2012 Presidential Campaign

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

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

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

ugh...what a hypocrite


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

Color me not shocked.

[sabotai]

I went to the source....

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

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

I think someone's been had.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I went to the source....



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

I think someone's been had.

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

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

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Surtt

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

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

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

Are you serious?

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

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Surtt

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

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

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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

[kcchief19]

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've had a unique opportunity to spend some time with Pawlenty and I've seen Cain speak. If our neighborhood homeowner's association needed a president, Pawlenty's my guy. He reminds me of the guy next door. But I don't want my next door neighbor sending troops to Afghanistan or putting people on the Supreme Court.

The more I see of Cain, the more I'm convinced he will say anything to be the "tea party" candidate, which is amazing because he was anything but a tea party kind of guy until about 18 months ago. I think he's trying to run the 2008 McCain campaign.

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.

If he addressed that problem, he could move on to his other problems, among which are that he's bat-shit crazy. I'm not sure the American people are that dumb -- they hear Paul talking about going to a free market and creating 15 percent economic growth with no inflation and they realize this guy has no clue what he's talking about.

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

[QuikSand]

brilliant post right there

[stevew]

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics

[panerd]

Originally Posted by stevew

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by stevew

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics

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

[albionmoonlight]

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

And I am impressed.

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

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

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

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

[JediKooter]

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

The piece on Bachmann in Rolling Stone was brutal.

Michele Bachmann's Holy War | Rolling Stone Politics

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

I won't hold it against you.

[Thomkal]

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

[JediKooter]

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

[lungs]

Bachmann wants to channel the spirit of Waterloo, IA's own John Wayne...... Gacy

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

[JediKooter]

I see her streak of errors in geography continue.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by stevew

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

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

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

[larrymcg421]

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

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

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

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

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

[RainMaker]

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

[JediKooter]

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

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

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

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

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by lungs

Bachmann wants to channel the spirit of Waterloo, IA's own John Wayne...... Gacy

I like the update from her handlers ... I was curious which tact they would take. Would it be to come up with some arcane connection between The Duke and Waterloo? That was the winner -- his parents lived there before he was born.

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

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JediKooter]

Straight from the Team Bachmann playbook.

[kcchief19]

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

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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

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

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

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

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

Fox host apologizes for Bachmann 'flake' question *| accessAtlanta

[SackAttack]

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

[stevew]

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

That actually makes more sense than what I said.

EDIT: And stevew as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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

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

[larrymcg421]

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

According to the State Dept (of all places)

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

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


I stumbled across that as source material listed for this link (and I checked, the State Dept stuff is indeed straight from them).
HowStuffWorks "Delegates"

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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