BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
|
Alright. Its stupid season again. Fortunately this time we have only one party running primaries this time around.
I ask that everyone be cognizant of the fact that most posters here are adults, most have spent time thinking about politics or political subjects, that their posting in this thread is not a personal affront to you (unless it is), and that none of this even matters. I will however be the first person to call for locking of this thread if I sense it going down hill. So behave yourselves, this isn't PO or FC. What I want is detailed discussions of specific candidates, not parties or political philosophy unless explicitly avowed by said candidates. Ad homs against parties or candidates should be considered in the same category as ad homs against individuals on this here forum. The same goes for political philosophies, since we as a species are tied to how we view ourselves in the context of our political discourse as much as anything else. So no 'you libs this' or 'conservatives just don't get it'. I do not want to read it as it has no bearing on the serious issues facing this nation. We are individuals. The candidates are individuals. We are here to discuss the candidates, and in this case mostly focusing on the GOP contenders. [Most of you know I am a moderate liberal, but I firmly believe that a functioning democracy cannot well survive an effective one-party system (look at South Carolina as an example of how not to do democracy) so it is critical that the GOP put up a candidate with the ability to challenge the President on the issues... ] I will make another demand before getting into the meat of the Iowa results: It would be helpful to maintain a level of concrete and congenial discourse that all posts claiming some knowledge have links to legitimate references to a source of information corroborating said knowledge. If another poster requests proof of something and you do not provide it, that is a tacit admission of intellectual dishonesty, and I do not like liars. If you are writing from a feeling of truthiness you better damn well claim it. ___ Santorum and Romney virtually tied yesterday's Iowa caucus. The numbers don't specifically matter as delegates to the conventions aren't assigned by number or a winner takes all scenario. Nevertheless, if you weren't paying attention the recent polling, this would have been shocking. Santorum can from middling support to capture what can only be presumed to be the Christian Right vote. I find no small irony that 50 years after JFK entered the WH as the first Catholic president against fears that his presidency would be an extension of the papal reign that the standard bearer (for this election cycle, anyway) for the Christian Right is another Catholic. I do wonder how much fear of Romney's religion played into this. There was a push in recent weeks, cited by observers in various national media groups, for Church leaders in Iowa to settle on a specific candidate. Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, and to a much lesser degree, Gingrich all held sway over the Christian Right, and it seems for various politically expedient reasons Santorum came out ahead. This is not to say that Santorum didn't work his ass off in Iowa, the candidates almost certainly all did (some to more humorous effect than others), but demographics being what they are.... That's my take away here. Santorum's victory will help him in coming states. He is most certainly a more serious politician than Huckabee (winner of Iowa in 2008) was, and significantly more focused on his goal. What we have though is something of a splintered primary season ahead of us. With Santorum carrying the 'pure' conservative (think religious) banner, Paul carrying the 'pure' conservative (think economic-libertarian (distinguished from social or civil)) banner, Gingrich somewhat amusingly self destructing on Romneybot's monied voices but likely to pull out some victory-like wins in the south east, and Romney being the good money still, it will be interesting to watch how the various conservative demographics come into play in the eventual selection of a candidate. We will likely see some endorsements from 'popular' former politicians soon. I secretly hope for a Huntsman surprise in New Hampshire. I cannot see myself ever voting for him, but he is one of the more thoughtful candidates and represents what I think could be a formidable set point for the Republican party in the long run. |
quote |
I shot the sherrif.
|
I think what this boils down to is that the Republicans have three candidates.
Romney - primarily seem as the most electable. Santorum - Christian right, who don't want to vote for a mormon but still want someone electable. Paul - More of the Tea Party, old school Republican voters. That leads me to believe either Romney or Santorum will start getting massive amounts of endorsements ASAP, as the Republican party tries to pick one candidate to be their front runner. The three way split was not what I was expecting at all. I think there will be problems with this though, as each of the three have very distinct and unique reasons to vote for or against them. Google is your frenemy. Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me |
quote |
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
|
I see that Santorum is still saddled with his hilarious google bomb.
|
quote |
Formerly “AWM”
Join Date: May 2009
|
I agree somewhat with the irony of the evangelicals going for Santorum but they have more or less made peace with Catholics since 1960. Plus when they looked around who were they really going to vote for? Romney is Mormon which still matters to them, Paul they consider to be anti Israel since he doesn't want war with Iran. The rest had problems too. This happens once in a while. Pat Robertson won in '88. He went nowhere just like Rick will. He got lucky. He came out of nowhere and peaked days before the event. There was no time to lay a hand on him. No examination of his rather status quo career. He will be kept around for now as the anti Romney until he drops out and endorses him.
The one interesting thing I noticed over the last week was the hysteria among the Republican establishment over the rise of Paul. They were terrified of him winning. Sure they would have said it's a non event but they would have been worried. The turned loose all the usual suspects on him over the past ten days. Limbaugh from what I've heard was going on daily rants. Fox too as well the WSJ. They just couldn't have a guy win who wasn't for unlimited war. Romney is still the favorite. He's backed by the establishment which is very hard to defeat. They can't stand Newt and the rest are unacceptable for one reason or another. |
quote |
Rocket Surgeon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
|
As an outsider, I find the public primaries to be a very strange system. The selection of a party leader is much more 'private' in other countries, with good reason: you're basically handing the opposing party ammunition to use against the eventual winner. We saw it with Hilary Clinton vs Barack Obama too, so it's not just a Republican thing.
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
|
The US is a big, ideologically diverse country. The primaries work to candidates benefits because they have to and do tailor their message to all of these idiosyncratic views. It also propagates the myth of representation of the common people at the highest level of power, which even on its face is wrong as most primaries are closed and only allow party affiliated voters a vote.
|
quote |
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
I hope you've all already seen it, but here it is again, my personal favorite infographic of 2011:
from the National Post It's going to be Romney. (Also, "Gingrich Growth" sounds like a fungal infection.) and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
quote |
Rocket Surgeon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
|
It would be interesting to see similar infographics from previous races: ie: does steady support usually mean the nomination, or do people often come from behind to take it at the last minute? Anyone got any data on that?
|
quote |
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
|
This short essay on the general weirdness of the Republican campaign is so good, it's hard to select a pull quote. This one will do, because the analogies are perfect:
Quote:
and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong |
|
quote |
‽
|
'impact' does exist as a verb; what's debatable is using it as a short form of 'to have an impact on'.
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Environmental Bloodhound
|
Quote:
Quote:
Formerly known as cynical_rock censeo tentatio victum There is no snooze button on a cat. |
||
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
If I were voting Republican this year I'd be crying in my pillow for the dearth of decent candidates. I wish no ill will upon them, but holy shit. If the best the Dems could do for utter weirdness was Dean's "Yeahh" then the Repub's crew have me spinning and considering that I may have been zapped to an alternate universe.
The guy in the batch that I've liked the best so far is Huntsman, which by his showing reinforces my mantra on not to bet on anything, ever, because I suck at gambling. Santorum's rise really really really surprised me. I mean, c'mon. If this guy even gets the Repub nod to run I'm out. This country is fucked. *Note: As I was skimming this thread for the first time just minutes ago, thinking about Santorum as a possible pick, I saw nothing but partially filled condoms in Robo's graph. So it goes. |
quote |
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
In breaking news, apparently Michele Bachmann has decided to defy God's personal commands and is dropping out of the 2012 presidential race.
|
quote |
¡Damned!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
|
Lizard God will be pissed.
It may make her husband straight in retribution. * I joke, people. As if I even needed to say it. ** plus, that would totally suck for him. So it goes. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman are all gone. (Huntsman just doesn't realize it yet I guess.) I suspect Santorum and Perry will be next after a few more races. Perry has plenty of money but clearly should just save it for a different cycle since he blew it so bad on the debates. Santorum won't do much beyond Iowa. Paul, Gingrich, and Romney are the only ones who have enough organization, name recognition, money, etc to really run full into Super Tuesday. That day, if you do well can get you half way to the nomination and that is what it did for McCain. Before that are New Hampshire, a few small caucases and then South Carolina and Florida. If Romney can win those then the race is over unless they just somehow dramatically go different than the entire south. Romney doesn't have to do much of anything to win New Hampshire. He's likely devoting all his resources to S.C. and Florida. Paul and Gingrich could each end up knocking each other out by garnering just enough of the vote to allow Romney to grab the delegates with a third of the total vote. (Most of the states are winner take all.) |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Good analysis, MumboJumbo. I agree with almost everything, but I think you underestimate the anti-Mormon sentiment in South Carolina. I think Gingrich and Paul have peaked, but Santorum could still be a contender in S.C.
Honestly, though, the nomination is Romney's. It's a done deal. In the GOP, the nomination always goes to the second place candidate from the last primary. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
|
So if it's Romney:
I was listening to a political analysis on the radio (OK, if was fucking godless NPR, sue me) who opined that it wasn't enough to hate the other guy, you had to love yours, in order to win elections. It goes without saying that there is a great deal of antipathy towards Obama amongst likely Republican voters, maybe not as much visceral hatred as towards Clinton during his presidency but probably more jacked-up horror at policies and the state of the nation. Does that get it done, for Republican presidential aspirations, when the Republican candidate is widely considered to be too moderate for your modern conservative voter? Not just moderate but perceived to have the politicians disease of shifting with the polls, at a time when the rightward voters want true believers. Hope this doesn't stray from the thread topic, just curious what anyone thinks about this. Does disgust with Obama trump tepid meh-ness toward Romney? That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
|
This is getting.... pathetic. But also interesting. The 'leading' candidate is a snarling voice of GOP discontent. It works for him. I am not sure it works for anyone else though. Romney is looking like the wind has come out of the sails of his very large yacht. Problem is, the bigger the boat, the harder the wind needs to blow to keep it moving (not technically correct, I know, jeeze).
Florida isn't going to break Romney, but it certainly could make Gingrich. I suspect some of the murmurings around the water cooler are right: Santorum wins in a protracted race. Not necessarily the nomination, but certainly a seat at the coronation table. The 'elites' of the GOP want Romney, the persons on the ground want whoever (seemingly for the moment, Gingrich), and Santorum is the cross between those motivations if you can get over the obvious ick factor. This doesn't make me happy as someone who believes that we need two sound political parties in our traditionally two-party system. While it is still the GOP's race to win, none of the candidates seem up to snuff. A dark horse candidate may seem like an outside shot now, but in a few months who knows. Consider what would happen if the GOP throws its weight (all of it) behind Christie. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Adding to that the Democratic Party was tossing aside their proven front runner, linked to the last Democratic President to get re-elected in a couple generations for this completely unconventional, unknown and going against every checkbox type of candidate and I'm sure all the pundits throught they had lost their minds. As you can see it turned out just horribly for them as he was only elected and has governed these last three years. Last edited by El Gallo : 2012-01-23 at 17:16. |
|
quote |
‽
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Santorum doesn't just mean something else. It means something else because it was specifically named after Santorum, stemming from his anti-gay rhetoric in the past. I actually still remember reading Savage's original article where he came up with the term several years ago. It's the kind of thing that sticks in your head.
|
quote |
Rocket Surgeon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Canadark
|
Indeed, that meaning is very much a result of judging the man on "his merits".
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
|
Quote:
Last edited by billybobsky : 2012-01-23 at 22:54. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Interesting discussion in this thread. Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
I must say that I have had trouble believing that any of the Republican candidates this election cycle - even Romney to some extent - were being seriously being put forward as Presidential candidates. I think that it has been an unusually weak field this time around, something that may seem surprising given Obama's vulnerability due to the weak economy. Surely there are better statesmen within the Party that could be considered. Perhaps, though, it is not that surprising, as the same weak economy has created some unusual dynamics within the Party that may make leadership right now seem unattractive for many. All that said, I appreciate MJ's point that Obama himself could have been considered, in media perception or based on a cursory review, as a candidate who had no real chance of being seriously considered as electable. Politics is a strange matter and who knows what the American public will be feeling this coming November. The unelectable may become a serious contender. When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray. |
quote |
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't call it 50/50 at the start at all and Obama's push in the polls, at least in my opinion was rather sudden. The Republican race won't go on much longer for more than a couple candidates because most states award delegates as winner takes all for the Republican primary. It gets very hard to spend millions and get your 12-13% but still be awarded no delegates. Quote:
Last cycle you had Clinton, Biden, Edwards and Obama as Senators. Edwards was the prior VP candidate as well. Gravel was a former Senator. Richardson was governor of New Mexico and Kucinich is a Congressman. What made those strong? |
||||
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
|
Quote:
As for the chart: I was discussing the Democratic primary at this point in 2008, which is about 50/50 from the chart. Clinton was less of the establishment candidate than Obama at this moment in 2008 -- that is, IIRC, both had nearly equal endorsements from party leaders with Obama having a slight advantage which only grew over time. The whole superdelegate discussion was a ruse by Clinton late in the election as it seemed like she might have been able to at the very least disrupt the convention. I do think the 2008 election (ignoring the Republicans) was far more interesting than this round. Gingrich and Romney don't have the same level of gut check angst associated with either of their eventual nominations. However, Chinney is right: these candidates seem awfully weak. Not that they don't have experience, just that their politics isn't nearly as polished as other recent presidential candidates -- Romney is a 1%'er running in an election about the injustices exposed in a weak us economy; Gingrich is an angry southern white man lambasting the very media that will waltz him into contention; Santorum is a throwback to the culture wars of 2004; Paul is of another century. etc etc. What I expected from the Republicans is not a candidate that is moderate (so Romney and Gingrich even being the nearly clear choices, rhetoric aside, is surprising) but one that could run as a moderate. A Jindal or Christie. Perhaps those two read the tea leaves better... |
|
quote |
Space Pirate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
|
You won't see Christie. At most he's a longshot for a Veep add-on, but that's unlikely.
I must confess that Ron Paul impresses me more with every debate, but he simply can't win it unless he: a) grows 2 feet b) sprouts television hair c) stops telling people (during the primaries, at least) his views on foreign policy As much as I've marginalized the man in the past I have to say that I find it impossible to make (much) fun of him these days because his character has proven far less mutable than his competitors. That, and a few other things he's done, interests me. We used to run into Newt at the local stores and restaurants in the neighborhood, back before he became such a well known national figure... so yes, Newt is quite popular down here (in conservative circles). The thing is, the conservative friends that I've spoken to have the same problems with his ego that my liberal friends have: they don't like or trust his narcissism and they do know that he's one lip flap away from putting himself into a hole. Romney's inability to relate to the little man is especially important in the po' old south. Not sure about Florida, as they don't really belong to the south... but it won't be forgotten. Santorum is a spectre to me. He's smart and all, but he seems like a PTA Dad who got dragged into the Presidential Race. Then there's that whole Google problem he got himself into. ... |
quote |
I shot the sherrif.
|
Quote:
As for why the Republican candidates are weak this time around, my take on them at least. Romney is too disconnected. The statements about "a little money" speaking when he brought in over $350,000 are not what he needs. That and for some reason I don't get the feeling he really wants it, although I couldn't tell you why exactly. Is anyone else here old enough to remember Newt? There's a reason he dropped off the radar. He has the biggest case of foot in mouth disease out of any major political player, ever. He can't help but say something completely nuts every now and again. He might look like he's peaking right now, but he's like a rocket booster with a pinhole leak in it. Tons of energy when it's pointed in the right direction, then the smallest amount goes sideways and the entire thing self-destructs. The only thing going for Paul is that most networks still don't like to even mention his name, and that might pique some curiosity, but he's going to just sit at 10% - 20% the rest of the way out unless something completely unanticipated comes up. Santorum I really hope just drops out. I hope that Newt and Romney perform well enough in the upcoming days to force Santorum to bail, because I think otherwise he's the most likely of the four to survive and get stronger as we move towards Nov. Google is your frenemy. Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me |
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
My take:
Gingrich: He is very good at playing the publicity game. He played that ex-wife open-marriage gotcha like a fine tuned violin and turned back ABC's attempt to kill his campaign back on them. Or at least that is what people's impression is. But he doesn't have the cash or organizational infrastructure to win. I am guessing he has even more skeleton's in the closet that we don't know about that might surface. He's is also the same plan that didn't work in 2008. The old white guy strategy of McCain. Sure old white guys will vote for you but that isn't nearly enough. Santorum: He has the social "God, Guns, and Gays (3Gs)" conservatives on his side, but that only works in some states. It also doesn't win general elections. While the other guys may technically agree on many 3Gs issues, we all know that they are really pretty moderate on those issues. I don't think a Romney or Gingrich president is going to make a serious attempt to reverse Gay issues. Oh they may talk, but lots of politicians talk. The 3Gs REALLY only get you a third of the party any way. The other thirds are big go-ment corporate types (Romney), and "practially no government" types like the Tea party and Paul folk. Santorum can't rally enough. Paul: Who doesn't like this guy? Even if you don't agree with his policies, at least he is pretty damned consistent and I'd be willing to bet he isn't on the take like everyone else. But the whole "What would George Washington do" ideology really doesn't apply to a majority of the country or even a majority of the Republican party. Almost everyone either works for the government, gets some sort of subsidy from the government or has close friends or relatives that do. Going back to the year 1800 isn't really an appealing idea. He brings up some interesting ideas though (like why should Gay marriage even BE an issue. Why is government in the business of sanctioning people's relationships in the first place?) . Romney: Two words. Main Stream. I like this guy for the same reasons Gingrich and the other's don't like him. He really is a moderate. He may "talk" about the 3Gs, he may talk about doing away with health care, but nobody really believes he will change these things. He's supports big corporations like most of the democrats and Obama do. I also think he is pretty damned clean and honest. He certainly looks presedential. He is my choice, BUT will enough republican and conservative voters actually show up and vote for him in November? My guess is NO. There isn't much contrast between him and Obama despite what he says. Democrats have a large voter registration lead. The only way a republican can win a major national election is if they get almost all of their side out to vote. That is how W won his second term. They really turned out the vote in Florida and Ohio. They got all the religious folk out of the woodwork to show up and vote against Kerry the Massachusetts Liberal wacko. I don't see these same people turning out to vote for Romney another Massachusetts right-leaning liberal. So in the end, Romney will get the nomination but will probably lose the general election. Also, republicans will probably keep control of the house (intrade 70.9% chance) and maybe take control of the Senate (intrade 75% chance) and we are looking at least two (probably four) more years of a president and congress that cannot get anything done. For those that like Obama but are disappointed he hasn't been able to do very much of what he/you wanted, well we are looking at four more long hard years very similar to the last four. If I was a democrat, I think I would vote Republican this time. Maybe then we would have a president/congress combination that could be a little more effective. Democrats will still have filabuster (sp?) power in the Senate and they might be more effective using that to bargain with a Romney president than they are getting republicans to give a win to Obama. JTA |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2004
Location: Inner Swabia. If you have to ask twice, don't.
|
Why does everyone keep saying that Romney looks presidential? Is that even true, regardless of the vapid nature of the description?
I honestly don't understand this because at some level every middle aged white guy with hair is going to look the same. Maybe that's the point. Romney isn't black? |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Primary external monitor w/ MacBook - best method? | iMac430 | Apple Products | 9 | 2009-07-30 13:25 |
Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. POLL NOW ADDED. PLEASE VOTE!!! | Windswept | AppleOutsider | 1075 | 2008-11-04 19:16 |
February 1, 2008, Super Tuesday, Presidential Election Thread | Windswept | AppleOutsider | 127 | 2008-02-05 03:03 |
January 30, 2008: Presidential Candidate Thread | kieran | AppleOutsider | 97 | 2008-02-01 18:57 |
What is your primary browser? | Brad | General Discussion | 67 | 2005-11-07 01:41 |