2012 Presidential Campaign

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

Originally Posted by Jon

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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%)

Spoiler

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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%)

Spoiler

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]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

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%.

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Portman (22%) ????

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.