2012 Presidential Campaign

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I suspect it's nothing more than a minor blip on the radar but his sudden rise (however brief & inconsequential) does remind me that he finished a surprising first as the closest match to me in one of those quizzes a few months ago.

Took another one while posting this, sure enough, same thing happened again.

Thing is, it's hard for me to completely trust the 98% match score Santorum gets when it gave me a 97% for Newt. Surely blowing the immigration thing should have cost him more than 3%.

C'mon, Jon- there's a ton of issues that go into the Presidency and you seem to drop candidates after they disagree with you on just one of them. It's just not realistic to have a candidate agree with you on 100% of issues. And I'm sure that numbers like 97 and 98 percent are not how much they agree with you but how much they agree with you when normalized with other candidates. You may only agree with Santorum 25% of the time and Newt 24% of the time but when you agree with Paul 2% of the time, Perry 1% of the time, etc- Santorum and Newt look good by comparison.

SI

[Ben E Lou]

There was some discussion about my church earlier in this thread, and it has come up again on a national stage. CNN did a piece on "South Carolina Evangelicals" last night and they came, of all places, to our church. I strongly suspect that we do not represent "South Carolina Evangelicals" very well, at least when it comes to politics. But anyway, here it is:

http://ht.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big/pol...ipad.qtref.mov

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

C'mon, Jon- there's a ton of issues that go into the Presidency and you seem to drop candidates after they disagree with you on just one of them. It's just not realistic to have a candidate agree with you on 100% of issues. And I'm sure that numbers like 97 and 98 percent are not how much they agree with you but how much they agree with you when normalized with other candidates. You may only agree with Santorum 25% of the time and Newt 24% of the time but when you agree with Paul 2% of the time, Perry 1% of the time, etc- Santorum and Newt look good by comparison.
SI

There's certainly little hope for complete agreement, but there's some issues that you simply can't be wrong about and me be able to pull the lever next to your name. For Newt it's amnesty, for Romney it's his actions concerning health care (as well as a general but thorough distrust of anything that comes out of his mouth).

I'm not tossing either of them aside based on other disagreements, such as Romney's vote for the Brady Bill or Newt's take on the prison system. My rejection of them is pretty specific, there's simply some things I can't abide and both have crossed that line (Newt even more significantly than Mitt actually).

As for the results of the quiz, they don't seem to be overly indexed / highly weighted to the relationship with one another. A bigger failing IMO would be to not apply stronger weights to certain issues vs others than the three-tier system they use.

[Swaggs]

I wonder what happens if we see an Obama vs Romney vs Paul general election...

[ISiddiqui]

Doubtful Paul runs as an independent. If anything to prevent his son Rand's political career in the Republican Party from dying.

[Young Drachma]

No way Paul runs a 3rd party campaign. He's an ideologue and has no problems playing ball with the party at the end of the day. He's been with them for decades now.

[DaddyTorgo]

KimJongNumberUn KimJongNumberUn



In N. Korea we send delusional people to labor camps. It seems cruel to let them run for President. #NHPrimary

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

No way Paul runs a 3rd party campaign. He's an ideologue and has no problems playing ball with the party at the end of the day. He's been with them for decades now.

On one hand there is his son Rand and he seems to be playing a little nicer with Romney lately. On the other he retired from Congress at the end of this term and actually has a working history with the Libertarians. I could see a third party run for the exact reasons you say he won't (i.e. to influence both parties policy in the general election)

[DaddyTorgo]

• MO-Gov: On his campaign website, Republican Dave Spence, the plastics guru running for governor, says he "earned a degree in Economics" from the University of Missouri. That may be true — but it is not entirely accurate.

According to the university, Spence's degree is not in economics. It is in home economics.

Man oh man - this is HILARIOUS!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Man oh man - this is HILARIOUS!!!

HEY! There has to be someplace where a politician can learn how to sew quilts! It might as well be in our state!

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by panerd

On one hand there is his son Rand and he seems to be playing a little nicer with Romney lately. On the other he retired from Congress at the end of this term and actually has a working history with the Libertarians. I could see a third party run for the exact reasons you say he won't (i.e. to influence both parties policy in the general election)

GOP would do everything their power to prevent Paul from going 3rd party, especially with the increased traction he's getting this year in the early primaries. You'd essentially guarantee Obama re-election if Paul ran as a libertarian candidate.

Hell, I could see Paul using that as leverage to get something or other done.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Man oh man - this is HILARIOUS!!!

You can get a degree in home ec?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

On one hand there is his son Rand and he seems to be playing a little nicer with Romney lately. On the other he retired from Congress at the end of this term and actually has a working history with the Libertarians. I could see a third party run for the exact reasons you say he won't (i.e. to influence both parties policy in the general election)

You bring up his son - how much traction would Rand get in the party after 2012 if his dad turns out to be the Nader of the right?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You bring up his son - how much traction would Rand get in the party after 2012 if his dad turns out to be the Nader of the right?

I agree. That's where I was saying he was weighing the two alternatives. Now if Rand is to be believed he is a huge supporter of term limits so maybe he wouldn't care what his dad does since he doesn't care about running again for office. He doesn't seem to be a favorite of the neocon portion of the party as it is anyways.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

GOP would do everything their power to prevent Paul from going 3rd party, especially with the increased traction he's getting this year in the early primaries. You'd essentially guarantee Obama re-election if Paul ran as a libertarian candidate.

Hell, I could see Paul using that as leverage to get something or other done.

I somewhat agree. I think Paul has some support from the anti-war/anti-plutocracy left as well. So honestly he probably steals votes from both parties somewhat equally. But the narrative is that it will hurt Republicans more so maybe he influences some major policy issues or gets a cabinet position in one of the areas that Romney agrees with him on or maybe he runs as a VP. (Though the last one seems highly doubtful from either candidate's perspective.

I do think that he is so different from both parties on foreign policy and central banking that he might not care what either party thinks and run 3rd party. At that point does an unusual death end the movement or give it a huge surge of momentum? (Rand Paul 2016? )

[JPhillips]

What little polling has been done shows Paul taking much more from the GOP than Dems in a three way race.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You can get a degree in home ec?

SI

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by panerd

I somewhat agree. I think Paul has some support from the anti-war/anti-plutocracy left as well. So honestly he probably steals votes from both parties somewhat equally. But the narrative is that it will hurt Republicans more so maybe he influences some major policy issues or gets a cabinet position in one of the areas that Romney agrees with him on or maybe he runs as a VP. (Though the last one seems highly doubtful from either candidate's perspective.

I do think that he is so different from both parties on foreign policy and central banking that he might not care what either party thinks and run 3rd party. At that point does an unusual death end the movement or give it a huge surge of momentum? (Rand Paul 2016? )

It is strange how Paul has created ads attacking Gingrich and Santorum but not Romney. He also defended Romney from Gingrich and Perry's attacks about his business. Maybe he just wants to get rid of the others and then go after Romney but it seems like multiple candidates splitting the establishment vote is more beneficial to him.

Ron Paul would never be a VP candidate. He's too old and it would turn off the base. What about Rand Paul? Throw some meat to the Paul supporters and tea party. Ron would speak at the convention and Rand would use the VP bid to continue his father's message. Not sure Rand and Romney are close enough on the issues though, especially foreign policy.

[ISiddiqui]

I think the Ron Paul supporters would be disgusted with Rand for "selling out".

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think the Ron Paul supporters would be disgusted with Rand for "selling out".

I don't know that would be quite the accomplishment and influence in such a short time. I think my bigger problem is that Rand has absolutely zero experience to be a "heartbeat away" from the presidency. It's hard to complain about Obama and Palin's lack of experience and then support Paul just because he is "one of our guys".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Two articles that confirm that we're better off having these two idiots out of the running for president.

Perry Drops Out Of Republican Presidential Race, Endorses Gingrich | Fox News

Gingrich Reportedly Sought 'open Marriage,' Ex-wife Claims | Fox News

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Gingrich Reportedly Sought 'open Marriage,' Ex-wife Claims | Fox News

Well, he just got RendeR's vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, he just got RendeR's vote.

NTTAWWT

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Newt starting to pull in SC.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, he just got RendeR's vote.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

NTTAWWT

I think you mean HARRRRR!

[Swaggs]

All of a sudden, after looking like it was going to be a Romney runaway, this has the makings of what could become a very interesting primary.

With Perry dropping out and endorsing Gingrich, Palin endorsing Gingrich, and Newt seeming to surge this week, South Carolina could go for Newt (after looking like Romney might win by double digits earlier in the week. And Iowa's GOP chairman is now saying that Santorum won Iowa (by either 34 or 69 votes).

It will be interesting to see if Gingrich and Santorum can forge an alliance. If they can, the dynamic between (presumably) Gingrich, Romney, and Paul will be very interesting.

[stevew]

The failure of the Perry campaign is pretty amazing. I assumed he would easily run away with this thing. His credentials were pretty solid, and he seemed to be in line with the conservative wing of the party. Now i wonder how the people of Texas have voted this moron in 3 times.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by stevew

The failure of the Perry campaign is pretty amazing. I assumed he would easily run away with this thing. His credentials were pretty solid, and he seemed to be in line with the conservative wing of the party. Now i wonder how the people of Texas have voted this moron in 3 times.

There are no Democratic politicians in Texas.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Perry Drops Out Of Republican Presidential Race, Endorses Gingrich | Fox News

...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

There are no Democratic politicians in Texas.

I assume this was tongue in cheek but since I remembered Ann Richards being a Democrat I decided to research and found of the past 47 governors, 39 were Democrats.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by stevew

The failure of the Perry campaign is pretty amazing. I assumed he would easily run away with this thing. His credentials were pretty solid, and he seemed to be in line with the conservative wing of the party. Now i wonder how the people of Texas have voted this moron in 3 times.

Summed up in two words:

It's Texas.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by panerd

I assume this was tongue in cheek but since I remembered Ann Richards being a Democrat I decided to research and found of the past 47 governors, 39 were Democrats.

Aren't past Southern Democrats today's Southern Republicans?

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by panerd

I assume this was tongue in cheek but since I remembered Ann Richards being a Democrat I decided to research and found of the past 47 governors, 39 were Democrats.

Just by way of clarification, many of those Democrats would be Republicans today, as Perry himself was a Democrat back in the '80s.

The last time I went to vote, out of about thirty-five to forty candidates on the ballot, there were about five with Democratic affiliation. The party can scare up people to run for governor or senator, and the big cities can usually find someone moderate to run as a Democrat for the House, but in about 70% of county and lower-ballot elections, there are two kinds of candidates: Republican, and Independents who couldn't get the backing of the Republican party.

The Dems' inability to field a credible slate of candidates in downballot positions means their farm system is worse than the White Sox. Consequently, over the years Texas pols have rarely had to jockey the populace for votes - it's the primaries and the machine that is the major crucible of candidates. A solid campaign manager was able to program around that in GWB's case, but Perry's support staff turned out to be less capable.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by lungs

Aren't past Southern Democrats today's Southern Republicans?

Pretty much. There was a good line in a Weekly Standard article about the 3 parties in South Carolina - the Democratic party, the Republican party, and the "Good Ol Boy" party, which was bigger than both of them.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Just by way of clarification, many of those Democrats would be Republicans today, as Perry himself was a Democrat back in the '80s.

The last time I went to vote, out of about thirty-five to forty candidates on the ballot, there were about five with Democratic affiliation. The party can scare up people to run for governor or senator, and the big cities can usually find someone moderate to run as a Democrat for the House, but in about 70% of county and lower-ballot elections, there are two kinds of candidates: Republican, and Independents who couldn't get the backing of the Republican party.

The Dems' inability to field a credible slate of candidates in downballot positions means their farm system is worse than the White Sox. Consequently, over the years Texas pols have rarely had to jockey the populace for votes - it's the primaries and the machine that is the major crucible of candidates. A solid campaign manager was able to program around that in GWB's case, but Perry's support staff turned out to be less capable.

Yup - its the old solid south, when people (I think JIMGA referred to his parents as such) were "yellow dog" democrats; ie, you'd vote for a yellow dog if it was running on the Democratic ticket. It still remains, its just flipped to the GOP, even if there are parts of it where socially conservative Southern Democrats still do well (ie, West Virginia, where the legislature is one of the most Democratic in the nation even while Obama lost it by a few points; or more traditionally Southern, a state like Arkansas, where the Dems still control most of the handles of power). Its one of the fascinating things to me - Southern politics - and how to do this day, there are plenty of people who vote a split ticket (Democrat locally, Republican nationally) even if that trend is diminishing.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

NTTAWWT

please explain...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

please explain...

Urban Dictionary: NTTAWWT

[CrimsonFox]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yup - its the old solid south, when people (I think JIMGA referred to his parents as such) were "yellow dog" democrats; ie, you'd vote for a yellow dog if it was running on the Democratic ticket.

Grandparents at the very least, thankfully my parents finally seem to have come around.

For those who aren't familiar with the term (and IIRC that was the case here when that came up), it's related to the origin of the new phrase "Blue Dog" although it has different connotations than the original. (members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left)

[Coffee Warlord]

Haven't watched one of these debates in awhile. Heh. Same old shit.

Did find it amusing they were gonna skip Ron Paul, and crowd bitched enough to let the man speak.

[JPhillips]

When Newt's on he just connects far better to the GOP base than Romney. His answer to the open marriage question was great.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sigh. I was gonna respond to a discussion elsewhere with a pithy quote about the debate(s), hesitated when I recalled a more complete version of the quote.
Pondered a bit, realized that I was still okay with the line.

"... it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Given the sorry state of the field, that sums it up as well as anything I can think of.

[miked]

I thought the argument of who was more pro-life was profound. Apparently, in order to be pro-life, you need to explicitly write in to every bill that money can't be used for abortions, otherwise you should know the courts will allow it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sigh. I was gonna respond to a discussion elsewhere with a pithy quote about the debate(s), hesitated when I recalled a more complete version of the quote.
Pondered a bit, realized that I was still okay with the line.

"... it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Given the sorry state of the field, that sums it up as well as anything I can think of.

Can Bill Clinton still say "Out, damned spot! out, I say!"?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by miked

I thought the argument of who was more pro-life was profound. Apparently, in order to be pro-life, you need to explicitly write in to every bill that money can't be used for abortions, otherwise you should know the courts will allow it.

That's right, kids. Student aid bills need it written in because someone might use FAFSA money on an abortion.

SI

[larrymcg421]

I thought Santorum hit both Gingrich and Romney pretty good on health care.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sigh. I was gonna respond to a discussion elsewhere with a pithy quote about the debate(s), hesitated when I recalled a more complete version of the quote.
Pondered a bit, realized that I was still okay with the line.

"... it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Given the sorry state of the field, that sums it up as well as anything I can think of.

I think that Jindal, Huckabee, Christie, et al. have to be happy right now with their decision to sit this out and not be tainted with the meh of this campaign.

Of course, if the GOP nominee wins the White House (which is still a ~50-50 proposition on InTrade), then sitting this out looks kind of dumb.

But if President Obama wins re-election in this economy, then it would seem that having had as little to do with 2012 as possible will be a strong starting point for any GOP 2016 hopeful.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

it would seem that having had as little to do with 2012 as possible will be a strong starting point for any GOP 2016 hopeful.

You'd think anyone would be smart enough to have had the same thought about 2008, but ... well, that's giving voters waaaaaay too much credit. The rush to mediocrity (or much much worse) continues relatively unabated.

[Crapshoot]

So, has there ever been a GOP primary where different candidates have won Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina? I believe the answer is no.