The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing

MSI Magus

MSI Magus

CAGiversary!
Feedback
83 (100%)
Figured we are going to have a lot of election news come over the next few months we will all want to discuss but does not exactly fit in one topic or another nor warrant its own topic. This just gives us a place to discuss any news relating to the Republican primary or general election.

Newest news is that Tim Pawlenty is dropping out of the race after his third place showing in the Iowa straw poll. Not too surprised, Pawlenty has kind of acted like a pansy this whole race so for him to drop out after one small loss is not surprising.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/pawlenty-drops-out-of-republican-race/?hp

For those that do not know Bachman placed first and Ron Paul second by less then 1%. Meet the Press has an interview up with Bachman for those interested, but its all soft ball questions.
 
Even though he's made a hard right swing since his run began (sometime around the 2008 RNC in St. Paul), Pawlenty would probably have been the best option if you want progress in your politics. Sure, he'll do some stupid stuff from time to time but he has an almost Obama like ability to cave in to the other side. From what's left now, it appears that Huntsman and Paul would likely leave the least wake of destruction on the country and world.

I just really hope that Michelle Bachman will stay in long enough to be unable to run for relection of her congressional seat. I think she's out of touch enough to think that she can really go the whole way.
 
[quote name='nasum']Even though he's made a hard right swing since his run began (sometime around the 2008 RNC in St. Paul), Pawlenty would probably have been the best option if you want progress in your politics. Sure, he'll do some stupid stuff from time to time but he has an almost Obama like ability to cave in to the other side. From what's left now, it appears that Huntsman and Paul would likely leave the least wake of destruction on the country and world.

I just really hope that Michelle Bachman will stay in long enough to be unable to run for relection of her congressional seat. I think she's out of touch enough to think that she can really go the whole way.[/QUOTE]

I hope she stays in as long as possible. First off yes the longer she stays in the better chance of her losing her seat in congress. Second though the longer she and Perry are in the race the more red meat that even people closer to center like Romney will have to pitch to the base. As long as Perry and Bachman are in the debate will be about who can say the most bat shit insane thing day to day.

Then again I wouldn't be surprised if Obama just ran as a Republican anyways ;)
 
My gut tells me that the Presidential election will be close, like 2000 close. It's simply going to come down to the same couple of states it always does, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. I think the swing states like Nevada, Colorado, and Wisconsin will go back to the GOP side, the Dems will get Pennsylvania, the GOP Virginia, and it'll come down to whichever side can pull the most shenanigans in Florida and Ohio.

The GOP will have a net loss in the House, but still hold a slim majority, and will pick up enough seats to take control of the Senate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bachmann will be out by the time Super Tuesday ends.

I think Pennsylvania and North Carolina will go to the GOP candidate. Obama and Perdue (Especially Perdue) are not liked here all that well due to high unemployment. Not to mention last time McCrory ran a clean campaign against and came within 2 percent or so.

The election will be about unemployment, and if it's around 9.5-10%, maybe higher, Obama will have an insanely tough time getting elected. The Republicans could also tie it into Obamacare and how it's a tax on jobs and that's why companies aren't hiring people (It's just an argument they could make, not saying it'll be used or work). Or they'll tie into the debt and say we can't afford it, which would force Obama into saying we can afford it if taxes are raised, but then he'd be trapped.
 
[quote name='spmahn']My gut tells me that the Presidential election will be close, like 2000 close. It's simply going to come down to the same couple of states it always goes, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. I think the swing states like Nevada, Colorado, and Wisconsin will go back to the GOP side, the Dems will get Pennsylvania, the GOP Virginia, and it'll come down to whichever side can pull the most shenanigans in Florida and Ohio.

The GOP will have a net loss in the House, but still hold a slim majority, and will pick up enough seats to take control of the Senate.[/QUOTE]

I think Ohio and Pennsylvania will be the big two predictors this time around. I agree to though that it will be close. I think we are most likely going to have close presidential races for years to come both because this economy is likely to drag for at least a decade but also because the Nation is just so Brain dead and partisan anymore.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I think Pennsylvania and North Carolina will go to the GOP candidate.[/QUOTE]

Disagree about Pennsylvania. In the 'GOP take our country back from the socialists wave of 2010', the GOP senate candidate, an ultra conservative, won by 60,000 votes (~2%). The Dem candidate was a very progressive candidate too.

With Obama on the ticket, Dem turnout will be much higher, especially in Philadelphia.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Disappointed T-Paw dropped out considering he seemed the least insane of all the Republican candidates.[/QUOTE]

He was out-neoconning Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann.
 
So much of what is wrong with the election process is and starts with iowa ames. It's not a democratic poll, it's a stress test for campaign machinery.
I also think Huntsman is the most sane of the republican candidates.

Also, I'm not sure how the Perry branding works. In the 10 years he has run Texas he has doubled the budget, and doubled the total debt ($216 billion and an 18.5% debt/gdp ratio).
And the state unemployment rate was 4.2% in 2000 and is 8.2% today.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He was out-neoconning Gingrich, Santorum, and Bachmann.[/QUOTE]

While this may have been, he wouldn't actually do any of that in office. Like I said, he just gives in to political pressure and then decides to do something by himself which turns out to be illegal so there's no change in the long run. It'd be a very stagnant 4 years under Pawlenty, but at least you wouldn't have the insane turn made under the first 4 years of Bush II.
 
[quote name='vherub']
I also think Huntsman is the most sane of the republican candidates.
[/QUOTE]

Which means he has no chance whatsoever and is why I didn't include him in my assessment of T-Paw being the least insane.
 
People are going crazy about Ron Paul being snubbed by the media despite his performance in the Iowa straw poll. Strangely, I only know about this from everyone covering it.

Looking back at previous Iowa straw poll OR caucus results, you dont want to win it. You dont want to be anywhere near it. The only 1st or 2nd place finisher in either one to go on to become President was W. And I choose my words carefully here, using 'to become' as opposed to 'won an election'.
 
[quote name='vherub']Also, I'm not sure how the Perry branding works. In the 10 years he has run Texas he has doubled the budget, and doubled the total debt ($216 billion and an 18.5% debt/gdp ratio).
And the state unemployment rate was 4.2% in 2000 and is 8.2% today.[/QUOTE]

I saw an exchange with Rachel Maddow and Steve Moore (WSJ). Maddow asked 'what did Reagan do to the deficit?' and Moore countered with 'what did Reagan do to unemployment?'

I think that same argument will be made with Perry, with respect to Texas' deficit and unemployment.

It seems deficit spending is okay with them as long as you create jobs and as long as you are not a Democrat.
 
[quote name='spmahn']My gut tells me that the Presidential election will be close, like 2000 close. It's simply going to come down to the same couple of states it always does, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc. I think the swing states like Nevada, Colorado, and Wisconsin will go back to the GOP side, the Dems will get Pennsylvania, the GOP Virginia, and it'll come down to whichever side can pull the most shenanigans in Florida and Ohio.

The GOP will have a net loss in the House, but still hold a slim majority, and will pick up enough seats to take control of the Senate.[/QUOTE]
Heh, does Perry have a brother who happens to be a governor of one of those states?;)
 
[quote name='nasum']While this may have been, he wouldn't actually do any of that in office. Like I said, he just gives in to political pressure and then decides to do something by himself which turns out to be illegal so there's no change in the long run. It'd be a very stagnant 4 years under Pawlenty, but at least you wouldn't have the insane turn made under the first 4 years of Bush II.[/QUOTE]

I don't for a second believe he would have pursued anything short of his foreign policy views put forward during his short campaign. Especially since there is a massive lobby, comprised both of citizens and special interest groups, that pushes the empire.
 
I would need to see some election history. I suspect that making gains in one house while taking losses in the other is exceedingly rare. The parties are solidified enough that when a bunch of people come out to take the House, they're not going to mysteriously vote for the other party in the Senate. Pretty much whichever party wins the Presidency is going to make gains in both, just as midterms are always bad for the party that won it.
 
I have a hard time living in a reality in which Rick Parry is for real. I figured he was like Gingrich or McCotter - someone running to buy publicity for his books and his brand.

But everyone seems to be taking him seriously. I can kind of understand where they are coming from, I just have a hard time accepting that reality. Even knowing that America is perfectly capable of electing ANYONE after Reagan and Bush, its tough.
 
Between Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan I often get confused as to which is which. They're like this devious hydra of name combination...
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/02/electronic-voting-machine-problems-raise-concerns/

At least Canada is better in one respect... :|

elections.jpg
 
The two theories I can't really dispel the potential validity of:

1) Chris Christie swings in on a rope (metaphorically, see, as he's fat) like Errol Flynn-era Robin Hood and saves the GOP

2) The crazies are being pushed in the hopes of making Romney seem likeable by comparison and therefore acceptable to the fundamentalist racist jebus-loving wackos who otherwise wouldn't vote for an instrument of Satan like a member of the church of the latter-day saints.

-alternately-

3) 2012 is in the bag for Obama already, and the GOP is just offering up a bunch of jobbers because they have to. They really know Obama is a moderate Republican anyway who starts in the political center and then negotiates right from that point, so they're cool if he gets re-elected. See also: Dole/Kemp 1996. Except Clinton actually helped pass some (some) progressive legislation in his time.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) Chris Christie swings in on a rope (metaphorically, see, as he's fat) like Errol Flynn-era Robin Hood and saves the GOP[/QUOTE]

From what I've read about Christie's political career, he's not going to do it. He was elected to some local position in NJ a while back and immediately tried to go bigger and go for a higher office, and was shot down badly and sat it out for a while. Doubt he'd do it again on a national scale.

He also worked his ass off to get in a position to win the NJ governorship, and he's already on thin ice at home, not even halfway through his 1st term. If he ran for Pres or even VP, he would probably not win re-election.
 
[quote name='IRHari']He also worked his ass off to get in a position to win the NJ governorship[/QUOTE]

Well then it must have gone to his chin. ha-ha-ha

Man the world already likes to make fat American jokes, can you imagine if Christie got elected. Jesus.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']3) 2012 is in the bag for Obama already, and the GOP is just offering up a bunch of jobbers because they have to. They really know Obama is a moderate Republican anyway who starts in the political center and then negotiates right from that point, so they're cool if he gets re-elected. See also: Dole/Kemp 1996. Except Clinton actually helped pass some (some) progressive legislation in his time.[/QUOTE]

Might I suggest some Democrats should then throw some support behind Paul then - while I agree he'd never get elected, it'd be awesome to have him debate Obama on issues that y'all support (cutting military spending, etc.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']what would be awesome about it?[/QUOTE]

It would force Obama to move further left than Paul on Guantanamo, drone strikes, PATRIOT Act, etc, or defend his continuation of Bush's foreign/civil liberties policy.
 
nah. he'd totally parry by deflecting blame onto republicans, reassert his desire to close guantanamo bay and come home from Iraq.

i'm not sure what kind of honesty you expect to come out of debates, given that it's never happened before.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I wouldn't necessarily expect Obama to be honest, but he'd have to answer for more than that. Greenwald, Hamsher, and other bloggers would be all over him as well.[/QUOTE]

You didn't say bloggers would be all over him. That changes everything.
 
If Obama's got 2012 'in the bag', can anyone think of a better Republican candidate in the running that has any chance of getting any discussion from a larger segment of the population regarding these issues?
 
in the running? goodness, no, there's nobody to be taken seriously among those in the primary currently.

why don't you tell us what you see among the primary candidates. tell us what differentiates Perry from Bachmann policy wise; what you think Huntsman might do differently than Paul Ryan.

Here's the trick, though: I request you pick someone other than Ron Paul. He's indeed the anomaly; he's the Dennis Kucinich of the bunch, clearly separable from the rest.

But if you see nuance when comparing what you think Rick Perry will do in office and what Newt Gingrich will do in office, I eagerly await your description of what you think that nuance is.
 
I have voted across the board but prob swing to the indep/democrat side. I was a fan of Mcain but not Palin so ended up not voting at all. I would be super pissed if I was a die hard republican. They have had at least 4 years to start getting someone ready to go up against Obama and they seem to be falling very short.
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...op-divided-over-tea-party-movement/?hpt=hp_t1

The GOP base is split right down the middle between tea party supporters and those who do not support the movement.

Will be interesting to see how that split effects the 2012 elections. Will the Tea Partiers support someone like Romney if he gets the nod with his MA healthcare plan on his record etc.? Would the other part of the GOP support someone like Bachmann if she some how got the nomination?
 
For sure they will.

Hobson's choice and all that - remember, the Tea Partiers are historically the very active Republican religious base. They are not people who have ever sat on the sidelines politically (which is why the exaltation of them as "grassroots" whatever is so bothersome in the media - they are the epitome of the euphemism 'old wine in new bottles.').

So of course the tea partiers will 'hold their nose' and vote for Romney. They are the very people who will vote for the (R) candidate no matter who it is (literally).
 
You're probably right. They definitely won't stay home. I was thinking more along the lines of writing in a tea party candidate etc. more so than staying home.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Will the Tea Partiers support someone like Romney if he gets the nod with his MA healthcare plan on his record etc.?[/QUOTE]

I think the worst part of a Romney loss in the general will be what David Frum argued. The base will think 'omg SEE this is what happens when you nominate a moderate', and they'll try to nominate someone like Paul Broun.

Romney has taken the positions that he needs to in order to appear more conservative. Doubling down on the MA hc bill is one exception I can see.
 
[quote name='IRHari']
Romney has taken the positions that he needs to in order to appear more conservative. Doubling down on the MA hc bill is one exception I can see.[/QUOTE]

Yep. But the health care one is a big one since repealing Obamacare is arguably the Tea Parties biggest "oh no Socialism!" talking point.

I almost hope it causes him to lose as if the nominee is someone who panders to the tea party more, they'll lose a ton of the independent vote. And that's what will decide the election. The GOP and Democratic base have little impact as they always vote one way or the other. Thus they only have an impact if it's something like Obama in 2008 where he gets higher turnout among segments of the base that often stay home. Otherwise, it's all on those independent swing voters who have to be won over.
 
Figured this should get bumped with the GOP primaries in full swing.

Romney won decisively in NH with 39% of the vote to 23% for Paul and 17% for Huntsmann. Gingrich and Santorum each got 9.4%, Perry got 0.7%.

So it looks like Romney pretty much has the nomination wrapped up.

With the economy slowly getting better--unemployment in December lowest in a couple of years (but still high, stock market's been above 12K for a while again now etc.)--I don't see Obama having much problem with Romney. Unless the economy tanks again or there is some scandal or crisis, he'll beat Romney fairly soundly.

With Romney's business background Obama should be able to nail him for that and really energize the occupy set and younger voters in general. He'll win the minority vote by a wide margin as well (polls show him rating well among Hispanics over the GOP candidates as well).

And I don't see Romney energizing the poor, rural white vote in some states Obama won last time like NC, Indiana, Ohio etc. Those folks won't vote for Obama, but many may stay home as a Mormon business man from Massachusetts isn't going to get the rural white occasional voters to the polling both. Where as Obama will still get the occasional voters from the youth and minority voting blocks into the polling both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Republicans are pretty much running this election the same way the Democrats ran in 2004. They're too caught up in the "Anybody but Obama!" mentality. While that is all well and good to motivate the people who despise Obama (who likely don't need much motivation anyways), they forget it does little to motivate the undecided voters who have become increasingly important in recent elections.

Of course, the amusing thing to watch right now is how the election cycle has been "Anybody but Romney!" as they've slowly cycled through each candidate only to discover how unelectable each is. It's like the Republican party is a spinster who has left behind a long series of failed relationships and has decided her only chance is to settle with that boring guy who has been hitting on her for half a decade.

I'm sort of curious to see where they'll go after the interest in Huntsman fizzles out. At that point, they'll have given each candidate a little time to be the next hopeful (with maybe the exception of Paul) and have to face up to the fact that Romney might just be it. The GOP isn't quite as good as rallying the big tent as they used to since they've become a little fragmented.
 
Could Romney be anymore of a stereotypical politician? He's got the head, the chin, that shit eating grin, he could be a used car salesman.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']The Republicans are pretty much running this election the same way the Democrats ran in 2004.[/QUOTE]

Kerry was boring but capable.

I can say the same for Huntsman, but none of the other jokers in the pack.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Kerry was boring but capable.

I can say the same for Huntsman, but none of the other jokers in the pack.[/QUOTE]

True.

The real surprise though is that with how weak Bush was in 2004 and Obama is in 2011/2012 than neither party could come up with a candidate that could really fire up their base. Boring, but capable, is the best either could do? Just weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top