many people. My taking her as a serious contender is not to be confused with being a big supporter.

But you did good in spotting exactly who I meant. If I had to vote in a primary tomorrow I'd take Bachmann over anyone else in the field with very little hesitation, in spite of our dramatically different views on abortion.

[SackAttack]

My thoughts on Palin are fairly well established here I think, or should be since I've discussed them several times. She's an interesting character I see some positives in but have never quite been able to put my finger on why she seems to connect to so many people. My taking her as a serious contender is not to be confused with being a big supporter.

But you did good in spotting exactly who I meant. If I had to vote in a primary tomorrow I'd take Bachmann over anyone else in the field with very little hesitation, in spite of our dramatically different views on abortion.

I think Michelle Bachmann is the only potential GOP candidate I think would be a *worse* President than Sarah Palin.

Jeepers creepers. I'd vote for the reanimated corpse ticket of Mao and Stalin before I'd vote for either one of those jokers.

I'm glad Huckabee's not running. The idea of Palin or Bachmann frightens me also, but mostly because I think they're a pair of incompetent lunatics. Huckabee strikes me as a competent lunatic, and I find that far more frightening.

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2012)

That's a pretty exhaustive list of everybody who's either formally announced, considering a run, or been talked about.

General Petraeus would've been an interesting possibility, but the rest of the names I see there run the gamut from "not all that excited about" to "oh fuck me sideways no".

/threadjack

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think Michelle Bachmann is the only potential GOP candidate I think would be a *worse* President than Sarah Palin.

{shrug} Then don't vote for her. So far, in terms of earning my vote & enthusiastic support she's got the best plus/minus ratio of any candidate I've run across. Electability is a different equation but once you start playing that game then the enthusiasm diminishes for most candidates. The more apoplectic a candidate can make the left, the more likely they are to earn my enthusiastic support ... not because of the apoplexy itself but rather for what creating it likely means in terms of meaning their positions match my own.

a pair of incompetent lunatics.

I think you must be confusing them with Ron Paul, who is actually lunatic enough to be a pair all by himself.

[SackAttack]

{shrug} Then don't vote for her. So far, in terms of earning my vote & enthusiastic support she's got the best plus/minus ratio of any candidate I've run across. Electability is a different equation but once you start playing that game then the enthusiasm diminishes for most candidates. The more apoplectic a candidate can make the left, the more likely they are to earn my enthusiastic support ... not because of the apoplexy itself but rather for what creating it likely means in terms of meaning their positions match my own.



I think you must be confusing them with Ron Paul, who is actually lunatic enough to be a pair all by himself.

Ron Paul's an...interesting guy. If you've read "Supreme Courtship," he's kind of what I pictured in my head for the President Vanderkamp character. The fact that "Supreme Courtship" is a satire probably says it all.

But I mean, seriously. Half the shit that comes out of Bachmann's mouth would make the Texas Board of Education blush. It's that ignorant.

Palin actually looks *good* next to her, and part of me wonders if that isn't Bachmann's intent in running in the first place. Kind of like the old saw about how the "white establishment" dealt with MLK Jr because they *didn't* want to deal with Malcolm X.

[DaddyTorgo]

But I mean, seriously. Half the shit that comes out of Bachmann's mouth would make the Texas Board of Education blush. It's that ignorant.


/too easy

[kcchief19]

I'll admit I'm far too moderate-to-liberal to say anything nice about Bachmann. But in political reality, she has Democratic equivalents -- Dennis Kucinich comes immediately to mind. Both have small but vocal bases and generate enough heat to get votes and get on TV. But both are far too extreme and (dare I say) crazy to get widespread support.

What's striking me as amazing right now are the similarities of the 2012 field to the 2004 Democratic field. It's a similar political environment with a beatable incumbent and a slew of niche candidates that don't seem to excite multiple blocs of voters. There's a Kerry (Romney), Lieberman (Palin), Dean (Pawlenty), Sharpton (Cain). Heck, if Patraeus decided to jump in, you'd even have a Wesley Clark.

[JPhillips]

I was reading somewhere that the GOP has just had a bad set of dice rolls this cycle. As a society we've decided that there's maybe thirty or forty people that could become the President (Governors, Senators, VPs) and that narrow pool means that some years you'll come up with no appealing candidates.

[Peregrine]

I was reading somewhere that the GOP has just had a bad set of dice rolls this cycle. As a society we've decided that there's maybe thirty or forty people that could become the President (Governors, Senators, VPs) and that narrow pool means that some years you'll come up with no appealing candidates.

Heh, like the Democrats in 2004.

[JPhillips]

Yep.

[GrantDawg]

I'll admit I'm far too moderate-to-liberal to say anything nice about Bachmann. But in political reality, she has Democratic equivalents -- Dennis Kucinich comes immediately to mind. Both have small but vocal bases and generate enough heat to get votes and get on TV. But both are far too extreme and (dare I say) crazy to get widespread support.

What's striking me as amazing right now are the similarities of the 2012 field to the 2004 Democratic field. It's a similar political environment with a beatable incumbent and a slew of niche candidates that don't seem to excite multiple blocs of voters. There's a Kerry (Romney), Lieberman (Palin), Dean (Pawlenty), Sharpton (Cain). Heck, if Patraeus decided to jump in, you'd even have a Wesley Clark.


I have been thinking the same thing. Obama is very beatable, but there is no one in this crop that makes it a clear win. Romney/Kerry is dead on.

[Galaxy]

I think Huntsman could be the best challenger to Obama and is the the only GOP candidate that has any of my interest (in terms of voting). Mitch Daniels might be a strong contender as well, but I don't know too much about him other than a few things he's done on the business side for Indiana.

Is Michelle really taken seriously by her own party? They seem like they try to separate themselves from her.

[SackAttack]

Is Michelle really taken seriously by her own party? They seem like they try to separate themselves from her.

I don't think she is, but calling her on her bullshit is a good way to piss off the Tea Party folks, which no prospective candidate really wants to do.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that in a world with high unemployment and high gas prices, the GOP's best bet to win is to just attack, attack, attack. In that vein, a '''do no harm" candidate seems like the best bet. My guess is Pawlenty, though I could see Daniels or Huntsman also fitting that bill. Even though Romney fits that description, I just don't see that anyone likes him.

If the economy were doing gangbusters, then I would see more logic in the GOP trying to run an unconventional candidate--Gingrich, Palin, Cain, etc.

But, for 2012, you try to make this about jobs, and hope that people vote for you b/c you are not the President.

[kcchief19]

Huntsman is a great general election candidate who would appear on paper to have absolutely zero chance of making it through a GOP primary field. The rest of the GOP field is ready to run as many photos of Huntsman with Obama, letters praising Obama and photoshopped direct mail showing Huntsman officiating over a marriage between Nancy Pelosi and a horse as part of his pro-civil unions stance.

[JPhillips]

Mitch Daniels is charitably 5'6". Short candidates don't win. At least since James Madison.

[Galaxy]

Huntsman is a great general election candidate who would appear on paper to have absolutely zero chance of making it through a GOP primary field. The rest of the GOP field is ready to run as many photos of Huntsman with Obama, letters praising Obama and photoshopped direct mail showing Huntsman officiating over a marriage between Nancy Pelosi and a horse as part of his pro-civil unions stance.

If he did run and got the GOP nod, I think he could give the Obama campaign a lot of problems. It would be tough to run against the same guy who you've appointed to be the Ambassador to China, the big fish in the sea.

[larrymcg421]

Individual mandate. Romney will be scorched in the GOP primary for that.

Obama inherited unemployment of 8.5%. If unemployment goes below 8.5 then I don't see any way the GOP beats him whoever they field. Right now, unemployment is 8.7%.

Having said that, I think Mitch Daniels is the most promising candidate they have.

[JPhillips]

If he did run and got the GOP nod, I think he could give the Obama campaign a lot of problems. It would be tough to run against the same guy who you've appointed to be the Ambassador to China, the big fish in the sea.

But isn't the opposite also true? It would be awfully hard to say the guy you worked for and repeatedly praised should be replaced by yourself.

[albionmoonlight]

Huntsman is a great general election candidate who would appear on paper to have absolutely zero chance of making it through a GOP primary field. The rest of the GOP field is ready to run as many photos of Huntsman with Obama, letters praising Obama and photoshopped direct mail showing Huntsman officiating over a marriage between Nancy Pelosi and a horse as part of his pro-civil unions stance.

I think that Huntsman might be playing the long game here and looking for 2016. If he comes out of this primary season with the narrative "Huntsman looked good, but was too moderate to win the primary," that has a lot of advantages for him.

If, by 2016, the GOP is looking for someone "to appeal to moderates" or "with a chance to win some Democratic and independent voters in the general," he'll be the obvious go-to guy.

If, by 2016, the GOP is still driven by its more right-wing base, then he has no chance whatsoever. So there really is no point in him even trying to win in a world like that.

Basically, the only way that Huntsman wins the nomination is in a world in which the GOP is looking for someone with more crossover appeal than base appeal. That being the case, he might as well start positioning himself to be that candidate now, so he can jump on the chance when/if it ever happens.

[panerd]

Obviously Ron Paul will not win the nomination but heres hoping he runs as an independent and either gets the Republican candidate to make some consessions to the Libertarian viewpoint or possibly exposes that there is a viewpoint outside of the two major parties. You have to admit the debates would be fun. (I know he doesn't want to control people's personal lives and kill brown people so people like JiMGa think he's a nut and not a true Republican)

[JPhillips]

Hasn't Paul repeatedly said he won't run as an independent?

[molson]

Ya, I don't think Paul really thinks he can win, but that maybe he can influence the Republican party more as a member of it, rather than running against it.

[GrantDawg]

Obviously Ron Paul will not win the nomination but heres hoping he runs as an independent and either gets the Republican candidate to make some consessions to the Libertarian viewpoint or possibly exposes that there is a viewpoint outside of the two major parties. You have to admit the debates would be fun. (I know he doesn't want to control people's personal lives and kill brown people so people like JiMGa think he's a nut and not a true Republican)


Well, those things and the whole legalize drugs thing.

[larrymcg421]

He may not want to control people's personal lives, but he has no problem with states doing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, those things and the whole legalize drugs thing.

Appreciate you catching that, that's a primary reason I consider Paul at best equally unappealing to the current occupant (and one of two reasons that Gingrich has no chance of getting my vote either).

[molson]

He may not want to control people's personal lives, but he has no problem with states doing it.

Telling people how to govern themselves isn't controlling their lives?

Edit: Everybody wants to control in some way, there's just different flavors of doing so. Some want to control their sex lives, some want to control their money. The biggest threat to liberty is controlling the means by which those decisions are made. The constitution provided one approach be combat that. Ron Paul likes that approach. There could be others, but I'm not sure about the "let's just have everyone do what I personally think is good" approach.

[larrymcg421]

Telling people how to govern themselves isn't controlling their lives?

That doesn't make any sense, because that still happens on the state level. I'm sure if Atlanta voted on its own, they would legalize gay marriage, but Georgia won't let them do that.

[larrymcg421]

Telling people how to govern themselves isn't controlling their lives? Everybody wants to control in some way, there's just different flavors of doing so. Some want to control their sex lives, some want to control their money. The biggest threat to liberty is controlling the means by which those decisions are made. The constitution provided one approach be combat that. Ron Paul likes that approach. There could be others, but I'm not sure about the "let's just have everyone do what I personally think is good" approach.

But I'm not telling anyone to do anything. If you believe marriage is only one women, one man, then fine. That's how y our marriage can be. I'm not forcing you to do anything. The reverse position is preventing people from doing something that does not negatively affect others in any way.

And I don't base my argument here on what I "personally think is good". There are many things I don't think are "good" that I believe should be constitutionally protected. Fred Phelps, for example.

[molson]

That doesn't make any sense, because that still happens on the state level. I'm sure if Atlanta voted on its own, they would legalize gay marriage, but Georgia won't let them do that.

The more centralization, the less liberty, but obviously there's practical realities too you have to balance with that. But surely - one world government dictating everyone's values would be bad wouldn't it? There's room for reasonable disagreement between those extremes of course. I just don't think it's fair to take a view that would support more decentralization and attack it as being "anti-" the issue we're talking about. it's a strawman. If someone thinks the states should decide something, that doesn't necessarily mean that that person has any particular view on the merits of that "something". It is possible to believe in someone's right to have a view, and govern, in a way different than you would.

[molson]

But I'm not telling anyone to do anything. If you believe marriage is only one women, one man, then fine. That's how y our marriage can be. I'm not forcing you to do anything. The reverse position is preventing people from doing something that does not negatively affect others in any way.

And I don't base my argument here on what I "personally think is good". There are many things I don't think are "good" that I believe should be constitutionally protected. Fred Phelps, for example.

But you think Fred Phelps should be protected everywhere, by any government division. That's not the same thing. And your gay marriage example is also talking about individual beliefs and individual actions. I'm talking about right to govern. What if we had one world government that banned gay marriage for everyone? I'm sure in that instance, you'd suddenly be in favor of smaller, more decentralized units of government having the right to govern for themselves, and recognize gay marriage if they so chose.

Edit: I'm just saying this is the kind of roadblocks you run into when one person is discussing government structure and another is discussing government policy. Very few mainstream politicians can talk about those issues in isolation, but Ron Paul is among them. I have no idea if he's "right" on anything, but I can appreciate that he's at least a little better at not muddying those waters. This is another side effect of the partisan nightmare of the U.S. Everything is tied to perceptions of good/evil and right/wrong and team v. team, and few have any interest in isolating those factors out of more important long-term issues like how our government works (or doesn't work).

[panerd]

Well, those things and the whole legalize drugs thing.

That's a misrepresentation of his stance but as I am a big fan of his I will explain what he says when they aren't trying to nail him on something...

1) He thinks it should be up to the states (and in a perfect world municipalities but we will start with states) and not the federal government to determine what they want to be legal and illegal. So for example in California when the citizens vote for something they shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. He has said repeatedly that there probably isn't a state that would have legal heroin but many might have legal marijuana and legal cancer drugs which brings us to...

2) He thinks that pharmaceutical industry (and the FDA) shouldn't have say over which drugs one can take for illnesses and which ones we can't.

3) He thinks the war on drugs is a colossal failure and just an expansion of a massive police state. Outside of the Baptists and a few others most people see this very clearly with the failed prohibition of alcohol.

4) He says there are already laws on the books for minors so that is a misaimed argument. It is probably easier for a kid to get pot that alcohol right now.

5) Who is going to do heroin or coke just because it is legal? Not me.

Some people may not agree with allowing people freedom to control their own bodies but at least acknowledge it isn't as simple as OMG FREE HEROIN! (Of course Free Heroin! does make for a better soundbite)

[larrymcg421]

The more centralization, the less liberty, but obviously there's practical realities too you have to balance with that. But surely - one world government dictating everyone's values would be bad wouldn't it? There's room for reasonable disagreement between those extremes of course. I just don't think it's fair to take a view that would support more decentralization and attack it as being "anti-" the issue we're talking about. it's a strawman. If someone thinks the states should decide something, that doesn't necessarily mean that that person has any particular view on the merits of that "something". It is possible to believe in someone's right to have a view, and govern, in a way different than you would.

I have to disagree with that somewhat. I think the view on the issue certainly has something to do with whether you think states should decide it or not. I think many people who give this generic "states rights" response (both Dems and Republicans) would not agree with a state outlawing interracial marriage. The fact is that some people don't think that same sex couples not having the right to get married is more important than states rights. I find that baffling and that's where I differ with Ron Paul and many others and why his position on this matter doesn't really make him better than a generic Republican.

In fact, the justices he would appoint to the bench would be absolutely devastating to the gay rights cause.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Another 5% of primary votes just went up for grabs, Trump releases statement saying he will not run.

[larrymcg421]

But you think Fred Phelps should be protected everywhere, by any government division. That's not the same thing.

How is that not the same thing? I think gay marriage should be protected everywhere, by any government division.

And your gay marriage example is also talking about individual beliefs and individual actions. I'm talking about right to govern. What if we had one world government that banned gay marriage for everyone? I'm sure in that instance, you'd suddenly be in favor of smaller, more decentralized units of government having the right to govern for themselves, and recognize gay marriage if they so chose.
I don't care about the level of government being used. I'm saying that whatever level of government we're talking about shouldn't have the right to discriminate against its citizens.

[GrantDawg]

You may not agree with allowing people freedom to control their own bodies but at least acknowledge it isn't as simple as OMG FREE HEROIN! (Of course Free Heroin! does make for a better soundbite)


Please don't lump me. I was stating the reason people give, not my reason. I actually don't disagree with him on that position.

[GrantDawg]

Another 5% of primary votes just went up for grabs, Trump releases statement saying he will not run.


Color me not shocked. Publicity stunt from the get-go.

[panerd]

Please don't lump me. I was stating the reason people give, not my reason. I actually don't disagree with him on that position.

Yeah sorry for the implication by quoting you I really meant someone with that argument. I actually knew that when I was typing it too I should have said "some people".

[Coffee Warlord]

To summarize.

The republican party has a festering pile of shit as their candidates this time around. I dig Mitch Daniels, but he has maybe a 5% better chance of making it out of a primary than Ron Paul (which is to say, pretty much zero) Leaving us with the aforementioned pile 'o shit.

They seriously can't do better than Romney and Newt?

[JonInMiddleGA]

They seriously can't do better than Romney and Newt?

You mean the two moderates (since that's apparently what Newt's new gimmick is going to be)?

If either of those are the eventual nominees then the GOP will lose & deserves to. Happily, I don't think either gets the nomination.

[Coffee Warlord]

Far to either end politicians don't win presidential primaries (or, generally, elections).

You and I are verrrrrrry far apart on what we want out of the Republican party. It's hardly uncommon, but the candidates I flat out despise are very likely far more palatable for you, Jon, and vice-versa.

Which is why the middle of the road wankers usually win.

[larrymcg421]

I just don't see how Romney can get through the primary. His opponents will tie him to Obamacare over and over again. I mean, if he wins the nomination, they won't be able to make Obamacare an issue in the campaign. Thus if unemployment goes below 8.5%, what kind of campaign can the GOP run with Romney?

[JonInMiddleGA]

You and I are verrrrrrry far apart on what we want out of the Republican party. It's hardly uncommon, but the candidates I flat out despise are very likely far more palatable for you, Jon, and vice-versa.
Which is why the middle of the road wankers usually win.

Who is going to vote a repackaged Newt?

It won't be the people who voted for him back in the day, this one doesn't bear much resemblance to that one & he's working hard to make that obvious.
It won't be those who voted against him (or hated him) back in the day.

What's he got left in a general election, voters under 35 that don't know him? I don't think that's going to carry him to a win.

If you can't energize the base it's going to be nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent. He can't do that, there isn't enough appealing about him left with the exception of increasingly vague recollections of his glory days.

As for Romney, his health care history ends his chance to energize the base.

You might hypothetically sell me on some lukewarm candidate that doesn't have (or isn't desperately seeking) an albatross to hang around their neck, but those two aren't the ones to do it.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, Newt's as likely to win as I am. I think Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty are the best GOP candidates, and if I were a Dem, those are two I worry about.

[Coffee Warlord]

Oh, if you think I'd have any interest whatsoever in voting/backing Newt or Romney, you're mistaken. And I agree - neither of them would have any shot at all at beating Obama. But frankly, I'm not sure I see anyone else in the field who stands the slightest chance in getting out of a primary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But frankly, I'm not sure I see anyone else in the field who stands the slightest chance in getting out of a primary.

Y'know, I'm at least starting to wonder if Herman might have at least a slight chance. He's certainly coming across as more viable than I expected.

[albionmoonlight]

Y'know, I'm at least starting to wonder if Herman might have at least a slight chance. He's certainly coming across as more viable than I expected.

Nate Silver thinks that Cain is the most well-positioned to benefit from Huck's decision: Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn't Run? - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/who-benefits-if-huckabee-doesnt-run/)

[AENeuman]

1) He thinks it should be up to the states (and in a perfect world municipalities but we will start with states) and not the federal government to determine what they want to be legal and illegal. So for example in California when the citizens vote for something they shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. He has said repeatedly that there probably isn't a state that would have legal heroin but many might have legal marijuana and legal cancer drugs which brings us to...

2) He thinks that pharmaceutical industry (and the FDA) shouldn't have say over which drugs one can take for illnesses and which ones we can't.

3) He thinks the war on drugs is a colossal failure and just an expansion of a massive police state. Outside of the Baptists and a few others most people see this very clearly with the failed prohibition of alcohol.

4) He says there are already laws on the books for minors so that is a misaimed argument. It is probably easier for a kid to get pot that alcohol right now.

5) Who is going to do heroin or coke just because it is legal? Not me.

Some people may not agree with allowing people freedom to control their own bodies but at least acknowledge it isn't as simple as OMG FREE HEROIN! (Of course Free Heroin! does make for a better soundbite)

Somehow this list makes me feel like Paul is against minority rights given a "majority" rule. Putting everything to the state seems to open up the problem of factions Hamilton wrote about.

Also, not sure why the legality of alcohol is seen as a success, i think both are epic failures. Three times as many people die from alcohol every year than drugs. And I am sure the cost of alcohol abuse to tax payers is pretty high.

[DaddyTorgo]

Somehow this list makes me feel like Paul is against minority rights given a "majority" rule. Putting everything to the state seems to open up the problem of factions Hamilton wrote about.


This. This is why libertarianism isn't viable to me. There are a lot of cases (note I said a lot, not all, and not naming anybody here by any means) where I think people espouse libertarianism because they know that it will enable them to essentially discriminate more (see Rand Paul's comments about segregation). I think it's attractive to a number of people on the far-far right for that reason.

Which is a crying shame, because it's not a horrible philosophy in and of itself. But when it's been so coopted that the only outcome I can see for it is that it would add to discrimination then yeah...it's a no go.

[RainMaker]

I just don't see how Romney can get through the primary. His opponents will tie him to Obamacare over and over again. I mean, if he wins the nomination, they won't be able to make Obamacare an issue in the campaign. Thus if unemployment goes below 8.5%, what kind of campaign can the GOP run with Romney?
But for a lot on the right, the issues don't matter. Reagan and Bush both massively expanded health care in this country. Shit, Reagan's plans put much more stress on businesses than anything we've seen from Obama. But he's the beacon of conservatism or whatever.

The issues don't really matter, it's just the R next to their name.

[Ben E Lou]

Y'know, I'm at least starting to wonder if Herman might have at least a slight chance. He's certainly coming across as more viable than I expected.

Nate Silver thinks that Cain is the most well-positioned to benefit from Huck's decision: Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn***039;t Run? - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/who-benefits-if-huckabee-doesnt-run/)I tend to think that the people posting so far in this thread are underestimating Cain's chances. I'm not sure about his staying power and who might throw a hat into the ring later on, but I suspect that at some point he will be the "#1 contender," for whatever that's worth.

[GrantDawg]

I tend to think that the people posting so far in this thread are underestimating Cain's chances. I'm not sure about his staying power and who might throw a hat into the ring later on, but I suspect that at some point he will be the "#1 contender," for whatever that's worth.


I don't know about number one contender, but I do think he is going to make a lot of noise and draw a lot of attention. He may even pull out a surprise win or two.

[RainMaker]

1) He thinks it should be up to the states (and in a perfect world municipalities but we will start with states) and not the federal government to determine what they want to be legal and illegal. So for example in California when the citizens vote for something they shouldn't be overruled by the Feds. He has said repeatedly that there probably isn't a state that would have legal heroin but many might have legal marijuana and legal cancer drugs which brings us to...
It's a cute political stance, but it doesn't work in reality. Maybe in the 1800's when going from one state to another required days of travel. When moving was a life changing event. But nowadays, borders hardly matter. Sure States should have their own laws and such on local issues, but there are too many things that can't be done at the state level. We can't have 50 FAAs, 50 FDAs, 50 CDCs, and so on. It's just unreasonable to do things this way when doing them on a federal level is much more efficient.

2) He thinks that pharmaceutical industry (and the FDA) shouldn't have say over which drugs one can take for illnesses and which ones we can't.

Paul's stance on the FDA is just stupid. For a guy who actually is a doctor, it's a tad embarrassing. He falls for the "genetically enhanced foods are bad" or "pesticides will kill us all" rhetoric that has almost no scientific backing. He pushes herbal and alternative medicines that again have little to no scientific support.

I'm sure there are things the FDA can do better. But I also realize that for all the food we consume, for all the drugs we take, we don't have a lot of problems. We aren't dropping dead all the time from bad foods, from dangerous drugs, etc. When you go to the store and pick up food, you feel pretty safe about eating it. When you are prescribed a drug, you have a good feeling that it's gone through years of testing before being put in your body. I'm sorry, but I sort of like living in a country like that.

3) He thinks the war on drugs is a colossal failure and just an expansion of a massive police state. Outside of the Baptists and a few others most people see this very clearly with the failed prohibition of alcohol.
I agree with this. It's a rather large waste of money. I'm not a fan of heroin being sold legally or anything, but do find it quite silly that we care if people are smoking joints in their own home. I'm for people doing whatever they want with their bodies. But I do draw the line at drugs that cause someone to not be able to control themselves and become a danger to society.

[lungs]

I'm not a fan of heroin being sold legally or anything,

It already is being sold legally.

[panerd]

This. This is why libertarianism isn't viable to me. There are a lot of cases (note I said a lot, not all, and not naming anybody here by any means) where I think people espouse libertarianism because they know that it will enable them to essentially discriminate more (see Rand Paul's comments about segregation). I think it's attractive to a number of people on the far-far right for that reason.

Which is a crying shame, because it's not a horrible philosophy in and of itself. But when it's been so coopted that the only outcome I can see for it is that it would add to discrimination then yeah...it's a no go.

What's unfortunate is that somehow the statists (and I agree just like you aren't lumping me with the racists I am not lumping you with the statists. I generally find you and JPhillips both well above the talking points intellectually) have convinced the general public that Libertarians are racist because you can extend their idea of freedom to somehow keep a black person from eating in a private business. While in the meantime both Democrats and Republicans support the drug war which disproportionally imprisons millions of minorities each year and both parties support the endless wars in the Middle East that are once again fought on the ground disproportionally by the poor and minorities. So a theory taken to its extreme makes Libertarians unelectable while racist policy already in place and supported by both parties is just the way things work.

I have often heard this about another area where Ron Paul has a lot of supporters. (the 9-11 truthers) He has gone on record as saying that he doesn't agree with them at all that 9-11 was carried out by our own government but since truthers often vote for him (because he at least thinks we should figure out why someone would hate America) he is somehow a fringe candidate. That's like blaming Obama for Jesse Jackson or Gingrich for the KKK.

[panerd]

It's a cute political stance, but it doesn't work in reality. Maybe in the 1800's when going from one state to another required days of travel. When moving was a life changing event. But nowadays, borders hardly matter. Sure States should have their own laws and such on local issues, but there are too many things that can't be done at the state level. We can't have 50 FAAs, 50 FDAs, 50 CDCs, and so on. It's just unreasonable to do things this way when doing them on a federal level is much more efficient.



Paul's stance on the FDA is just stupid. For a guy who actually is a doctor, it's a tad embarrassing. He falls for the "genetically enhanced foods are bad" or "pesticides will kill us all" rhetoric that has almost no scientific backing. He pushes herbal and alternative medicines that again have little to no scientific support.

I'm sure there are things the FDA can do better. But I also realize that for all the food we consume, for all the drugs we take, we don't have a lot of problems. We aren't dropping dead all the time from bad foods, from dangerous drugs, etc. When you go to the store and pick up food, you feel pretty safe about eating it. When you are prescribed a drug, you have a good feeling that it's gone through years of testing before being put in your body. I'm sorry, but I sort of like living in a country like that.


I agree with this. It's a rather large waste of money. I'm not a fan of heroin being sold legally or anything, but do find it quite silly that we care if people are smoking joints in their own home. I'm for people doing whatever they want with their bodies. But I do draw the line at drugs that cause someone to not be able to control themselves and become a danger to society.

Well I personally think #3 (war on drugs doesn't work) and #5 (if drugs were legal I still wouldn't do them) are what makes him right in my mind but it’s hard to argue against the Constitution. (Want to talk about obsolete laws look at how much shit gets shot down due to the way out of date interstate commerce clause). And as far as the FDA and what medicines are legal and aren't... I am not a big believer in tarot cards or physics or chiropractors either but if someone wants to try something outside of the mainstream good luck to them. I will probably stick with my doctor's advice but if my wife had terminal cancer and there seemed to be a practice that the FDA just hasn't received enough bribe money to allow I guess I would be pretty pissed if they told me we could go to jail for trying it. It's funny that taking Xanex because someone is stressed at work is perfectly fine but smoking a joint could lead to jail and/or a loss of their job.

[DaddyTorgo]

What's unfortunate is that somehow the statists (and I agree just like you aren't lumping me with the racists I am not lumping you with the statists. I generally find you and JPhillips both well above the talking points intellectually) have convinced the general public that Libertarians are racist because you can extend their idea of freedom to somehow keep a black person from eating in a private business. While in the meantime both Democrats and Republicans support the drug war which disproportionally imprisons millions of minorities each year and both parties support the endless wars in the Middle East that are once again fought on the ground disproportionally by the poor and minorities. So a theory taken to its extreme makes Libertarians unelectable while racist policy already in place and supported by both parties is just the way things work.

I have often heard this about another area where Ron Paul has a lot of supporters. (the 9-11 truthers) He has gone on record as saying that he doesn't agree with them at all that 9-11 was carried out by our own government but since truthers often vote for him (because he at least thinks we should figure out why someone would hate America) he is somehow a fringe candidate. That's like blaming Obama for Jesse Jackson or Gingrich for the KKK.

I'm not a fan of the war on drugs either - although not for the racial reasons.

But don't you think there's a problem with any political system/society that enables people to discriminate against their fellow human beings? Because the variety in human beings is what makes for great communities. If everybody self-segregated to avoid the discrimination you'd have very isolated and one-note communities.

[RainMaker]

Well I personally think #3 (war on drugs doesn't work) and #5 (if drugs were legal I still wouldn't do them) are what makes him right in my mind but it***8217;s hard to argue against the Constitution. (Want to talk about obsolete laws look at how much shit gets shot down due to the way out of date interstate commerce clause). And as far as the FDA and what medicines are legal and aren't... I am not a big believer in tarot cards or physics or chiropractors either but if someone wants to try something outside of the mainstream good luck to them. I will probably stick with my doctor's advice but if my wife had terminal cancer and there seemed to be a practice that the FDA just hasn't received enough bribe money to allow I guess I would be pretty pissed if they told me we could go to jail for trying it. It's funny that taking Xanex because someone is stressed at work is perfectly fine but smoking a joint could lead to jail and/or a loss of their job.

Outside of marijuana and some other drugs, what things are really banned from the public? I agree that letting people do what they want is fine, but I guess I don't see how I'm being held back from all these life saving treatments he claims are out there. Most of the herbal stuff being sold is legal and can be bought just about everywhere. I don't see the FDA hampering the sale of alternative medicine. His stance on this doesn't make much sense nor provide examples of how the FDA is putting people's life at risk.

[JediKooter]

Right now, unless some unknown comes out of the wood works, Obama has my vote. None of the Republican candidates (so far) even come close to getting my vote.

So basically, it boils down to (once again) taking home the least ugly fat chick when the bar closes.

[kcchief19]

Nate Silver thinks that Cain is the most well-positioned to benefit from Huck's decision: Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn't Run? - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/who-benefits-if-huckabee-doesnt-run/)
Hard to disagree with Silver, and I think he's definitely correct. Cain is in a better position to pick up Huckabee voters in the south than just about anyone. The catch is that Huckabee didn't really play outside the south too well, and I'm not sure Cain will either.

Cain is a masterful public speaker. He will mesmerize you at a podium. But my gut tells me that from a political standpoint, he's a snake oil salesman. He's gone from being a president of the KC Federal Reserve Bank and a guy portrayed as being too moderate for the GOP Georgia Senate primary to a Tea Party, gold-standard conservative. They guy backed the 2008 bailout and TARP, and is now trying to convince the Tea Party he's with them.

That said, I agree with Ben and JiMGA ... I think Cain will see a serious bump in the next few months, maybe even crack into the top tier. But I think as people get to know more about him, the less they will like. The businessman-politician will start to look like a real politician.

As for me, I've eaten at Godfather's Pizza and no way would I vote for anybody in charge of those rat holes. They are the Ramada Inn of pizza joints.

[fantom1979]

I know its never going to happen and the country is probably still Bushed out, but I think someone needs to go get Jeb. I liked his dad and I have heard that he is more like Bush Sr than W.

[JPhillips]

I'm going to throw some cold water on Cain's chances.

His problem, and the problem of all first time, outsider candidates, is that he has no infrastructure. No amount of money or publicity can overcome that in the early primaries. Between IA, NH and SC it will only take somewhere between 250k - 300k votes to win all three with each state roughly doubling the number of votes needed to win. Without a win in at least one of those there's basically no hope.

The relatively few votes needed to win those early contests makes the ground game essential. The winning candidates need people in each county that can be counted on to get voters to the polls on election day. There's a limited number of folks that can do that and they get scooped up early. At this point there's no evidence that Cain has established a ground game and time is running very short. I don't think he can given his lack of a political network and his lack of experience.

I think it's crazy that so few voters have an almost definitive say on the GOP candidate, but it is what it is. Getting that small group out on election day is a person to person job and Cain isn't likely to have the infrastructure to get the job done.

[DaddyTorgo]

Not that this match-up would ever happen, but Public Policy Polling (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/trump-palin-would-lose-even-to-kucinich.html) wanted to see just how weak the potential Republican candidates are.

If you want to get an idea of how bad Donald Trump's political standing was by the end of his abortive run for President consider this- a national poll we conducted last week found that he would trail Dennis Kucinich 40-36 in a hypothetical contest.
But as bad as that is for Donald Trump, it's even worse for Sarah Palin.

Kucinich's lead over Sarah Palin if they were to face off would be 43-36. In that scenario Kucinich gets 16% of Republicans to Palin's 12% of Democrats and leads her by 10 points with independents at 42-32

Just going to let this speak for itself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just going to let this speak for itself.

Consider the source (and I don't mean you).

[Ksyrup]

I know its never going to happen and the country is probably still Bushed out, but I think someone needs to go get Jeb. I liked his dad and I have heard that he is more like Bush Sr than W.

I thought Jeb did a wonderful job as FL governor. Especially during the hurricanes in 2004, he handled that whole thing really well. However, I think his brother fucked any chance he had at running for President.

[SackAttack]

Dennis Kucinich would never win a Presidential election in this country. If you think the 'ZOMG SOCIALIST' drumbeat was loud in 2008, it'd go up to 11 if Kucinich were ever the candidate.

Well, unless 'SOCIALIST' was actually a code phrase for a more socially unacceptable opinion, that is.

[DaddyTorgo]

Consider the source (and I don't mean you).

What, you mean an actual pollster? As opposed to say Rasmussen who just makes shit up?

[DaddyTorgo]

Dennis Kucinich would never win a Presidential election in this country. If you think the 'ZOMG SOCIALIST' drumbeat was loud in 2008, it'd go up to 11 if Kucinich were ever the candidate.

Well, unless 'SOCIALIST' was actually a code phrase for a more socially unacceptable opinion, that is.

Oh of course not. I just found it amusing.

[JPhillips]

I thought Jeb did a wonderful job as FL governor. Especially during the hurricanes in 2004, he handled that whole thing really well. However, I think his brother fucked any chance he had at running for President.

Yeah, he's got to be royally pissed that his screwup brother took the presidency away from him. It's like the prodigal son except the dutiful son also gets punched in the neck and called a sissy by the prodigal.

[RainMaker]

PPP has been pretty accurate in their polls if I'm correct.

[DaddyTorgo]

PPP has been pretty accurate in their polls if I'm correct.

Yep. 527 ranks them very highly for polling accuracy if i'm not mistaken.

Honestly I haven't looked at the actual poll itself, so I don't know about the sample size or the questions used, or any of the questions one should ask. I just saw the result and thought it was amusing and worthy of being shared in this thread (although Trump is out and I think 99% of us can agree that Palin is out too, so it's maybe not the most relevent).

[JediKooter]

All this looking at polls makes me wonder about you guys...

[SackAttack]

Oh of course not. I just found it amusing.

I figure it's an outlier. As in, they found all of the "oh FUCK no" people on Bachmann/Palin/Trump.

[flounder]

Stay classy, Santorum (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20063676-503544.html).


Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on Tuesday accused Sen. John McCain of not understanding "how enhanced interrogation works," despite the fact that McCain, a former war prisoner in North Vietnam, was repeatedly subjected to torture during his 5 ½ years in captivity.

[RainMaker]

Wow.

[fantom1979]

Oh Rick Santorum, you are the gift that just keeps on giving.

[JPhillips]

It looks like whatever small chance Newt might have had was pissed away with a couple of rash comments on Meet the Press. That's got to be some sort of record for shortest time from announcement to implosion.

[RainMaker]

His comments weren't bad either. The voucher system is by far the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

[JPhillips]

His big problem was calling the Ryan budget radical social engineering. That line is going to appear in commercials all across the country in 2012. He really fucked a lot of swing district GOP reps.

[RainMaker]

It is though. He spoke the truth. People may not like Newt, but he's a smart guy. He knows how horrible that voucher idea was and what it really meant.

[JPhillips]

But you can't fuck the party like that and then get the nomination.

In the end, Newt's mouth will always ruin his ambitions.

[GrantDawg]

But you can't fuck the party like that and then get the nomination.

In the end, Newt's mouth will always ruin his ambitions.


Yup. Even when he is right.

[JPhillips]

Poor Newt knows he's toast.

"Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate"

[Peregrine]

A political ad which gives a false impression? What ever is our country coming to? :)

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/19/1208104/house-votes-to-shorten-early-voting.html

N.C.'s GOP controlled state legislature trying to shorten early voting.

This is a short-term politically motivated move.* The only reason President Obama won this state, IMO, is because of a vastly superior ground-game/organizing effort tied heavily to early voting. The GOT(early)V movement among the African-American community here was amazing and clearly the centerpiece of the President's NC strategy.

Personally, I do not like this move because it has been nice the last few elections to have a couple of weeks to early vote and to go somewhere with short/non-existent lines. Basically, voting will become less convenient just to make it more likely that one side wins. Which is a bit of a shame.

One thing that the superclose 2000 and 2004 elections taught both parties is that you cannot afford to leave any stone unturned. I think that you will see more under the radar stories like this coming out of many battleground states over the next couple years. And, of course, the inevitable flood of voter-fraud/voter-suppression lawsuits.


*I realize that politics isn't beanbag and that both parties pull this kind of stuff all of the time. My point is noting its impact on the race, not saying that it is evidence of the GOP being more evil than Democrats.

[DaddyTorgo]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/19/1208104/house-votes-to-shorten-early-voting.html

N.C.'s GOP controlled state legislature trying to shorten early voting.

This is a short-term politically motivated move.* The only reason President Obama won this state, IMO, is because of a vastly superior ground-game/organizing effort tied heavily to early voting. The GOT(early)V movement among the African-American community here was amazing and clearly the centerpiece of the President's NC strategy.

Personally, I do not like this move because it has been nice the last few elections to have a couple of weeks to early vote and to go somewhere with short/non-existent lines. Basically, voting will become less convenient just to make it more likely that one side wins. Which is a bit of a shame.

One thing that the superclose 2000 and 2004 elections taught both parties is that you cannot afford to leave any stone unturned. I think that you will see more under the radar stories like this coming out of many battleground states over the next couple years. And, of course, the inevitable flood of voter-fraud/voter-suppression lawsuits.


*I realize that politics isn't beanbag and that both parties pull this kind of stuff all of the time. My point is noting its impact on the race, not saying that it is evidence of the GOP being more evil than Democrats.

It's also disgusting and fucking sleezy (when either side does it). Frankly I would be in favor of (again - when either side tries something like this), the ACLU getting involved and telling the states to fucking shove it.

We don't really have a lot of impact on the shit that goes on at the macro-level in this country, so fucking around with a person's one tangible opportunity to impact things (however small that impact is) ought to be fucking criminal.

yes - this subject touches a nerve

[JonInMiddleGA]

Naturally, there are opposing viewpoints.

Anything that corrects the horrible mistake of grossly overextending suffrage is likely to be a step in the right direction afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Naturally, there are opposing viewpoints.

Anything that corrects the horrible mistake of grossly overextending suffrage is likely to be a step in the right direction afaic.

:lol:

[GrantDawg]

Just to keep updated, Daniels isn't running.

[kcchief19]

I would like to invoke a rule about candidates and their "announcment" they are running or not running for president. Cain announced yesterday and Pawlenty is announcing tomorrow -- yet both have already participated in a campaign debate.

No announcing for president if you've already spent more than a week in Iowa or New Hampshire, much less participated in a debate. If you do, you're already in.

[Shkspr]

Just to keep updated, Daniels isn't running.

I guess that door meant business.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I heard Cain last night. When I heard "Hope and change ain't working. Hope and change is not a solution. Hope and change is not a job" all I could think was his slogan would be perfect if it was:

Herman Cain: No Hope for America, No Change in 2012!

[M GO BLUE!!!]

:lol:

I don't think he was kidding.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wires are moving a breaking story, Newt's campaign leadership has resigned en masse.

[Crapshoot]

I'm shocked, shocked that Newt is imploding.

[albionmoonlight]

Wires are moving a breaking story, Newt's campaign leadership has resigned en masse.

I assume that he had some pretty good people working for him. Interested to see which candidate picks them up. Should be a sign of who has some real momentum at this point.

[GrantDawg]

I was just about to come and post the link. Yeah, looks like he is done before he started. Not really shocking (I have no idea why he thought he could be nominated, honestly). Gingrich Aides Resign, Campaign In Question - News Story - WSB Atlanta (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/28186172/detail.html)

[JediKooter]

Wait, there's a problem in the Gingrich camp? Nooooooooo. </mockshock>

[JonInMiddleGA]

I assume that he had some pretty good people working for him. Interested to see which candidate picks them up. Should be a sign of who has some real momentum at this point.

Mostly Rick Perry's old crew from what I'm reading, which is building speculation that he's going to announce a run of his own.

[Glengoyne]

I'll always have soft spot for Newt. I mean it did take that crook, Tom Delay, almost a decade to overturn all of the conduct reforms Newt put in place in the House.

[JPhillips]

Mostly Rick Perry's old crew from what I'm reading, which is building speculation that he's going to announce a run of his own.

At least one of them has already jumped to Pawlenty, but, yeah, the speculation is that this makes it much more likely that Perry will run.

Newt has to now hold the record for worst presidential campaign.

[fantom1979]

I guess its better to blow up now then 6 months from now.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D5FzCeV0ZFc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> (http://youtu.be/D5FzCeV0ZFc)

[albionmoonlight]

This made me, literally, cringe physically. One of the worst joke attempts that I have ever heard:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wrssD_gCmFk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wrssD_gCmFk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This made me, literally, cringe physically. One of the worst joke attempts that I have ever heard.

Yikes. Pretty uncomfortable. I'm surprised that Chris Wallace was even able to laugh it off just to help the poor sap a bit.

[panerd]

As a lot of the regular posters know I am an avid Ron Paul supporter and I also believe the mass media plays in a role in putting down his libertarian message. With that said I understand that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Donald Trump will probably get the lion's share of the Republican nomination coverage and Ron Paul has almost zero chance of winning. Fine still I would like you to read this debate synopsis and explain what the fuck is wrong with the media... Is it intentional or just more evidence of the dumbing down of this country?
Romney, Bachmann dominate gracious GOP debate - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110613/pl_yblog_exclusive/romney-bachmann-dominate-gracious-gop-debate)


Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has run for president before, did little to shake his image as a fringe candidate by talking too fast and dropping obscure subjects like "Keynesian bubble'' and "monetary policy'' into the conversation.


Monetary policy is an obscure topic for a presidential debate? :banghead: Right... more "Boxers or briefs?" type questions.

[flounder]

That's not even getting into the issue of Gary Johnson being excluded from the debate despite being a two term governor.

[JPhillips]

Sure looks like Romney and a bunch of dwarfs at this point, but there's still a long way to go.

[DaddyTorgo]

As a lot of the regular posters know I am an avid Ron Paul supporter and I also believe the mass media plays in a role in putting down his libertarian message. With that said I understand that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Donald Trump will probably get the lion's share of the Republican nomination coverage and Ron Paul has almost zero chance of winning. Fine still I would like you to read this debate synopsis and explain what the fuck is wrong with the media... Is it intentional or just more evidence of the dumbing down of this country?
Romney, Bachmann dominate gracious GOP debate - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110613/pl_yblog_exclusive/romney-bachmann-dominate-gracious-gop-debate)





Monetary policy is an obscure topic for a presidential debate? :banghead: Right... more "Boxers or briefs?" type questions.

It's the dumbing down of America panerd. You know that though. It's why we rarely see a candidate with actual intelligence. I'll admit that I think Obama has some intelligence - I just think he hasn't been as effective a politician as I'd like, but he's certainly no GWB.

Paul I guess should make his peace with that and maybe figure out a way to try to get his message across using fewer big words and fancy intellectual terms, because by-and-large (particularly to the right-of-center where he's running from) those are scary things.

[Alan T]

I'll admit that I think Obama has some intelligence - I just think he hasn't been as effective a politician as I'd like, but he's certainly no GWB.




As a moderate, I actually have been pretty happy with Obama. I haven't agreed with all of his stances or policies, but there won't ever be a politician that I fully 100% support since I am not affiliated with either party.

From Obama, I have felt that he has actually many times tried to draw consensus from both parties, tried to work with both his party and the Republicans, and this was even before the Republicans won the house.

If anything, The Democrats and Republicans in congress are the ones that I've been most frustrated by as they don't seem too eager to work on compromises.

However, from reading around here, I also feel I am in the minority as many (or maybe most) posters here are also fairly partisan and feel strongly in their cause/side/party and some would rather there be no compromise at all (their way or the highway).

But either way, unless things change, I'd be voting Obama again next election.

[Coffee Warlord]

Paul's biggest problem on the stage is he seems to, no matter what the topic, tie it back into fiat currency/federal reserve. He'd be much, much better off easing away from that during debates/speeches.

[panerd]

It's the dumbing down of America panerd. You know that though. It's why we rarely see a candidate with actual intelligence. I'll admit that I think Obama has some intelligence - I just think he hasn't been as effective a politician as I'd like, but he's certainly no GWB.

Paul I guess should make his peace with that and maybe figure out a way to try to get his message across using fewer big words and fancy intellectual terms, because by-and-large (particularly to the right-of-center where he's running from) those are scary things.

I know, I know. I get worked up and then after having a little time to think about it realize there isn't much I can do when there are many more people like this in the world whose vote counts the same...

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/263001/3/Victim-believes-Facebook-photo-prompted-robbery

Alton, IL (KSDK) - An Alton woman believes a photo on Facebook is what prompted two men to break into her home overnight and rob her.

The picture portrays the woman holding and surrounded by money from a settlement she received after a car accident.

I would love for Paul to enter the presidential race as a third party candidate. Again not that I have any thought that he will actually win but it would be fun watching him hold Obama and Romney/Bachmann/Palin's feet to the fire on issues like foreign policy or immigration much like Perot energized the debate back in 1992 and a little bit in 1996. And if the Republicans want to cry that it costs them the election than send somebody with some ideas as your candidate.

[panerd]

That's not even getting into the issue of Gary Johnson being excluded from the debate despite being a two term governor.

Yep, he had also already declared that he was running for president unlike Michelle Bachmann who avoided a tougher debate question to say she was running. I laughed when she did this thinking what a joke a of candidate she is and then saw the newspaper headlines that were all about her running. Remember Johnson "wants to give heroin to your infants" :rolleyes:

[panerd]

Paul's biggest problem on the stage is he seems to, no matter what the topic, tie it back into fiat currency/federal reserve. He'd be much, much better off easing away from that during debates/speeches.

Agree. One minute (hell an hour) isn't enough time for him to explain the connections he is trying to make between monetary policy and fiscal policy. I think he is best to go after the out of control meddling in the Middle East but when Cain said (to a big round of applause) that he wouldn't consider a Muslim to his cabinet because he wants people who are loyal to this country you kind of lose traction being the anti war candidate.

[larrymcg421]

I thought Cain was gonna try to present himself as a sensible, true fiscal conservative. Now he's become the anti-muslim, Sharia fearmongering candidate. That is what is defining him at this point. Talk about an epic fail.

[Swaggs]

Agreed on Cain.

I actually think he has some substance and some good qualities, but he is still very rough around the edges. He seems like he could be (or could have been) a formidable candidate if he had more experience in the political arena.

[larrymcg421]

So Gingrich imploded, Cain is busy fighting the implementation of Sharia law, Rick Perry thinks God crashed the economy so we could get back to biblical principles, Bachmann is Bachmann, Pawlenty looks uncomfortable in every speech. Can we just go ahead and start the Obama vs. Romney thread now?

[JediKooter]

And now Gingrich is pulling one from the Palin Play Book...the Gotcha media is after him now. Newt, I don't know how to tell you this, but, your campaign was doomed starting in the mid 90s man. Just put everything down, walk away and drive your wife to her next hair appointment.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So Gingrich imploded, Cain is busy fighting the implementation of Sharia law, Rick Perry thinks God crashed the economy so we could get back to biblical principles, Bachmann is Bachmann, Pawlenty looks uncomfortable in every speech. Can we just go ahead and start the Obama vs. Romney thread now?

I think we have to remember that this portion of the campaign is used to sort out the contenders/pretenders. Rudy was the clear front runner at this time in the last campaign and was nowhere to be found in the end. I think the Romney vs. Obama talk is AWFULLY premature. Hell, Rudy's looking to dive back in at this point and would probably merit serious consideration given the options right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can we just go ahead and start the Obama vs. Romney thread now?

Wouldn't be much point, that's not even a race. Obama would kill him.

[Kodos]

Wouldn't be much point, that's not even a race. Obama would kill him.

One would certainly hope. :)

[JPhillips]

Wouldn't be much point, that's not even a race. Obama would kill him.

It's still early, but he's polling a lot better than any other GOP option.

[GrantDawg]

It's still early, but he's polling a lot better than any other GOP option.

Yeah, way too early. Let any front runner emerge and I'd bet that his lead will drop significantly.

[larrymcg421]

It's definitely really early. I didn't mean to suggest that Romney was gonna run away with it, just commenting on how bad the GOP field looks at this moment, especially in the way they're presenting themselves. They're all lunatics or are at least appealing to the lunatic fringe. This is exactly the situation he was hoping for. He definitely has the image of the most electable/presidential candidate at this point. I mean, I'm sorry but "God crashed the economy" is not winning a general election.

[GrantDawg]

It's definitely really early. I didn't mean to suggest that Romney was gonna run away with it, just commenting on how bad the GOP field looks at this moment, especially in the way they're presenting themselves. They're all lunatics or are at least appealing to the lunatic fringe. This is exactly the situation he was hoping for. He definitely has the image of the most electable/presidential candidate at this point. I mean, I'm sorry but "God crashed the economy" is not winning a general election.

No. And as much as the Libertarians dream of it, Ron Paul will never win it, either. But Romney is weak even if he is the clear leader right now. I wouldn't give him more than a 50% shot at winning the nomination.

[Crapshoot]

Wouldn't be much point, that's not even a race. Obama would kill him.

See, this fascinates me - he's polling reasonably well right now in a head-to-head (admittedly early). You don't think your Southern buddies hate Obama more than they hate Mormons, or is the ObamaCare (And Romney's basic predecessor of that) that is the issue to you?

[larrymcg421]

No. And as much as the Libertarians dream of it, Ron Paul will never win it, either. But Romney is weak even if he is the clear leader right now. I wouldn't give him more than a 50% shot at winning the nomination.

Oh, I certainly agree that Romney is weak. I've previously argued his chances due to Romneycare. I just see everyone else as weaker. It'll be interesting to see how the GOP primary electorate votes. Will they revisit their Delaware/Nevada shenanigans and nominate a crazy Tea Party candidate? Or will they actually try to go for most electable? I guess the person that should be happiest about all of this isn't Romney, but Obama.

[DaddyTorgo]

See, this fascinates me - he's polling reasonably well right now in a head-to-head (admittedly early). You don't think your Southern buddies hate Obama more than they hate Mormons, or is the ObamaCare (And Romney's basic predecessor of that) that is the issue to you?

Another advantage that Romney has is that he might be the most pro-business, non-insane, controllable candidate out there for the big $$ Republican donors to line up behind.

Although his economic acumen ought to be in doubt of course due to HOW he made all his money (job destruction and offshoring rather than job creation), I'm talking about the public perception of him in this case, or more accurately even, how business organizations view his potential policies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

See, this fascinates me - he's polling reasonably well right now in a head-to-head (admittedly early). You don't think your Southern buddies hate Obama more than they hate Mormons, or is the ObamaCare (And Romney's basic predecessor of that) that is the issue to you?

Much more, exponentially more, the latter than the former. Truth is, he seems to be getting a pretty free pass on the subject of religious brand affiliation. As much as anything though, it's really about the distinctly divided nature of the field at the moment.

He's at about 25% preference in the primary right now (based on the RCP average, just to have something to work with). He seems unlikely to ultimately draw well with supporters of Palin & Bachman & Perry who jointly have 27% between them. I'm not sure how he'll play with backers of Cain & Paul either, that's another 16%. In short, nearly half the current field's supporters will not, I believe, end up particularly fond of him.

There's quite a bit of bloodletting still to come en route to the nomination, I anticipate other issues to end up around his neck albeit as much smaller albatrosses than his health care history. (If you made me guess, he'll end up coming across too lukewarm on immigration and too weak on cutting spending)

edit to add: In the end, he's McCain all over again ... except that this time there'll be more hope that Congressional control (and ineffective D's) will neutralize a lame duck Obama to prevent any further damage and it'll keep enough voters away from the lever/box/touchscreen to end up with a worse loss than McCain's.
Ironically though, that also makes the critical control of Congress less likely & could end up backfiring. I'm afraid that I'd be in a minority who showed up to vote down ballot but simply stayed away from the race at the top altogether (in the absence of an attractive, never mind viable, 3rd party candidate).

[GrantDawg]

Much more, exponentially more, the latter than the former. Truth is, he seems to be getting a pretty free pass on the subject of religious brand affiliation. As much as anything though, it's really about the distinctly divided nature of the field at the moment.

He's at about 25% preference in the primary right now (based on the RCP average, just to have something to work with). He seems unlikely to ultimately draw well with supporters of Palin & Bachman & Perry who jointly have 27% between them. I'm not sure how he'll play with backers of Cain & Paul either, that's another 16%. In short, nearly half the current field's supporters will not, I believe, end up particularly fond of him.

There's quite a bit of bloodletting still to come en route to the nomination, I anticipate other issues to end up around his neck albeit as much smaller albatrosses than his health care history. (If you made me guess, he'll end up coming across too lukewarm on immigration and too weak on cutting spending)

edit to add: In the end, he's McCain all over again ... except that this time there'll be more hope that Congressional control (and ineffective D's) will neutralize a lame duck Obama to prevent any further damage and it'll keep enough voters away from the lever/box/touchscreen to end up with a worse loss than McCain's.
Ironically though, that also makes the critical control of Congress less likely & could end up backfiring. I'm afraid that I'd be in a minority who showed up to vote down ballot but simply stayed away from the race at the top altogether (in the absence of an attractive, never mind viable, 3rd party candidate).


That really is a good barometer of how the south (religious right-heavy) voting base is going to go. They still consider Mormonism a cult, and doubt they'll vote for him even as a "lesser of two evils" situation. They'll either go third-party, or just stay home. And that would kill any Republican, and really hurt the congressional races votes.

[JPhillips]

Given the huge seat disparity, I'd be very surprised if the GOP doesn't take the Senate regardless of the nominee. The House will be interesting because of the Medicare vote. I expect the Dems will fuck it up, but the House could be in play given the incredible unpopularity of the Ryan budget.

If the Dems actually had a message it would help. I'm not sure anyone can say what they stand for at this point.

[JPhillips]

That really is a good barometer of how the south (religious right-heavy) voting base is going to go. They still consider Mormonism a cult, and doubt they'll vote for him even as a "lesser of two evils" situation. They'll either go third-party, or just stay home. And that would kill any Republican, and really hurt the congressional races votes.

That's what I used to think after my years in MS, but I wonder if Beck has tempered anti-Mormon sentiment on the right.

[GrantDawg]

That's what I used to think after my years in MS, but I wonder if Beck has tempered anti-Mormon sentiment on the right.


I don't think it matters. Understand the Religious right, especially in the South, are influenced more by the pulpit than the political leadership. It is what is said on Sunday that is going to matter to them. And that gets nutter than those who have a political agenda can ever imagine.

[DaddyTorgo]

[redacted - posted satirical article as truthful article because i didn't check underlying source]

[GrantDawg]

ugh...what a hypocrite


So abortion is BAD BAD BAD evil unless it's to save his wife?? What a fuckwad.


Color me not shocked.

[sabotai]

I went to the source....


“Abortion in any form is wrong,” said Santorum in 2000, three years after the tragedy. “Except for my wife. If your wife’s life was at stake and the only thing that could save her was an abortion, well, too bad. Your wife will have to die. It was different with my wife. You see, I love her. I don’t even know your wife’s name.”

(the blog post that this comes from also had the tag "satire")

I think someone's been had.

[DaddyTorgo]

I went to the source....



(the blog post that this comes from also had the tag "satire")

I think someone's been had.

LMAO...teach me to post something without looking to see what the underlying source was.

Guess that could also be seen as a testament to the fact that that's not so improbable though (trying to spin).

[Surtt]

Wouldn't be much point, that's not even a race. Obama would kill him.

With all due respect, Obama will be unelectable by next summer.
I would be shocked if he does not pull out of the race by the convention.

Just watch Romney's "bump in the road" add.
It's the "economy stupid" and Obama blew it.

Whom ever the Republicans nominate will be the next president, god help us all.

[DaddyTorgo]

With all due respect, Obama will be unelectable by next summer.
I would be shocked if he does not pull out of the race by the convention.

Just watch Romney's "bump in the road" add.
It's the "economy stupid" and Obama blew it.

Whom ever the Republicans nominate will be the next president, god help us all.

Are you serious? :eek:

What kind of odds are you willing to give on that bet? Cuz I'll put cash money down that Obama will still be in the race after the convention.

[larrymcg421]

With all due respect, Obama will be unelectable by next summer.
I would be shocked if he does not pull out of the race by the convention.

Just watch Romney's "bump in the road" add.
It's the "economy stupid" and Obama blew it.

Whom ever the Republicans nominate will be the next president, god help us all.

June, 1983 unemployment rate: 10.1%
November, 1984: Reagan wins 49 states

[molson]

June, 1983 unemployment rate: 10.1%
November, 1984: Reagan wins 49 states

Things didn't look good in 1982, but the economy improved consistently up until election day - there was no doubt we were out of the woods and things were getting better in a hurry by 1984. And if that's the case again in 2012, obviously Obama will dominate. If we double-dip, he's in big trouble. If things are basically stagnant, I still think Obama wins because most of the Republicans are too scary. Good enough spot to be in I guess - really there's nothing good/bad that's going to distinguish him. His failings have been relative to his claimed liberal agenda, but that won't hurt him with Democrats, and conservative moderates and independents are probably a lot more comfortable with him now than they were in 2008.

[larrymcg421]

Things didn't look good in 1982, but the economy improved consistently up until election day - there was no doubt we were out of the woods and things were getting better in a hurry by 1984. And if that's the case again in 2012, obviously Obama will dominate. If we double-dip, he's in big trouble. If things are basically stagnant, I still think Obama wins because most of the Republicans are too scary. Good enough spot to be in I guess - really there's nothing good/bad that's going to distinguish him. His failings have been relative to his claimed liberal agenda, but that won't hurt him with Democrats, and conservative moderates and independents are probably a lot more comfortable with him now than they were in 2008.

Well, sure, I was just responding to the overreaction that bad economy now = Obama dropping out of the race.

As for the good/bad, while the Bin Laden thing isn't a slam dunk for him, it does change the nature of the foreign policy debate and reduces the advantage that the GOP has in that area.

[SackAttack]

Things didn't look good in 1982, but the economy improved consistently up until election day - there was no doubt we were out of the woods and things were getting better in a hurry by 1984. And if that's the case again in 2012, obviously Obama will dominate. If we double-dip, he's in big trouble. If things are basically stagnant, I still think Obama wins because most of the Republicans are too scary. Good enough spot to be in I guess - really there's nothing good/bad that's going to distinguish him. His failings have been relative to his claimed liberal agenda, but that won't hurt him with Democrats, and conservative moderates and independents are probably a lot more comfortable with him now than they were in 2008.

And/or significantly less comfortable with the Republican Party than in 2008. I wouldn't vote for this bunch of jokers on a dare. Huntsman, maybe, but he'll never get that close.

[kcchief19]

So Gingrich imploded, Cain is busy fighting the implementation of Sharia law, Rick Perry thinks God crashed the economy so we could get back to biblical principles, Bachmann is Bachmann, Pawlenty looks uncomfortable in every speech. Can we just go ahead and start the Obama vs. Romney thread now?
I've had a unique opportunity to spend some time with Pawlenty and I've seen Cain speak. If our neighborhood homeowner's association needed a president, Pawlenty's my guy. He reminds me of the guy next door. But I don't want my next door neighbor sending troops to Afghanistan or putting people on the Supreme Court.

The more I see of Cain, the more I'm convinced he will say anything to be the "tea party" candidate, which is amazing because he was anything but a tea party kind of guy until about 18 months ago. I think he's trying to run the 2008 McCain campaign.
Paul's biggest problem on the stage is he seems to, no matter what the topic, tie it back into fiat currency/federal reserve. He'd be much, much better off easing away from that during debates/speeches.
If he addressed that problem, he could move on to his other problems, among which are that he's bat-shit crazy. I'm not sure the American people are that dumb -- they hear Paul talking about going to a free market and creating 15 percent economic growth with no inflation and they realize this guy has no clue what he's talking about.

Or they hear him talking about how he wants to "correct" the housing market by clearing out the housing market and letting prices drop further. That collective gasp you hear is the 65% of households who own their home and just heard Ron Paul say he wants to give them a $50,000 haircut.

[QuikSand]

brilliant post right there

[stevew]

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622)

[panerd]

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622)

Pretty sure they are not reaching an audience that would vote for Bachmann anyways.

[JediKooter]

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622)

Not really all that brutal. She makes Palin look like the rational one.

[albionmoonlight]

Bachmann is falling nicely into the gap left by Palin's inability/lack-of-desire to do the hard work needed to run a national campaign. Palin set the table, and Bachmann's sitting down to dinner.

And I am impressed.

A couple years ago, Bachmann was the crazy woman with the crazier eyes who would get on TV sometimes to compare the President to Hitler or Stalin or whatever.

Now, she's running strong in Iowa and Nate Silver has her in the solid first-tier of GOP candidates.

Whatever one might thing of her personality and positions, one has to be impressed by her instincts (seeing the opportunity presented by Palin) and her willingness to take this seriously and work hard for it.

She's not going away on her own. Someone is going to have to beat her.

[JediKooter]

You just can't keep the crazy tied down and under wraps for an extended period of time. It always breaks free and shows up at inopportune times. The implosion is eminent, it's just a matter of when. Bachmann will defeat Bachmann.

[RainMaker]

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622)
She is now becoming the most famous person to go to my alma mater. :(

[JediKooter]

She is now becoming the most famous person to go to my alma mater. :(

I won't hold it against you.

[Thomkal]

And she's coming to Myrtle Beach tomorrow, and they've had to shelve the original plans to host it in a restaurant because they are expecting a bigger crowd now that she's a presidential candidate. So they are having it now in front of the Myrtle Beach Aquarium. Is it wrong of me to hope that a shark somehow gets loose while she is here? ;)

[JediKooter]

Haha! Not wrong at all. However, the shark might possibly lose IQ points for having that much stupidity inside it.

[lungs]

Bachmann wants to channel the spirit of Waterloo, IA's own John Wayne...... Gacy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/27/the-wrong-john-wayne/)

[stevew]

You just can't keep the crazy tied down and under wraps for an extended period of time. It always breaks free and shows up at inopportune times. The implosion is eminent, it's just a matter of when. Bachmann will defeat Bachmann.

I dunno, there might be enough stupid republicans that equate Bachmann=Jesus, and attacks on Bachmann are the same as attacks on Jesus.

[JediKooter]

I see her streak of errors in geography continue.

[JediKooter]

I dunno, there might be enough stupid republicans that equate Bachmann=Jesus, and attacks on Bachmann are the same as attacks on Jesus.

I have a friend on facebook who thinks she can do no wrong. I haven't said anything yet, but, I've been dying to ask this person if they've ever read or heard anything she's actually said during a non photo op.

Michelle Bachmann is only one of two things (possibly both): 1. She's crazy or 2. She is in fact, THAT stupid. If it wasn't for the invention of the tea party, she'd just be another obscure Minnesota politician.

[larrymcg421]

Nate Silver's odds on the GOP field...

Romney 3-2
Pawlenty 9-2
Perry 7-1
Bachmann 15-2
Palin 30-1
Huntsman 30-1
Cain 35-1

I'd definitely take a flyer on Palin at that number. I stay away from Pawlenty and Bachmann.

[JediKooter]

Nate Silver's odds on the GOP field...

Romney 3-2
Pawlenty 9-2
Perry 7-1
Bachmann 15-2
Palin 30-1
Huntsman 30-1
Cain 35-1

I'd definitely take a flyer on Palin at that number. I stay away from Pawlenty and Bachmann.

Yup, once all the crazy shit that Bachmann has spewed over the years hits the mainstream, she's toast.

[RainMaker]

I think Bachmann would be worth a flyer. Simply because I think she's going to win Iowa and maybe that forces the conservative candidates/voters to back her.

[JediKooter]

How does she win over the independents and moderates? She's far too extreme. If the GOP knows what they're doing, she would not be the person they give the nomination to. Though, I'm sure the democratic party is keeping their fingers crossed that there will be enough dumb voters to vote for her.

A bit of artistic licensing here, but, if she wins the GOP nomination, it's going to be like Reagan in 84. Except, it will be Obama on the winning side of it.

[larrymcg421]

I think Bachmann would be worth a flyer. Simply because I think she's going to win Iowa and maybe that forces the conservative candidates/voters to back her.

Not at 15:2. If she were a bit higher like Palin, then I'd consider it. Barring major developments, I think Romney has this in the bag and I'd put a bunch of money on 3:2. However, there is a chance the tea party could dominate the Presidential primary just like they did in the midterms. If that happens, then I think they go for Palin (if she runs).

[kcchief19]

Bachmann wants to channel the spirit of Waterloo, IA's own John Wayne...... Gacy (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/27/the-wrong-john-wayne/)
I like the update from her handlers ... I was curious which tact they would take. Would it be to come up with some arcane connection between The Duke and Waterloo? That was the winner -- his parents lived there before he was born.

Knowing Bachmann, I'll bet some variation on denying that she said it and blaming it on the liberal media were also in the hopper.

[albionmoonlight]

How does she win over the independents and moderates? She's far too extreme. If the GOP knows what they're doing, she would not be the person they give the nomination to. Though, I'm sure the democratic party is keeping their fingers crossed that there will be enough dumb voters to vote for her.

A bit of artistic licensing here, but, if she wins the GOP nomination, it's going to be like Reagan in 84. Except, it will be Obama on the winning side of it.

It isn't likely, but I could see the following all working in her favor:

(1) The base GOP voters feel that the GOP lost because McCain was too moderate and did not energize the base. They do not want to repeat that mistake.

(2) President Obama looks very beatable with ~10% unemployment, so this is the chance to nominate the candidate you want instead of the candidate you think has the best chance of winning over moderates in a general election.

(3) The moderate/establishment/safe candidate folks end up splitting their support among Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. By the time they sort that out, Bachmann has managed to gain enough votes/momentum to be unstoppable.

(4) Along with #3, Bachmann manages to portray the GOP establishment as part of the "problem with Washington" and turns some of the base's populist anger against Romney et al., using their support from establishment figures against them.

Now, personally, I think that #3 is where she trips up. I think that the GOP establishment sees her as enough of a threat that it will quickly turn the nomination into a two-horse race if it sees her with strength going into Iowa. And she loses a two-horse race against Romney/Pawlenty/Huntsman.

[JediKooter]

Straight from the Team Bachmann playbook.

[kcchief19]

I think based on Silver's numbers, I'd put some money down on Perry and might put a couple of bucks on Cain for a longshot sleeper.

I still think Romney is the most organized and most prepared to sweep the primaries. But he's going to pull out of Iowa, his going to get beat in South Carolina and I don't see how he can win New Hampshire the way he needs to win it. He needs a blowout win there, and I don't think he'll get it.

Perry may not jump in ... but I think this race is going to get more and more attractive to him. I don't see anyone in the race that I think can both win the nomination and give Obama a race.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It isn't likely, but I could see the following all working in her favor

I'd largely agree with your take. Of course at the moment that agreement might be more like wishful thinking on my part but I take what I can get in today's political landscape.

I think that the GOP establishment sees her as enough of a threat that it will quickly turn the nomination into a two-horse race if it sees her with strength going into Iowa. And she loses a two-horse race against Romney/Pawlenty/Huntsman.

The question - and a reason for any hope I have really - is whether the establishment has enough power over the voters to do that. Assuming that's the tactic, they would be well advised to move as quickly as possible rather than giving her a chance to build additional momentum. At some point gravity/physics/et al can take over & things have to run their natural course.

[RainMaker]

How does she win over the independents and moderates? She's far too extreme. If the GOP knows what they're doing, she would not be the person they give the nomination to. Though, I'm sure the democratic party is keeping their fingers crossed that there will be enough dumb voters to vote for her.

A bit of artistic licensing here, but, if she wins the GOP nomination, it's going to be like Reagan in 84. Except, it will be Obama on the winning side of it.
She won't, but at high odds, it's worth a risk. I can see a scenario where she gets the conservative/tea party demographic and the moderates are just too lethargic to get to the polls to put Romney up. Unlikely, but that's why it's a long shot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Very minor story in the grand scheme, but it seemed worth a quick link because of the whole establishment vs Bachman angle under discussion. When you're causing FNC to backpedal, you're probably still on the upswing.

Fox host apologizes for Bachmann 'flake' question *| accessAtlanta (http://www.accessatlanta.com/celebrities-tv/fox-host-apologizes-for-989447.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm)

[SackAttack]

The correct answer is "yes, she's a flake, but asking her that when her demographic coincides neatly with FNC's own was probably a dumbass move."

[JediKooter]

It isn't likely, but I could see the following all working in her favor:

(1) The base GOP voters feel that the GOP lost because McCain was too moderate and did not energize the base. They do not want to repeat that mistake.

Yikes. If they thought it was McCain that lost it, that party is more off its rocker than I thought it was. If they don't want to repeat the mistake, you need to take the Palins/O'Donnells/Bachmanns out of the equation.

(2) President Obama looks very beatable with ~10% unemployment, so this is the chance to nominate the candidate you want instead of the candidate you think has the best chance of winning over moderates in a general election.

This is definitely a wild card. It would be their Kirk Gibson vs Dennis Eckersley World Series moment.

(3) The moderate/establishment/safe candidate folks end up splitting their support among Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. By the time they sort that out, Bachmann has managed to gain enough votes/momentum to be unstoppable.

Now correct me if I'm wrong (because I think I may be), even though people vote in the preliminaries, don't the delegates actually choose who gets the win for that state? So even if the votes have been split and Bachmann had the majority, they could still decide to give the nomination to the candidate they think has the better chance of winning?

(4) Along with #3, Bachmann manages to portray the GOP establishment as part of the "problem with Washington" and turns some of the base's populist anger against Romney et al., using their support from establishment figures against them.

Now, personally, I think that #3 is where she trips up. I think that the GOP establishment sees her as enough of a threat that it will quickly turn the nomination into a two-horse race if it sees her with strength going into Iowa. And she loses a two-horse race against Romney/Pawlenty/Huntsman.

Yup, and I think that's where the party would turn their backs on her and not give her the nomination. It's the whole 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' moral.

[JediKooter]

She won't, but at high odds, it's worth a risk. I can see a scenario where she gets the conservative/tea party demographic and the moderates are just too lethargic to get to the polls to put Romney up. Unlikely, but that's why it's a long shot.

It is a potential situation that could come true. It's hard enough to get people to vote in the general election, it's even harder to get them to vote in the primaries.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now correct me if I'm wrong (because I think I may be), even though people vote in the preliminaries, don't the delegates actually choose who gets the win for that state?

Someone may have to correct me on this myself, but I think that varies from state to state.

[stevew]

Republican Primaries are generally winner takes all IIRC. A large amount of candidates generally can allow a fringe candidate to do well. The sensible base of the party needs to pick their candidate or she might even win.

[JediKooter]

Someone may have to correct me on this myself, but I think that varies from state to state.

That actually makes more sense than what I said.

EDIT: And stevew as well. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

That actually makes more sense than what I said.
EDIT: And stevew as well. :)

Eh, what you said made sense okay enough I think, it just happens to be something that's accounted for in the rules for some (many? most?) states.

[larrymcg421]

The actual delegates do the voting, but they are picked from people that are pledged to the candidate that won them, much like the electors for the electoral college. It's all a formality because once a candidate has won a majority, everyone else usually concedes. The actual convention voting doesn't matter unless there's a floor fight.

The delegates could definitely switch sides if that happened. I know with the electoral college, some states passed a law saying electors couldn't change their votes. No such restriction (that I know of) exists for delegates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No such restriction (that I know of) exists for delegates.

According to the State Dept (of all places)

"If multiple rounds of voting at the convention are required to select a candidate -- something that has not occurred in recent election cycles -- most states allow delegates to change their votes after the first round of voting."

From that wording, I would think that most are at least committed legally through the first round. That also kind of matches my recollection of how it works after having my memory jogged by this. It's why getting the nomination on the first ballot is so important.


I stumbled across that as source material listed for this link (and I checked, the State Dept stuff is indeed straight from them).
HowStuffWorks "Delegates" (http://people.howstuffworks.com/primary2.htm)

[GrantDawg]

The actual delegates do the voting, but they are picked from people that are pledged to the candidate that won them, much like the electors for the electoral college. It's all a formality because once a candidate has won a majority, everyone else usually concedes. The actual convention voting doesn't matter unless there's a floor fight.

The delegates could definitely switch sides if that happened. I know with the electoral college, some states passed a law saying electors couldn't change their votes. No such restriction (that I know of) exists for delegates.


And I believe the rule is they have to vote for who they are pledged to in the first round of voting. It is if no one has enough votes to win the election outright that they are free to change their votes on the second ballot.

[JediKooter]

Eh, what you said made sense okay enough I think, it just happens to be something that's accounted for in the rules for some (many? most?) states.

Right on. To me it makes sense that not every state has the same rules as other states do.

[GrantDawg]

Right on. To me it makes sense that not every state has the same rules as other states do.


I looked it up. There are states that are "winner take all" (they all used to be), but now there are several , California being the largest, that splits delegates up.

[JediKooter]

I looked it up. There are states that are "winner take all" (they all used to be), but now there are several , California being the largest, that splits delegates up.

Ahhh ok. Looks like California, Texas and Florida are the top 3 in the amount of delegates. I can see the slight possibility of her getting Texas and Florida, but, not California. New York and Georgia round out the top 5. I know the voting doesn't go in that order though.

[SackAttack]

Ahhh ok. Looks like California, Texas and Florida are the top 3 in the amount of delegates. I can see the slight possibility of her getting Texas and Florida, but, not California. New York and Georgia round out the top 5. I know the voting doesn't go in that order though.

I'd, uh, disagree with you on California.

There's really not much left there in the way of "moderate" Republicans. They're all of the Orange County variety.

If Bachmann's got any kind of momentum going into California, I'd give her better than even odds at taking the majority of California's delegates.

[JediKooter]

I'd, uh, disagree with you on California.

There's really not much left there in the way of "moderate" Republicans. They're all of the Orange County variety.

If Bachmann's got any kind of momentum going into California, I'd give her better than even odds at taking the majority of California's delegates.

There's plenty in San Diego county and out in the rural areas of the state. Romney had 34.56% of the vote in California (wikipedia) in the last Presidential Primary. Coming in second to McCain, who had 42.25%. Yes, things have changed in those 3 years, but, I just don't see her getting much of a foothold in California regardless of her momentum. I'd like to think my fellow citizens in this state are smarter than that.

Ron Paul, who I would more closely associate with Bachmann, not because of her craziness, but, because of her willingness to bring up fringe ideas, only got 4.27% of the vote. Romney is going to have to really pull a Howard Dean or Gary Hart to not win California. Just my opinion though, but, never underestimate the stupidity of voters.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Random side note:

Michelle Bachmann is the sister of KCTV Channel 5 meteorologist Gary Amble.

The forecast: Sunny, chance of candidacy, Prime Buzz | Midwest Democracy Project (http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/forecast-sunny-chance-candidacy/#ixzz1PHEXHgmm)

[SackAttack]

There's plenty in San Diego county and out in the rural areas of the state. Romney had 34.56% of the vote in California (wikipedia) in the last Presidential Primary. Coming in second to McCain, who had 42.25%. Yes, things have changed in those 3 years, but, I just don't see her getting much of a foothold in California regardless of her momentum. I'd like to think my fellow citizens in this state are smarter than that.

Ron Paul, who I would more closely associate with Bachmann, not because of her craziness, but, because of her willingness to bring up fringe ideas, only got 4.27% of the vote. Romney is going to have to really pull a Howard Dean or Gary Hart to not win California. Just my opinion though, but, never underestimate the stupidity of voters.

See, I disagree, and I'll tell you why.

Republican fundraising in California is going to go through Orange County Republicans. If you want various endorsements there, if you want to be successful at fundraising, there are things you're going to have to say and do.

Romney can say those things, but his previous record as Governor of Massachusetts means he has to be able to convince the OCRs that he really *means* them - and that's partly what hurt him in 2008. I think his faith might've had something to do with it also, but I think it was mostly the fact that he was saying things that were in direct contradiction to things he'd previously done, and that's always tough to successfully spin.

Bachmann, on the other hand, will resonate with those voters in a way that Romney can't, especially if she performs well leading up to Super Tuesday. If her campaign is still performing strongly as Californians take to the polls, I'd keep an eye on her.

The other thing you're going to have to consider is that President Obama is unlikely to face a serious primary challenge, and there are going to be some Democrats with memories long enough to remember "Operation Chaos" or whatever the fuck that was called. If Bachmann is performing strongly enough that the nomination looks possible for her, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some people switch voter registrations in the state just to try to play "kingmaker" and try to get President Obama an opponent with whom they think he'd wipe the floor.

That is less relevant to Bachmann's chances in the state than the other, which is "how will she have performed in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc prior to California?"

But I think the bottom line is that if she emerges from the early primaries as either the leader or a strong #2, you're going to be in for a surprise when you open the paper the day after Super Tuesday.

[JediKooter]

See, I disagree, and I'll tell you why.

Republican fundraising in California is going to go through Orange County Republicans. If you want various endorsements there, if you want to be successful at fundraising, there are things you're going to have to say and do. (Sorry, easier for me to respond this way, otherwise I start to lose my train of thought :) )

Despite this groups influence, I just don't think she's going to be around by the time she would need to cater to (or it would even matter) these people. Plus, I don't think Romney is stupid. I think he'll do what he has to do win favor with these people.

Romney can say those things, but his previous record as Governor of Massachusetts means he has to be able to convince the OCRs that he really *means* them - and that's partly what hurt him in 2008. I think his faith might've had something to do with it also, but I think it was mostly the fact that he was saying things that were in direct contradiction to things he'd previously done, and that's always tough to successfully spin.

I think his mormonism is a much bigger factor than people are willing to admit. I don't think it will be that big of a factor this time around, unless he starts playing it up.

I think a lot of presidential hopefuls have to explain some kind of contradiction or discrepancy and I don't think it will hurt him as much in california as it will in other states.

Bachmann, on the other hand, will resonate with those voters in a way that Romney can't, especially if she performs well leading up to Super Tuesday. If her campaign is still performing strongly as Californians take to the polls, I'd keep an eye on her.

The only thing that is keeping her afloat right now is that she is not standoffish with the media like Palin is. Yes, she admitted this morning that she's not perfect. Great. The problem is, her John Wayne gaff isn't a one off occurrence for her though and she doesn't learn from her 'mistakes' and continues to make these 'mistakes' over and over and over again.

What we are seeing now with her in the polls, in my opinion, is nothing more than the pre wedding giddiness and all the pomp and circumstance that goes along with it. Once all of the dressing and pretty things come off after the wedding, she's toast. She has demonstrated time and time again that she has a hard time with history, the constitution and just plain every day facts and now that the spotlight is on her, she won't be able to sweep them under the rug quite so easily as it has been for her in the past. When more and more of her past, her 'mistakes' or 'misquotes', start to surface, she will wither and fade away like so many presidential Cinderella stories have in the past before her.

The other thing you're going to have to consider is that President Obama is unlikely to face a serious primary challenge, and there are going to be some Democrats with memories long enough to remember "Operation Chaos" or whatever the fuck that was called. If Bachmann is performing strongly enough that the nomination looks possible for her, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some people switch voter registrations in the state just to try to play "kingmaker" and try to get President Obama an opponent with whom they think he'd wipe the floor.

That is less relevant to Bachmann's chances in the state than the other, which is "how will she have performed in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc prior to California?"

But I think the bottom line is that if she emerges from the early primaries as either the leader or a strong #2, you're going to be in for a surprise when you open the paper the day after Super Tuesday.

Totally agree with you on that. I would be shocked if anyone gave Obama a run for his money in the primaries. I'm sure there are some in his camp that are keeping their fingers crossed that Bachmann can pull off the upset, but, I have faith that Michelle will be on her way out, by the time of the primaries or shortly after they begin. Well, unless Romney totally "Dean's" it and she's the one left standing by default. Which leads to her biggest plus, when comparing her to Palin...she doesn't quit.

However, I'm willing to bet, that on the Wednesday after Super Tuesday, Bachmann will not be the darling of the campaign like she is now and will shipped off, back to Minnesota. :)

[panerd]

As a lot of the regular posters know I am an avid Ron Paul supporter and I also believe the mass media plays in a role in putting down his libertarian message. With that said I understand that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Donald Trump will probably get the lion's share of the Republican nomination coverage and Ron Paul has almost zero chance of winning. Fine still I would like you to read this debate synopsis and explain what the fuck is wrong with the media... Is it intentional or just more evidence of the dumbing down of this country?
Romney, Bachmann dominate gracious GOP debate - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110613/pl_yblog_exclusive/romney-bachmann-dominate-gracious-gop-debate)





Monetary policy is an obscure topic for a presidential debate? :banghead: Right... more "Boxers or briefs?" type questions.

So Bachmann's John Wayne Gacy comment is a big deal? Wow! This country deserves whoever the mass media and/or facebook forwarded messages tell people to vote for. How is this even a story? Hope she doesn't pull out something "crazy" like monetary policy! Especially after that "huge" John Wayne gaffe.

[Passacaglia]

So Bachmann's John Wayne Gacy comment is a big deal? Wow! This country deserves whoever the mass media and/or facebook forwarded messages tell people to vote for. How is this even a story? Hope she doesn't pull out something "crazy" like monetary policy! Especially after that "huge" John Wayne gaffe.

I agree. This just feeds the idea that she's being persecuted by the media. John Wayne's parents were from Waterloo, and so was Bachmann -- so she identified with him a little, but messed up a detail. And Gacy's not really "from" Waterloo. He lived there from the ages of 25 to 28.

[JPhillips]

It's perfect for the media because they get to bust a pol for a gaffe while still staying completely neutral on policies. Just wait until one of the GOP candidates uses the wrong cheese in Philly.

[JediKooter]

She is the 21st century Dan Quayle, but, worse. She is a religious nut case, (more nutty than others), a constitutional revisionist and a complete wack job. Her John Wayne gaff is just the tip of the ice berg. I don't think she has the IQ to muster anything about monetary policy.

[GrantDawg]

She is the 21st century Dan Quayle, but, worse. She is a religious nut case, (more nutty than others), a constitutional revisionist and a complete wack job. Her John Wayne gaff is just the tip of the ice berg. I don't think she has the IQ to muster anything about monetary policy.


Neither did Bush, and he got 8 years. This may be blasphemy to some, but I doubt Reagan understood monetary policy, either. He did what those he thought did understand it told him. IQ does not = electability, or even successful presidencies (ie. Carter, James).

[JediKooter]

Neither did Bush, and he got 8 years. This may be blasphemy to some, but I doubt Reagan understood monetary policy, either. He did what those he thought did understand it told him. IQ does not = electability, or even successful presidencies (ie. Carter, James).

I can't disagree with you at all. I think the problem is, people are way over estimating Bachmann's potential based on early polling. Wait until more of her background comes out and things she's said in the past, in the national news. She won't look so promising after that. If after that, she still is near the top or at the top, then people deserve what they get with her.

[GrantDawg]

I can't disagree with you at all. I think the problem is, people are way over estimating Bachmann's potential based on early polling. Wait until more of her background comes out and things she's said in the past, in the national news. She won't look so promising after that. If after that, she still is near the top or at the top, then people deserve what they get with her.


I do agree with you there. She has a short shelf-life in a national campaign imho. But it is not necessarily IQ (which is sadly not a disqualifier), it is she is a fruit-cake. She and Ron Paul have about the same chance in my book (which is 0).

[JediKooter]

I do agree with you there. She has a short shelf-life in a national campaign imho. But it is not necessarily IQ (which is sadly not a disqualifier), it is she is a fruit-cake. She and Ron Paul have about the same chance in my book (which is 0).

That's probably one of the best summaries I've seen. :)

[SackAttack]

I can't disagree with you at all. I think the problem is, people are way over estimating Bachmann's potential based on early polling. Wait until more of her background comes out and things she's said in the past, in the national news. She won't look so promising after that. If after that, she still is near the top or at the top, then people deserve what they get with her.

Yeah, well...I *know* some of the things she's said and done that reveal her level of batshit insanity, and I still think that if she makes it through Iowa/New Hampshire in a reasonable position, that she's going to be someone the 'adult' candidates have to deal with right up to Super Tuesday, and possibly beyond.

Primary voters are a different beast than general election voters, even those who actually claim a party affiliation (rather than 'independent'). And the problem for 2012, unlike 2008, is that you've got that whole "ideological purity" thing going on with the Republicans. The Tea Party, demographically, lines up pretty well with those who actually pull the lever during primary season, and for that reason, well...I've bolded part of your statement.

I don't think she has a prayer in hell of winning the general election, mind you, but I can totally see a scenario where the Tea Party nuts get their ideal candidate in her and then wake up with an epic cheap wine hangover on the first Wednesday in November.

I could even see a really twisted double-blind scenario where the GOP muckety-mucks, while deploring the idea of a President Bachmann, would be totally down with using a November whitewashing to bring the Tea Party to heel. Give 'em what they want, and when it fails, hope that they either fade back into the woodwork, or that cooler heads prevail.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The more Bachman upsets the lunatic left, the more convincing she becomes.

[SackAttack]

The more Bachman upsets the lunatic left, the more convincing she becomes.

See, I think "upsets" is the wrong word to use, but that distracts from the main point I'm making, which is that Jon's mindset there isn't far off from that of your typical California Republican, particularly the ones that Romney needs to sway to carry the state. Bachmann's going to have a much easier time connecting on that level than Romney will, but of course it all comes back to how viable she appears when she gets to that point.

A strong performance in the early primaries will make a primary win in California a distinct possibility.

[JediKooter]

Yeah, well...I *know* some of the things she's said and done that reveal her level of batshit insanity, and I still think that if she makes it through Iowa/New Hampshire in a reasonable position, that she's going to be someone the 'adult' candidates have to deal with right up to Super Tuesday, and possibly beyond.

Primary voters are a different beast than general election voters, even those who actually claim a party affiliation (rather than 'independent'). And the problem for 2012, unlike 2008, is that you've got that whole "ideological purity" thing going on with the Republicans. The Tea Party, demographically, lines up pretty well with those who actually pull the lever during primary season, and for that reason, well...I've bolded part of your statement.

I don't think she has a prayer in hell of winning the general election, mind you, but I can totally see a scenario where the Tea Party nuts get their ideal candidate in her and then wake up with an epic cheap wine hangover on the first Wednesday in November.

I could even see a really twisted double-blind scenario where the GOP muckety-mucks, while deploring the idea of a President Bachmann, would be totally down with using a November whitewashing to bring the Tea Party to heel. Give 'em what they want, and when it fails, hope that they either fade back into the woodwork, or that cooler heads prevail.

I hear you for sure. I just don't think she'll make it to the primaries at all. There's just too many debates to be had and too much time to dig up her skeletons. Heck, I'm surprised that Newt's campaign imploded so early. I had a feeling it eventually would, just didn't think it would be that soon.

She's the media 'darling' right now...for now. Which I think is maybe why she seems so strong at the moment. If she somehow manages to not lose that, then yes, those primary voters could very well shoe her in for the general election, but, I really think that also depends on how much Romney can satiate the people who are leery of him right now. I don't think he has to win overwhelming support of those people either and that would make it a lot easier for him to pull away from Bachmann.

Yes. I can almost see it being a win/win for the republicans, even if they lose the election. Like you mentioned, she gets the nomination and she fails miserably, I think the GOPs tea party cousins get sent to the phantom zone, which will make the tea party less of distraction for them, which may set up the GOP for a much stronger showing in 2016.

[SackAttack]

Yes. I can almost see it being a win/win for the republicans, even if they lose the election. Like you mentioned, she gets the nomination and she fails miserably, I think the GOPs tea party cousins get sent to the phantom zone, which will make the tea party less of distraction for them, which may set up the GOP for a much stronger showing in 2016.

That, or the 2016 nominee demands that the Party "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!"

[JPhillips]

Someone is going to emerge as the non-Romney. If Palin stays out that leaves Bachmann in a pretty good position.

[JediKooter]

That, or the 2016 nominee demands that the Party "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!"

Haha! Now, only if I had Superman's address.

I am curious though about the california republicans you mentioned. I was a republican for a long long time and Bachmann is so far right of right, she wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting my vote then or now if I was still a registered republican.

The more Bachman upsets the lunatic left, the more convincing she becomes.

I have no fear of her. I'm just amazed that she's pulled wool over the media's eyes like she has. She's her own ticking time bomb and will self destruct all in due time.

[SackAttack]

Haha! Now, only if I had Superman's address.

I am curious though about the california republicans you mentioned. I was a republican for a long long time and Bachmann is so far right of right, she wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting my vote then or now if I was still a registered republican.

You're an endangered species. Let's put it that way. I first started noticing the change in demeanor around 2004/5. By the time I left the state in '08, you might've seen the words "moderate" and "Republican" in the same sentence, but not in that order.

[JediKooter]

You're an endangered species. Let's put it that way. I first started noticing the change in demeanor around 2004/5. By the time I left the state in '08, you might've seen the words "moderate" and "Republican" in the same sentence, but not in that order.

Ah ok interesting. I didn't think I was that out of touch with what's going on in this state, haha! Heck, I voted for Dole and actually helped (in a round about way) with security when the GOP convention was in San Diego, in 96 I believe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just for fun (since I hadn't done one of these lately)
★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bloomberg, Santorum, Perry, Pence, Barbour, Palin, Cantor, Boehner, Pawlenty. (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/)

I'll skip the detailed results since some of the candidates don't even have positions assigned, but I'll note that my highest scoring match was someone who I wouldn't have put in my top three off hand. (Heck, at this point I've really only got a top two, some undecideds, and a lot of eliminations). Seems reason enough to do more research & further evaluate the surprise.

There's at least some potential value as food for thought afaic, figured I'd throw it out here even if you just get entertainment value.

[Alan T]

Just for fun (since I hadn't done one of these lately)
★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bloomberg, Santorum, Perry, Pence, Barbour, Palin, Cantor, Boehner, Pawlenty. (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/)

I'll skip the detailed results since some of the candidates don't even have positions assigned, but I'll note that my highest scoring match was someone who I wouldn't have put in my top three off hand. (Heck, at this point I've really only got a top two, some undecideds, and a lot of eliminations). Seems reason enough to do more research & further evaluate the surprise.

There's at least some potential value as food for thought afaic, figured I'd throw it out here even if you just get entertainment value.



Weird.. my top 5 were:

Biden -
Obama (just 1% behind Biden) -
Wayne Allen Root -
Hillary Clinton -
Newt Gingrich.


That is five people that I can't even imagine being similar in most ways... weird :)

[panerd]

Just for fun (since I hadn't done one of these lately)
★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bloomberg, Santorum, Perry, Pence, Barbour, Palin, Cantor, Boehner, Pawlenty. (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/)

I'll skip the detailed results since some of the candidates don't even have positions assigned, but I'll note that my highest scoring match was someone who I wouldn't have put in my top three off hand. (Heck, at this point I've really only got a top two, some undecideds, and a lot of eliminations). Seems reason enough to do more research & further evaluate the surprise.

There's at least some potential value as food for thought afaic, figured I'd throw it out here even if you just get entertainment value.

Not surprising 80% Ron Paul following by Root (Lib), Gingrich, Romney, and surprisingly Obama at 50%. (Though I think that is due to his anti-war stances that he doesn't really follow through with)

[JediKooter]

Just for fun (since I hadn't done one of these lately)
★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bloomberg, Santorum, Perry, Pence, Barbour, Palin, Cantor, Boehner, Pawlenty. (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/)

I'll skip the detailed results since some of the candidates don't even have positions assigned, but I'll note that my highest scoring match was someone who I wouldn't have put in my top three off hand. (Heck, at this point I've really only got a top two, some undecideds, and a lot of eliminations). Seems reason enough to do more research & further evaluate the surprise.

There's at least some potential value as food for thought afaic, figured I'd throw it out here even if you just get entertainment value.

Hey, pretty cool.

My top 5* (kind of surprise for me though):

1. Barack Obama (84%) - I definitely don't line up with him that much.
2. Ron Paul (49%) - I definitely don't line up with him that much.
3. Wayne Allyn (48%) - Who?
4. Gary Johnson (31%) - Who?
5. Newt Gingrich (23%) - Wow. 23%? I figured it would be in the single digits.

* (I removed the people who are not running)

And in dead last at (3%) Michelle Bachmann - SURPRISE!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Eh, what the hell, here's mine (with non-candidates removed)

1. Rick Santorum (97%) he's the surprising result I mentioned
2. Sarah Palin (83%)
3. Newt (82) (puzzling score given the positions assigned)
4. Mitt (81%) (can't figure this score at all, very odd given the positions)
5. Bachman (72%) (hurt by absence of positions for pot & death penalty)
6. Root (57%) damned if I can figure this score out either, but I give him a couple of bonus points for providing answers directly to the test designers

The rest
Pawlenty (54%)
Cain (45%) killed by so many positions unassigned
Paul (42%)
Huntsman (31%)
Biden (28%)
Roemer (28%)
Johnson (25%) Who?
Obama (7%)

Highest scoring non-candidates were Cantor (92%) & Pence (91%), (funny for me since Pence gets an auto-fail for his "stealth amnesty" plan)

[GrantDawg]

Hey, pretty cool.

My top 5* (kind of surprise for me though):

1. Barack Obama (84%) - I definitely don't line up with him that much.
2. Ron Paul (49%) - I definitely don't line up with him that much.
3. Wayne Allyn (48%) - Who?
4. Gary Johnson (31%) - Who?
5. Newt Gingrich (23%) - Wow. 23%? I figured it would be in the single digits.

* (I removed the people who are not running)

And in dead last at (3%) Michelle Bachmann - SURPRISE!


Nice link, Jon. Mine?

Obama 94%
Biden 85%
Paul 45%
Bloomberg 40%
Root (I don't even know who that is) 30%

No surprises really. I would lean Lib. in my anti-war stances and "fair trade" policies, but veer off in the ideas that government is worthless in everything (civil rights ring a bell?). My Bachmann ranking? 0%. Yeah, about dead on.

[sabotai]

1) Obama - 73%
2) Ron Paul - 68%
3) Root - 63%
4) Biden - 58%
5) Bloomberg - 50%

[Coffee Warlord]

I find it amusing how much Obama apparently lines up in theory with Ron Paul's positions. In practice, pretty much never.

[panerd]

Wayne Allan Root is a Libertarian that will probably be their nominee in 2012 unless Paul or Gary Johnson gets the "celebrity" nod like Bob Barr did in 2008.

[GrantDawg]

I find it amusing how much Obama apparently lines up in theory with Ron Paul's positions. In practice, pretty much never.


Honestly? more than Ron Paul would like to admit. Libertarians are much closer in general to Democrats than Republicans (their largest issues are personal liberties and fair trade, that fits in with Dems, not Reps), but they'd cut themselves in mourning to admit it.

[Izulde]

Skipping non-presidental candidates (Biden was #3 at 64%, Hillary Clinton #4 at 61%)

1. Obama - 80%
2. Ron Paul - 68%
3. Root - 48%
4. Huntsman - 29%
5. Gingrich - 28%

Herman Cain was 0%, whoever he is. Bachmann was second last at 8%. :D

As I noted, unsurprising, given my split of issues I'm liberal/conservative on, although I should noted I supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama last election cycle and was not particularly enthusiastic about voting for Obama.

[GrantDawg]

Too clarify why, Republicans want to control your finances, your personal liberties, your trade, and pronounce war on anyone that will not follow through with their personal world view. 80% of the Republican policies war against Libertarians and Dems in the same way. The 20% (dealing with taxes and enforcement of civil liberties) are the only place Dems and Libs disagree. But that 20% convinces Libs they are closer to Republicans than Democrats. Motto's, slogans, and soundbites works.

[BYU 14]

Pretty interesting, here are mine

Biden 62%

Obama 60%

Clinton 55%

Root 54%

Romney 51%

Funny, I like Ron Paul as much as anybody and he came in 8th.

[Coffee Warlord]

Honestly? more than Ron Paul would like to admit. Libertarians are much closer in general to Democrats than Republicans (their largest issues are personal liberties and fair trade, that fits in with Dems, not Reps), but they'd cut themselves in mourning to admit it.

Problem for me personally is the major stance of the Democratic party (high tax welfare state) is pretty much #1 on my shit list as far as policies go, followed closely by civil liberties (who the Dems have zero track record of protecting either - not that the Repubs are any better here).

Which, for what it's worth...(to be fair, I moderately half assed the 'importance' section of things)

Wayne Allyn Root (81%)
Ron Paul (75%)
Newt Gingrich (63%)
Gary Johnson (56%)
Barack Obama (53%)
Joseph Biden (51%)
Rob Portman (50%)
Rick Santorum (48%)

[SackAttack]

Obama - 85%
Paul - 58%

Nobody else over 40%.

[gstelmack]

Too clarify why, Republicans want to control your finances, your personal liberties, your trade, and pronounce war on anyone that will not follow through with their personal world view. 80% of the Republican policies war against Libertarians and Dems in the same way. The 20% (dealing with taxes and enforcement of civil liberties) are the only place Dems and Libs disagree. But that 20% convinces Libs they are closer to Republicans than Democrats. Motto's, slogans, and soundbites works.

Heh. Dems want me to not have any finances for me to control, control trade, and pronounce war just as often (Clinton went to war more frequently than Bush I!). Let's also keep in mind that they have flipped on the Patriot Act when it comes to personal liberties.

The only REAL difference between Dems and Repubs right now is who they want to give my money to after they've taxed it.

[Coffee Warlord]

Heh. And when I actually spent a few moments to really rank the priority section of that test, Santorum gains about 5%, Obama & Biden drop by 10+%, and everyone else pretty much stays where they were.

Yeah, I think it safe to say there's not going to be a candidate I care to vote for in 2012.

[gstelmack]

So apparently Mitt Romney is the winner of the "candidate Greg should vote for and then complain that he's not actually following through on what he said during the campaign" sweepstakes according to this tool.

[kcchief19]

I'm apparently getting more liberal than I think. I have a 94% match with Obama, although he's not my personal favorite on the list.

But my bottom five were Cain, Bachmann, Pence, Santorum and Palin (2%). That's about right.

[fantom1979]

Obama (85%)
Root (31%) ????
Paul (29%)
Romney (25%)
Portman (22%) ????
.....
Palin (11%)
Santorum (10%)
Bachmann (5%)

[gstelmack]

Portman (22%) ????


I'm pretty sure Natalie Portman would rate at least a 22% with most of this board...

:D

[fantom1979]

If its Natalie Portman, then I need to retake the quiz until she is much higher.

[JediKooter]

I'd put Natalie Portman on top of me any time...then I'd be on top of her, rinse, repeat...

[albionmoonlight]

Leaving aside any questions of whether the GOP hard line on the debt ceiling is good policy, I am starting to wonder if it is just bad politics.

It seems that, barring some unanticipated changes, the 2012 campaign/election will take place with unemployment sticking close to 10% and record (or near record) numbers of people saying that the country is on the wrong track.

This seems like a situation as good as the GOP could have hoped for. Indeed, if the economic fundamentals and general funk we are all feeling does not improve, I think that the GOP candidate is likely to win.

So, why trade that situation for a high-stakes game of chicken with the President whose outcome is unknowable? Especially when the President has the bully pulpit? Isn't it President Obama who should be hoping for a game changer right now? Isn't the GOP is a pretty good position if things stay the same?

Basically, right now, the GOP leadership could completely turn the tables--say that the President refuses to raise the debt ceiling without raising your taxes. Further say that--unlike the President--the GOP isn't willing to risk your 401(k)s and Medicare checks just to prove a point. And then, making it painfully clear that YOU are the ones with the gun to your head, vote for "Obama's" debt ceiling increase.

And then make the election about (1) we gave him his debt increase, and, see, things still suck; (2) the only way to stop the spending is to put us back in charge; and (3) I don't want to hear anything about George W. Bush and this economy anymore--the President is the one who signed this debt into law and who was willing to risk the full faith and credit of the United States because he wanted to increase your taxes so much. This is his debt, his unemployment rate, his tax-and-spend policies. If you want it to change, you know what to do this November.

Why isn't that the game plan? What am I missing? How is creating a crisis likely to lead to a better outcome than this?

[panerd]

Leaving aside any questions of whether the GOP hard line on the debt ceiling is good policy, I am starting to wonder if it is just bad politics.

It seems that, barring some unanticipated changes, the 2012 campaign/election will take place with unemployment sticking close to 10% and record (or near record) numbers of people saying that the country is on the wrong track.

This seems like a situation as good as the GOP could have hoped for. Indeed, if the economic fundamentals and general funk we are all feeling does not improve, I think that the GOP candidate is likely to win.

So, why trade that situation for a high-stakes game of chicken with the President whose outcome is unknowable? Especially when the President has the bully pulpit? Isn't it President Obama who should be hoping for a game changer right now? Isn't the GOP is a pretty good position if things stay the same?

Basically, right now, the GOP leadership could completely turn the tables--say that the President refuses to raise the debt ceiling without raising your taxes. Further say that--unlike the President--the GOP isn't willing to risk your 401(k)s and Medicare checks just to prove a point. And then, making it painfully clear that YOU are the ones with the gun to your head, vote for "Obama's" debt ceiling increase.

And then make the election about (1) we gave him his debt increase, and, see, things still suck; (2) the only way to stop the spending is to put us back in charge; and (3) I don't want to hear anything about George W. Bush and this economy anymore--the President is the one who signed this debt into law and who was willing to risk the full faith and credit of the United States because he wanted to increase your taxes so much. This is his debt, his unemployment rate, his tax-and-spend policies. If you want it to change, you know what to do this November.

Why isn't that the game plan? What am I missing? How is creating a crisis likely to lead to a better outcome than this?

Because some people are tired of Washington DC spending more (correct that way more) than it takes in with empty promises that if we just give them one more chance they will change. What am I missing?

[larrymcg421]

Michelle Bachmann's husband on gays:

BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…

And let’s face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase.