Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ghdi

Lets talk 2012.

390 posts in this topic

I think Romney kinda stuck it to Newt last night.

As a Liberal there are +'s to both Newt and Romney.

Newt: In a general election, I think Obama would beat him. Newt is just a personally unlikeable guy with something like a 26% rating in that category; and that’s something people in the middle (swing voters) of two clearly polar opposite parties vote on. The Obama's are a portrait of the model American family.

In addition it seems like the Rep. Establishment really want Newt to lose. Drudge especially is just crucifying the guy 6 different ways a day.

Romney: I think he has a better shot at beating Obama; but I also feel a lot of people will stay home b/c of the Mormon thing. If he has a really strong VP like Christie he could edge out Obama but who knows. Obama is a stronger debater than him so that might determine things as well.

If Romney does win I don't think it will be a terrible thing because he really will say anything to get elected. I think he's a smart guy who won't let his base make him do anything stupid.

Romney won't touch abortion, he was for gay marriage, he believes in global warming, and has said evolution should be taught in science, and creationism in philosophy classes. All great in my book!

I think Romney will try to run the country in a way that would make companies like Bain thrive. His experience is taking failing companies and turninh a profit on them by any means possible… which sometimes destroys & sometimes creats job…who knows the net effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way. I detest that I might have to check off Romney's name in November.

Say what you will about Gingrich's likability (moderates and liberals certainly don't like him), but he would do a much better job drawing a line in the sand, with him on one side and Obama on the other.

There is no perfect candidate, but Gingrich is a better conservative and he taps into the populist anger of the Tea Party much better than Romney.

Romney is seen as a get-along Republican, and conservatives certainly have had enough of GOPers who are more interested in controlling massive government than about reducing massive government. In short, Romney isn't trusted to do what conservatives want him to do.

Gingrich isn't perfect, but he's a much better conservative, and the endorsements from Sarah Palin and Herman Cain say a lot.

Edited by Jerrydevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the endorsements from Sarah Palin and Herman Cain say a lot.

They speak volumes. I will be voting for whoever opposes Gingrich and I'm a republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They speak volumes. I will be voting for whoever opposes Gingrich and I'm a republican.

Oh come on, don't you want your moonbase in 2020? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided I'm either voting for Gary Johnson or Obama (in any event, my vote won't matter since I live in New York). I hate Gingrich. The guy is a snake. Completely unprincipled. Career politician. Hasn't done anything in the real world, except to parlay his political influence when he was out of Congress. By all accounts, he was a crappy professor and his "scholarly works" are total garbage. He got paid an inordinate amount of money by Freddie Mac for doing... well who knows.

Sure Obama is very similar in that regard, i.e. by all accounts he hasn't made a buck in the real world despite what was really a privileged upbringing. But at least he's not a total bullsh*tter in that regard, or at least not nearly as much as Newt.

I would pick Obama over Romney mainly because I really don't see much of a difference between the two. Might as well go with the guy who has more experience, and has done some good things, like getting Bin Laden, getting out of Iraq at the right time and in the right way (i.e. using Iraqi intrasigience as the justification and not making it look like we have our tail between our legs), and the stepped up drone warfare that, by all accounts, is destroying al Qaeda leadership.

Sure a lot of things suck about Obama (at least from my point of view). Democrats in general are awful on judges (most Democratic nominees are total slaves to the plaintiffs' bar), complete runaway spending, among other things. Again though, Romney hasn't shown anything that makes me think he'll be any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They speak volumes. I will be voting for whoever opposes Gingrich and I'm a republican.

Touche! I respect the Gingrich hate. He's not a likable guy, and he's done some absolutely mind-boggling things, like the green ad with Nancy Pelosi and slamming Paul Ryan's plan to revamp Medicare.

I also realize that the Obama-Gingrich matchup may not be a great one because independents don't like the guy. They don't like Obama either, though.

He is a fighter, and the Republicans need one, IMO. Romney is the next McCain, or that's what he appears to be, anyway. I hope we see more pushback against Romney like we saw in South Carolina, but I'm not holding my breath.

Daniel, your post is fair but doesn't the guy deserve some credit for the Contract with America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sort of stuck. I'm sort of the opposite of Daniel on this one. I'd sort of like to vote for Romney to honor my Republican roots. But I hate to vote for the ineffectual. But Obama has proven to be a master of ineffectual and I do not give him credit for the things Daniel cites.

:evilcry:

I wish Bush senior were running. Just someone with a clue, a work ethic, integrity and the trust of insiders so he can accomplish something.

No one in Washington TRUSTS anyone else. I think the allure of Gingrich is at least he's played the game. He has an aura of old school but he's not. The majority in Washington doesn't have the common good of the country in the core of their political being. It's all the politics of "me." No one sucks it up. Obama is pretending - but he carries very little weight. No one will allow anyone to have any significant authority and no one is making any selfless choice.

:evilcry:

and the people can't demand it because we have no CHOICE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one in Washington TRUSTS anyone else.

I think this is good ... well, it can be, anyway. Ask yourself this: When politicians "trust" each other, what has been the result? It hasn't been a decrease in spending or an increase in individual freedom.

Honor your Republican roots ... back the Tea Party. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche! I respect the Gingrich hate. He's not a likable guy, and he's done some absolutely mind-boggling things, like the green ad with Nancy Pelosi and slamming Paul Ryan's plan to revamp Medicare.

I also realize that the Obama-Gingrich matchup may not be a great one because independents don't like the guy. They don't like Obama either, though.

He is a fighter, and the Republicans need one, IMO. Romney is the next McCain, or that's what he appears to be, anyway. I hope we see more pushback against Romney like we saw in South Carolina, but I'm not holding my breath.

Daniel, your post is fair but doesn't the guy deserve some credit for the Contract with America?

I do give credit to the Gingrich Republican Congress for some things. One thing that comes to mind is legislation designed to prevent securities strike suits by plaintiffs' attorneys, which have proven to be effective. How much that was a product of Gingrich specifically I don't know.

The Contract with America was a feel good piece of rhetoric. Moreover, I don't agree with some of the stuff that was in it, such as vastly expanded federal police powers and draconian sentences or the balanced budget amendment and tax limitation amendment.

To paraphrase Churchill, Gingrich is a bull that carries around his own China shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another win for "Mr. Inevitable" last night. Why does anybody think this is still a race?

Because we've only had four primaries. Don't you want the process to play out? He's the favorite, yes. He still has to get the votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we've only had four primaries. Don't you want the process to play out? He's the favorite, yes. He still has to get the votes.

The "process" seems fairly set.

Step 1: Romney leads

Step 2: Some minor event leads to one of the challengers surging way ahead of him

Step 3: The new leader's momentum dissipates faster than someone in a life vest hitting water

Step 4: Republican primary voters say, "Yeah, I guess Romney was the guy all along," and pull the lever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "process" seems fairly set.

Step 1: Romney leads

Step 2: Some minor event leads to one of the challengers surging way ahead of him

Step 3: The new leader's momentum dissipates faster than someone in a life vest hitting water

Step 4: Republican primary voters say, "Yeah, I guess Romney was the guy all along," and pull the lever

Still gotta let it play out. Florida was a big win for Romney, but there's been a lot of twists and turns already. I'm not willing to say it's "inevitable" yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'd add to Jerry's thought -- the process benefits not only the voter but it does benefit the party. It shapes and hones the battle plan for the actual election to a certain extent. I'm disillusioned with our system - but let it at least pay it's rightful lipservice. A mock system always has the chance of turning real

and Jerry tea bagging party is not Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it isn't over yet but Romney looks like he will be the one barring some unseen event or revelation.

Assuming things continue like they are, then you are looking to who does Mitt choose as running mate? Will he cater to the extremes and pick a nut like Rubio or find someone else more towards the middle. Can I still vote for Mickey Mouse? Hell, Yosemite Sam would do a better job than what are choices might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it isn't over yet but Romney looks like he will be the one barring some unseen event or revelation.

Assuming things continue like they are, then you are looking to who does Mitt choose as running mate? Will he cater to the extremes and pick a nut like Rubio or find someone else more towards the middle. Can I still vote for Mickey Mouse? Hell, Yosemite Sam would do a better job than what are choices might be.

Rubio is a nut? Why do you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it isn't over yet but Romney looks like he will be the one barring some unseen event or revelation.

Assuming things continue like they are, then you are looking to who does Mitt choose as running mate? Will he cater to the extremes and pick a nut like Rubio or find someone else more towards the middle. Can I still vote for Mickey Mouse? Hell, Yosemite Sam would do a better job than what are choices might be.

A VP selection is perhaps the most overrated event in the American political landscape. It often has an immediate effect at the polls, but fades pretty quickly. Think about it this way, when has a President ever won or lost an election because of their running mate? You can take who was arguably the most polarizing VP candidate ever, Sarah Palin. McCain was losing that election regardless. Or even Dan Quayle. Thought of as a complete bumbling idiot (which he actually isn't, but that's another story), got throttled in debates, yet Bush won easily in 88. His loss in '92 had virtually nothing to do with Quayle, or at the very least, he was gonna lose no matter who else was on the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A VP selection is perhaps the most overrated event in the American political landscape. It often has an immediate effect at the polls, but fades pretty quickly. Think about it this way, when has a President ever won or lost an election because of their running mate? You can take who was arguably the most polarizing VP candidate ever, Sarah Palin. McCain was losing that election regardless. Or even Dan Quayle. Thought of as a complete bumbling idiot (which he actually isn't, but that's another story), got throttled in debates, yet Bush won easily in 88. His loss in '92 had virtually nothing to do with Quayle, or at the very least, he was gonna lose no matter who else was on the ticket.

I think that election would have been closer if he didn't pick Palin. In fact up until that point I was still considering McCain and then he jumped off the deep end of the pandering pool. It might be overrated to some extent but I think it does have an effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it isn't over yet but Romney looks like he will be the one barring some unseen event or revelation.

Assuming things continue like they are, then you are looking to who does Mitt choose as running mate? Will he cater to the extremes and pick a nut like Rubio or find someone else more towards the middle. Can I still vote for Mickey Mouse? Hell, Yosemite Sam would do a better job than what are choices might be.

I know a lot of people are saying he will try to shore up his "conservative credentials" with a more right wing republican VP but I'm not so sure. Let's face it republicans are going to try and vote out Obama if he was running against a shoe so I don't think he needs more help rallying up that wing. I think it would be most helpful for him in the general election to pick another moderate and try to argue for a "center-right" track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that election would have been closer if he didn't pick Palin. In fact up until that point I was still considering McCain and then he jumped off the deep end of the pandering pool. It might be overrated to some extent but I think it does have an effect.

It might have been a factor, but conservatives' strong dislike for John McCain might have been, too. I wonder how many conservatives just stayed home in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might have been a factor, but conservatives' strong dislike for John McCain might have been, too. I wonder how many conservatives just stayed home in 2008.

I've always wondered how this really affects people. On the one hand it makes sense: if you don't like anybody, then you don't vote for anybody. But then it also doesn't. Before 2008 there was plenty of talk by conservative pundits about how liberal Obama was, how he would be the most liberal person ever elected. Even if you viewed McCain as straight down the middle, how could that not get you anxious if you're a conservative voter?

When we were studying models in my political science classes, we just about always assumed that people voted their interests, regardless of where the choices were located on the political spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were studying models in my political science classes, we just about always assumed that people voted their interests, regardless of where the choices were located on the political spectrum.

Obama's rout was probably mostly due to moderates being tired of the Republican Party under Bush's leadership ... but I wonder how many conservatives stayed home. It probably was a miniscule factor compared with independents' disgust with the Bush administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were studying models in my political science classes, we just about always assumed that people voted their interests, regardless of where the choices were located on the political spectrum.

That's why political science isn't a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0