2012 Presidential Campaign

[SteveMax58]

Dola,

As funny as as it will sound...I think the next real Republican that has a shot at the presidency will be Jeb Bush.

I know the name alone seems to be a dis-qualifier but the guy is what you (pretty much) want in a conservative candidate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Question for folk: Something I don't have a handle on, because I don't live in that world (and I can't get a good read on from the blogosphere, left or right) - how much will Romney's religion hurt him with the evangilical vote (I'm talking GOP primary and general election here)? I mean, is it really an issue for people, or more of an issue for the talking heads?

I imagine I know at least my fair share of evangelicals (including quite a few that consider me just about a flaming liberal) and I can't say that I've ever heard his religion come up once. Not publicly, not privately, just not period.

If it's an issue with actual voters, damned if I can figure out who they are. (at least during the primary phase)

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I imagine I know at least my fair share of evangelicals (including quite a few that consider me just about a flaming liberal) and I can't say that I've ever heard his religion come up once. Not publicly, not privately, just not period.

If it's an issue with actual voters, damned if I can figure out who they are. (at least during the primary phase)

This is interesting. I didn't think it was an issue, but I keep hearing otherwise. Anecdotal evidence like this is good to hear; just exploring, but is there a potential Wilder effect in play here or do you think this simply doesn't exist?

[JPhillips]

This is from a Gallup poll over the summer.

The Gallup survey of 1,020 adults was conducted June 9-12 and it asks this question, among others:

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be Mormon, would you vote for that person?

A fifth of the respondents said "no," which closely tracks the responses to the same question in annual polling since 1967.


The only significant blip in that survey question occurred four years ago, when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney staged his first presidential campaign. The resistance to a Mormon candidate dipped slightly then, especially after Romney directly addressed his faith in a speech in Texas, which was designed to respond to some evangelicals who don't consider Mormons Christian.

Romney, of course, is running again and is considered the current leader among Republican candidates for the White House.

In a series of surveys in 2006, resistance to Mormon candidates was as high as 53 percent, depending upon the way the question was worded.

In the recent Gallup survey, only atheists, and gays and lesbians, are treated more skeptically than Mormons.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I imagine I know at least my fair share of evangelicals (including quite a few that consider me just about a flaming liberal) and I can't say that I've ever heard his religion come up once. Not publicly, not privately, just not period.

If it's an issue with actual voters, damned if I can figure out who they are. (at least during the primary phase)

Someone begs to differ:

BREAKING: Pastor to GOP: Don’t vote for Romney because he’s Mormon – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

[kcchief19]

Have to admit I've been very busy lately and haven't had a chance to delve into the political news much lately. What exactly has fueled Herman Cain's rise in the last two weeks? He has rarely registered in double digits in any poll, now he's average about 17 percent the last two weeks.

The first specifics I've seen from him is his 9-9-9 plan, which include a 9% income tax and 9% federal sales tax. I nearly choked on that one. That should get him about negative one million percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Makes me suddenly long for Steve Forbes and his flat tax.

[JPhillips]

Full results of Value Voters Summit Presidential Straw Poll:

Ron Paul: 37%
Herman Cain: 23%
Rick Santorum: 16%
Rick Perry: 8%
Michele Bachmann: 8%
Mitt Romney: 4%
Newt Gingrich: 3%
Jon Huntsman: 0%
Undecided: 1%

I have to admit I didn't foresee Perry getting knocked out of the race for being too far to the left, but if he can't even get double digits here I think he's finished. This should be his base.

At this point I think two things are true. One, none of these people can win the nomination. Two, one of these people will win the nomination. Should be an interesting January 2012.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At this point I think two things are true. One, none of these people can win the nomination. Two, one of these people will win the nomination.

Made me LOL

edit to add: Could be that none of them will. Apparently all that would have to happen for them to all lose is for Generic Republican to enter the race

[RainMaker]

I'm all for simplifying the tax code, but Cain's 9/9/9 plan is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Made me LOL

edit to add: Could be that none of them will. Apparently all that would have to happen for them to all lose is for Generic Republican to enter the race

I'm surprised Colbert or someone else hasn't pulled a stunt to rename himself "Generic Republican"

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Made me LOL

edit to add: Could be that none of them will. Apparently all that would have to happen for them to all lose is for Generic Republican to enter the race

Gen. Eric always polls pretty well. There's no doubt that his military experience would make him a pretty formidable competitor if he would just finally pick a party and run.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm all for simplifying the tax code, but Cain's 9/9/9 plan is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

I give it a 0/0/0 percent chance of working out.

[JPhillips]

NH is threatening to have their primary on Dec. 6 if Nevada doesn't move back to at least Jan. 17. Iowa would then move the caucus to some date before NH. We might be only six weeks from GOP voting.

edit: It's insane that IA, NH, NV and SC will basically decide the GOP nominee. I'd love to see both parties strip some of the power from the early voting small states.

[albionmoonlight]

I like that small states get a say before the big states. It means that the people doing the voting get to see the politicians; it is not just about who has enough money to run ads in Florida.

But I totally agree that it should not be the same states every year. A rotating system of small states for the early primaries would work best, I think. There are a lot of proposals for that out there.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Dola,

As funny as as it will sound...I think the next real Republican that has a shot at the presidency will be Jeb Bush.

I know the name alone seems to be a dis-qualifier but the guy is what you (pretty much) want in a conservative candidate.

Having lived in Florida during the time he was Governor, I thought he would make a solid president. Politics aside, the guy comes off as very well prepared and has an air of confidence in handling crises. His handling of the multiple hurricanes in 2004 was great. Almost a 180 from the Katrina debacle.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

NH is threatening to have their primary on Dec. 6 if Nevada doesn't move back to at least Jan. 17. Iowa would then move the caucus to some date before NH. We might be only six weeks from GOP voting.

Oy. I can't wait until we start voting for the next election the week after the previous election ends.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oy. I can't wait until we start voting for the next election the week after the previous election ends.

Why not 2-for-1? Vote for President AND next nominee at the same time!

[larrymcg421]

Latest polls on RCP reflecting Cain's surge:

Primary

Rasmussen: Romney 29, Cain 29, Gingrich 10, Perry 9, Paul 5, Bachmann 4, Santorum 2, Huntsman 2
NBC/Wall Street Journal: Cain 27, Romney 23, Perry 16, Paul 11, Gingrich 8, Bachmann 5, Huntsman 3, Santorum 1

And matchup polls from the last two days:

PPP

Obama 45, Romney 45
Obama 48, Cain 42
Obama 49, Perry 40


Time

Obama 48, Romney 44
Obama 50, Cain 38
Obama 51, Perry 40


NBC/Wall Street Journal

Obama 44, Gen. Eric 42
Obama 46, Romney 44
Obama 49, Cain 38
Obama 51, Perry 39

[albionmoonlight]

PING for a GOP Base voter:

What do y'all have against Romney? He's a flip-flopper, but so are most politicians. He certainly seems willing to toe the Tea Party line as a candidate, despite his past catering to Mass. voters.

And he consistently performs the best in polls against the President.

But, clearly, the base does NOT like this guy.

Is this as simple as "he's too moderate." Or is there some sort of internal-GOP dynamic going on here that I just don't get?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

PING for a GOP Base voter:

What do y'all have against Romney? He's a flip-flopper, but so are most politicians. He certainly seems willing to toe the Tea Party line as a candidate, despite his past catering to Mass. voters.

And he consistently performs the best in polls against the President.

But, clearly, the base does NOT like this guy.

Is this as simple as "he's too moderate." Or is there some sort of internal-GOP dynamic going on here that I just don't get?

I think it's the other word that starts with M-O-.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah. It's that he's a Mormon.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah. It's that he's a Mormon.

Purty much. I mean he's a mormon, they worship jesus christ, but, somehow, he's not christian. That's some great mental gymnastics by the people who are saying that.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think the Mormon thing would be such a big deal if he wasn't seen as being so moderate. I think it's the combination of the two things that just reinforces the fact that he's different from most Republicans.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Purty much. I mean he's a mormon, they worship jesus christ, but, somehow, he's not christian. That's some great mental gymnastics by the people who are saying that.

Well, Mormon's aren't Orthodox Christians. You can say you worship Jesus Christ, but when you deny the Trinity, which every other denomination that refers to itself as Christian accepts, you are putting yourself outside of the box.

That and the fact they have a "New New Testament" in the Book of Maroni.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, Mormon's aren't Orthodox Christians. You can say you worship Jesus Christ, but when you deny the Trinity, which every other denomination that refers to itself as Christian accepts, you are putting yourself outside of the box.

That and the fact they have a "New New Testament" in the Book of Maroni.

If you worship jesus christ, you are a christian. How you (the ubiquitous you) choose to do that, is the only difference. Kind of like the AL has the designated hitter and the NL doesn't. They are still professional baseball leagues even though one league has some different rules than the other.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If you worship jesus christ, you are a christian. How you (the ubiquitous you) choose to do that, is the only difference. Kind of like the AL has the designated hitter and the NL doesn't. They are still professional baseball leagues even though one league has some different rules than the other.

I'm sure the evangelical base would love to hear more about this inclusiveness you speak of.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I'm sure the evangelical base would love to hear more about this inclusiveness you speak of.

Their argument would be nothing more than a 'chevy vs ford' argument. As tightly as they would hold on to their convictions for their faith, they would be wrong. Just like you have sunni and shia muslim sects, they are still muslims because they worship muhammad.

If they want to fight over the pendantics of their particular brand of islam, that's fine. But at the end of the day, they are still all muslims. Same with christians.

[JPhillips]

But the people who would say Mormons aren't Christians or Shias aren't Muslims don't believe in that type of inclusion. They would say that falling outside a more narrow definition means you aren't really following the tenets of that religion closely enough to allow yourself to use the term.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But the people who would say Mormons aren't Christians or Shias aren't Muslims don't believe in that type of inclusion. They would say that falling outside a more narrow definition means you aren't really following the tenets of that religion closely enough to allow yourself to use the term.

And they're free to say that. By definition, if you worship muhammad, regardless of the sect that you were brought up in or chose to join, you're a muslim. Same with someone that believes in and worships jesus. Those people are christians by default, regardless of which sect they belong to. No big deal, it is what it is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

PING for a GOP Base voter:

What do y'all have against Romney? He's a flip-flopper, but so are most politicians. He certainly seems willing to toe the Tea Party line as a candidate, despite his past catering to Mass. voters.

And he consistently performs the best in polls against the President.

But, clearly, the base does NOT like this guy.

Is this as simple as "he's too moderate." Or is there some sort of internal-GOP dynamic going on here that I just don't get?

Romneycare alone is enough to end him as a consideration for a lot of us. His checkered past on social issues (as a "Weld Republican") & subsequent attempts to distance himself from that history makes both his honesty & dedication to social conservatism a subject of legitimate question as well.

I think the final straw on his candidacy for many of us comes from something more subtle, what a writer described as "The Romney Curse", where "his strength lay in his adaptability."

I can think of few traits I desire less in a Presidential candidate than "adaptability" where the word relates to a perceived willingness to compromise with the left. I really want a candidate whose strongest desire would be to see the left abandon their unacceptable positions but, failing that, to destroy them utterly & completely. I get no sense of that with Romney, which combines with the other questions to leave me wholly disinterested in his campaign.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And they're free to say that. By definition, if you worship muhammad, regardless of the sect that you were brought up in or chose to join, you're a muslim. Same with someone that believes in and worships jesus. Those people are christians by default, regardless of which sect they belong to. No big deal, it is what it is.

And you(and me TBH) can think that way, but to others there's more to being Christian than just having Jesus in the mix.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And you(and me TBH) can think that way, but to others there's more to being Christian than just having Jesus in the mix.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I'm not thinking of it that way, just in general is all. Basically what I'm saying is, if it was jesus thompson, anyone that follows or worships him, would be called thompsonites. That's where I was going with it.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Romneycare alone is enough to end him as a consideration for a lot of us. His checkered past on social issues (as a "Weld Republican") & subsequent attempts to distance himself from that history makes both his honesty & dedication to social conservatism a subject of legitimate question as well.

I think the final straw on his candidacy for many of us comes from something more subtle, what a writer described as "The Romney Curse", where "his strength lay in his adaptability."

I can think of few traits I desire less in a Presidential candidate than "adaptability" where the word relates to a perceived willingness to compromise with the left. I really want a candidate whose strongest desire would be to see the left abandon their unacceptable positions but, failing that, to destroy them utterly & completely. I get no sense of that with Romney, which combines with the other questions to leave me wholly disinterested in his campaign.

Yeah yeah, but when Romney is running against Obama, you're going to vote for him, no? Ie, if (when) he wins the nomination, the GOP'ers who think Obama is the second coming of Satan are going to go out and campaign / vote for Romney anyway. You're in Georgia, so Hiter could run on the GOP ticket and beat Obama, but I have to believe that this is grumbling now, with the understanding that you will settle later and back the guy you agree with 20% of the time, as opposed to the guy you agree with 0% of the time.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And they're free to say that. By definition, if you worship muhammad, regardless of the sect that you were brought up in or chose to join, you're a muslim. Same with someone that believes in and worships jesus. Those people are christians by default, regardless of which sect they belong to. No big deal, it is what it is.

Muslims don't worship Muhammad -- eh, forget it, he's rolling.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yeah yeah, but when Romney is running against Obama, you're going to vote for him, no?

No, I won't. I won't be voting for Obama (as I'd have strongly considered if a batshit crazy Paul had gotten the nomination) but I perceive barely a dime's worth of meaningful difference in the two, as I believe Romney is probably one of the ten biggest political phonies of my lifetime. I wouldn't trust Romney if he told me the sky was blue, not without checking for myself at least.

An ineffective Obama - and let's face it, he's been that as much as anything a lot of the time - is not considerably worse than a pseudo-conservative, especially if Congress can manage to contain the fencepost-turtle-in-chief. Both are intolerable, at some point it becomes an argument along the lines of "He's infinitely unacceptable? Oh yeah, well the other guy is infinitely unacceptable times two".

he wins the nomination, the GOP'ers who think Obama is the second coming of Satan are going to go out and campaign / vote for Romney anyway.

I can't speak to that, or at least I wasn't doing so here. I'm talking about my own single (virtually meaningless) vote. There's still days I question whether voting for McCain was better than abstaining, I can't see me putting myself through that soul-searching again, certainly at least not as long as I think there's a good chance of Congress being able to block the worst of Obama's evil intentions.

as opposed to the guy you agree with 0% of the time.

Last time I checked Gitmo was still open. As long as that's the case then he fucks up his zero.

[Crapshoot]

Interesting. The GOP better hope that people like you are all talk, no action, because it looks like Romney is going to be the nominee.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If you worship jesus christ, you are a christian. How you (the ubiquitous you) choose to do that, is the only difference. Kind of like the AL has the designated hitter and the NL doesn't. They are still professional baseball leagues even though one league has some different rules than the other.

Not really. There are some doctrinal truths you kind of have to accept before being a Christian - it means something other than just worshiping Jesus Christ. Belief in the Trinity is a must, for one. And I think most on this site would consider me a fairly liberal Christian.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: why Romney has problems getting over the hump, here's a snippet that goes to that last bit I was talking about just up the thread

My Way News - GOP isn't sold on Romney, seeking other options
Generally, Republicans say that Romney has more experience and a better chance to beat Obama next fall than anyone else in the field. But those on the party's right flank doubt whether he - more so than other candidates - shares their values.

Conservatives in the potential Republican electorate were deeply divided on that question in a CBS News/New York Times poll early this month. Only 12 percent chose Romney, while nearly half picked Cain (20 percent), Bachmann (18 percent) or Perry (11 percent).

[SirFozzie]

That's pretty much the case. The way it goes is, someone is the Republican flavor of the month (trump, bachmann, perry, now Cain),and all the right wing of the right wingers go rushing over saying "Anybody but Romney".

Then as the allure fades, everyone starts saying "There has to be someone better than this", and latches on to the next flavor.. but none of them are going to Mitt.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Romneycare alone is enough to end him as a consideration for a lot of us. His checkered past on social issues (as a "Weld Republican") & subsequent attempts to distance himself from that history makes both his honesty & dedication to social conservatism a subject of legitimate question as well.

I think the final straw on his candidacy for many of us comes from something more subtle, what a writer described as "The Romney Curse", where "his strength lay in his adaptability."

I can think of few traits I desire less in a Presidential candidate than "adaptability" where the word relates to a perceived willingness to compromise with the left. I really want a candidate whose strongest desire would be to see the left abandon their unacceptable positions but, failing that, to destroy them utterly & completely. I get no sense of that with Romney, which combines with the other questions to leave me wholly disinterested in his campaign.

Thanks. That articulates it pretty well.

I also think that the "Romney has the best chance of beating the President" stuff is a bit overdone. Appealing to moderates is one thing. But base motivation is also huge--especially for the GOP.

I'm not saying that Romney has no chance to beat the President. With 10% unemployment, anyone has a chance to beat the President. Which is probably why the base is very reluctant to pick Romney. If ever there was an election to go with a more base-appealing candidate, this seems like it would be it. The problem is that the base-appealing candidates can't get out of their own way.

It makes we wonder if guys like Hucakabee or Jindal regret their decision not to run.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Thanks. That articulates it pretty well.

I'm glad, that's what I was shooting for. It seemed like a legitimate question that deserved a fair attempt at an answer.

It makes we wonder if guys like Hucakabee or Jindal regret their decision not to run.

I suspect not. Truth is, I don't see either of them doing more than splitting the primary vote even further.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not really. There are some doctrinal truths you kind of have to accept before being a Christian - it means something other than just worshiping Jesus Christ. Belief in the Trinity is a must, for one. And I think most on this site would consider me a fairly liberal Christian.

I beg to differ. From wikipedia:

The term "Christian" is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[3] It is also used as a label to identify people who associate with the cultural aspects of Christianity, irrespective of personal religious beliefs or practices.[4]

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Muslims don't worship Muhammad -- eh, forget it, he's rolling.

They don't? Do tell.

[Passacaglia]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_Muhammad

Muslims do not worship Muhammad, due to the belief in the Oneness of God as stated in the Shahada. In addition, Muslims see him as a human being and not as a God or angel.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_Muhammad

Well you learn something new every day.

[larrymcg421]

Some state polls for the GOP primary

Iowa

PPP: Cain 30, Romney 22, Paul 10, Perry 9, Bachmann 8, Gingrich 8, Santorum 5, Huntsman 1

New Hampshire

Magellan: Romney 41, Cain 20, Paul 10, Huntsman 6, Gingrich 6, Bachmann 4, Perry 2, Santorum 2

Louisiana

Clarus: Perry 23, Cain 21, Romney 17, Gingrich 4, Paul 4, Bachmann 3, Roemer 3, Huntsman 1

New Jersey

Quinnipiac: Romney 28, Cain 17, Paul 11, Perry 7, Gingrich 5, Bachmann 4, Huntsman 2, Santorum 1

[Coffee Warlord]

Ron Paul's budget summary. Whee.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im...re.america.pdf

At least it's most likely slightly less absurd than 9/9/9.

In other news, I've decided whoever gets the GOP nomination needs to put Newt as his running mate, for one reason and one reason alone: The VP debates between Newt and Biden would be comedy gold.

[JPhillips]

I don't agree with Paul's vision for America, but at a quick glance it looks like his numbers add up. He's honest about what cuts would have to be made if taxation was at the level he sees as appropriate. He isn't relying on magic tax gnomes like the rest of the GOP field.

[Coffee Warlord]

I'm certainly no economist, but it's looking like he's making some pretty big assumptions in his 'Misc Savings' category - I'm quite curious how that 20 billion in federal land sales is gonna work in 2015, and what precisely 20+ billion of 'federal program payment errors reform' actually covers.

I've made it quite clear in the past I'm on board with a lot of his program cuts, but I'm still betting there's more than a little of the usual magic hand waving going on from the revenue/savings side.