2012 Presidential Campaign

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/...ly-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]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/...ly-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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!!!]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

[JediKooter]

Wait, there's a problem in the Gingrich camp? Nooooooooo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

[albionmoonlight]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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

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? 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]

Originally Posted by 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





Monetary policy is an obscure topic for a presidential debate? 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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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/263...ompted-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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

One would certainly hope.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.