Jump to content
Jessi_G

Who should/will be the Republican presidential candidate?

Recommended Posts

He won't win, but I like Huntsman. He is a pretty reasonable fellow. Which helps explain why he won't win.

hes officially in (by officially, i mean he formed a pac to raise money to run for president)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres one wildcard Ive been tossing around in my head:

 

New Hampshire is now full of crazy people. Like seriously anarcho capitalist crazy people. They are all moving there as part of the Free State project and more are going there every day.

 

Ron Paul could win New Hampshire, the first primary. This wont get him anointed by the media but it would make him a frontrunner if whomever wins Iowa does poorly at the polls. (Likely if its a Christ nazi). This means that the candidates will actually have to engage him in the debates.

 

Paul could ride the momentum to the nomination, or the Iowa Jesus guy could bounce back in South Carolina, one things for sure is that Romney wont win any of those.

 

Hes their smartest play, but the current electoral calendar and primary process are to his disadvantage.

 

 

dude, do you read DMZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts/comments in the Wake of the GOP debate in SC?

 

In terms of presentation, Pawlenty seemed the most confident and Paul wasn't extremely far behind... although Pawlenty was a bit obnoxious with the rhetoric both during and after. Seems like Fox has already jumped behind him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude, do you read DMZ?

 

 

I dont know what that is and cant tell if your making fun of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what that is and cant tell if your making fun of me.

 

I love this honesty. I had no idea either. Thus, if you choose to get defensive and say how lame DMZ is and how only losers read it, I will cosign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my good friend cenk has an interesting clip about dems and foreign security/policy.

 

 

how can dems message this so that it doesn't matter who the pub is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what that is and cant tell if your making fun of me.

lol

 

ask scu. for real, its a great comic book in that watchmen, v for vendetta sense. imagine a us civil war. imagine manhattan as the dmz between the jersey free states and the ny empire.

 

yeah, add rpgs and sniper rifles. and anarchists and tofu. and zoologists and snow camo.

 

just fucking awesome.

 

if you promise to return 'em i will ship them out, scoutsy swears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this honesty. I had no idea either. Thus, if you choose to get defensive and say how lame DMZ is and how only losers read it, I will cosign.

haters gunna hate. its pure id. enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best candidate the Pubbies can put out is probably Mitt Romney, which is saying a lot about the current state of the Republican Party; Romney's the candidate with enough national recognition and campaign experience to have (sort of) a shot, but that's not saying much. With Romney as a candidate the Jesus brigade loses a lot of its offense on Obama (he's a Muslim!) because Mormons aren't, throughout a lot of the country, perceived very positively. This primary season will be interesting to watch because while the book says that in primaries the more polarized candidate tends to win (because voters that care and therefore have stronger, more informed polarized [and in the case of Republicans, wrong] opinions, show up at primaries rather than Joe Q. Moderate). Having said that, though, I think Romney's name recognition pulls him through primary season.

 

It's gonna be hard to beat President Obama, though. He's a formidable campaigner and, let's face it, he's flat out got swag going his way after Bin Laden's death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he's flat out got swag going his way after Bin Laden's death.

I don't get why people think that Obama will get credit for Bin Laden's death. I know that the masses are stupid, but this seems unreasonably so. Obama doesn't direct the missions, he doesn't pull the trigger, he gets advice from his generals and signs his name on a piece of paper. The military killed Bin Laden, and it took them WAY too long to do it.

 

Edit: Nate Silver wrote articles arguing both sides of this issue:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/yes-bin-ladens-death-will-help-obama-but-for-how-long/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/second-thoughts-about-obama-and-bin-laden-its-not-just-the-economy-stupid/#more-9253

 

Also, does anyone think that the conspiracy theories surrounding Bin Laden will hurt/offset Obama's gains? I don't think it'll have much impact, but I think there's a chance that Republicans will use these to counter arguments that say Obama should be reelected because Osama is dead. It could put Obama in an awkward position similar to the one with the birthers, wherein to acknowledge the argument is to give it more credibility than it deserves, but to not acknowledge it makes him look suspicious.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why people think that Obama will get credit for Bin Laden's death. I know that the masses are stupid, but this seems unreasonably so. Obama doesn't direct the missions, he doesn't pull the trigger, he gets advice from his generals and signs his name on a piece of paper. The military killed Bin Laden, and it took them WAY too long to do it.

 

Obama is the commander in chief of the military... it's not like this raid was just pulled out of Petraeus's ass and put on Obama's desk. He was in consultation/planning with intelligence and special forces since august. He also kept guantanamo open, and probably made sure the relevant forces stayed in Afghanistan. AND, he almost certainly made the decision about what to do with the bodies/pictures and determined the rules of engagement.

 

Edit: Also, Obama had the decision ultimately about whether or not to use a predator/laser-guided bomb or special forces.

Edited by broken
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best candidate the Pubbies can put out is probably Mitt Romney, which is saying a lot about the current state of the Republican Party; Romney's the candidate with enough national recognition and campaign experience to have (sort of) a shot, but that's not saying much. With Romney as a candidate the Jesus brigade loses a lot of its offense on Obama (he's a Muslim!) because Mormons aren't, throughout a lot of the country, perceived very positively. This primary season will be interesting to watch because while the book says that in primaries the more polarized candidate tends to win (because voters that care and therefore have stronger, more informed polarized [and in the case of Republicans, wrong] opinions, show up at primaries rather than Joe Q. Moderate). Having said that, though, I think Romney's name recognition pulls him through primary season.

 

It's gonna be hard to beat President Obama, though. He's a formidable campaigner and, let's face it, he's flat out got swag going his way after Bin Laden's death.

 

 

I dont know how formidable a campaigner Obama is really. His Senate campaign was against Alan Keyes and his monetary advantage in '08 as well as Bush's record setting umpopularity really boosted his margin of victory.

 

Last week I was saying he would win by a much narrower margin, now itll be my a much larger margin. Moderates <3 dead terrorists. Romney isnt their best bet because he has a good chance of beating the President (he doesnt), hes their best bet because he has a lot of money and will campaign in swing states and wont have to worry about losing Indiana and North Carolina. Running a good campaign is the GOPs best hope of keeping the house and preventing anotehr Senate supermajority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is the commander in chief of the military... it's not like this raid was just pulled out of Petraeus's ass and put on Obama's desk. He was in consultation/planning with intelligence and special forces since august. He also kept guantanamo open, and probably made sure the relevant forces stayed in Afghanistan. AND, he almost certainly made the decision about what to do with the bodies/pictures and determined the rules of engagement.

 

Edit: Also, Obama had the decision ultimately about whether or not to use a predator/laser-guided bomb or special forces.

 

 

i think he'll get a lot of credit. it helps undermine the argument that obama is "weak" on foreign policy. he shifted the focus away from iraq toward afghanistan/ bin ladin and did what the GOP was unable to in 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, i dont believe the Osama thing will have anything to do with this election. the '08 election taught us one thing and that was Americans are more concerned with the future then they care about the past. Unemployment is still very high, gas prices are still very high, the housing market is still terrible, government spending is becoming unreasonable, health care prices are on the rise, we're still in iraq and afghanistan. If Americans are looking for "Change" like they did in '08 then i would expect MOST republican candidates having a fairly easy time winning the election provided they compromise with the conservative base and the tea party movement. Too be completely honest, I see Obama as being even worse then Bush. He has A LOT of explaining to do to the American public before they will re-elect him.

 

My only problem is the republican base seems afraid to go with someone new (but obviously qualified). Mit Romney ran last election and it didnt work for us. Ron Paul.... well lol its Ron Paul, Palin has had too much publicity now so all the dirt is out on the table and shes lost the shock factor. Donal trump might be perfect on an economic level and to be completely truthful if thats all being a president was i would vote for him every time but he has zero experience with foreign policy, he's prolly used to getting his way and the president should know how to compromise and be courteous but stern when need be and i dont think Trump has that. This is the time when the Republicans need to be consolidating rather than multiplying their candidates mainly because the people want a fresh face and with a fresh face you have to get that recognition out there. In my opinion, i think the stage is set perfectly for a republican to win the election if they make strategic and smart moves. But hey, thats just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think he'll get a lot of credit. it helps undermine the argument that obama is "weak" on foreign policy. he shifted the focus away from iraq toward afghanistan/ bin ladin and did what the GOP was unable to in 8 years.

 

My thing is most Americans probably dont see Obama as the man that tackled Osama regardless of what the news said. I think its also safe to say that if Obama was president during 9/11 then we wouldnt have even been in afghanistan to begin with. Regardless though, i just dont see foreign policy being that big of an issue in '12. The occasional "when we gunna be outta iraq?" question might come up occasionally but i think most people are focusing on unemployment, health care might be a big issue, and government spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your 3 concerns against Obama are interesting, but nothing he can't handle.

 

Unemployment: Is slowly but steadily decreasing. While this month may have seen the unemployment rate go up, the private sector added thousands of jobs, and has continued to add jobs for the past 14 months. I definitely think come election time Obama can show that he reduced unemployment and spin it in his favor.

 

Health care: If costs go up, Obama wins because he gets more people insurance. From the economic standpoint, insurance firms are going to start competing heavily to get the 50k+ people who don't have insurance and need it. This will usually lower insurance costs and help people out with rising costs. This is just pure economic speculation, but Obama has a good chance of winning on this issue.

 

Government Spending: With the recent budget cuts and probably even more budget cuts to come during the 2012 fiscal year, it shouldn't be difficult for Obama to spin the fact that he is curbing government spending and win big. Especially since he can claim the money saved from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

 

Overall, Obama has a significant advantage over his Republican counterparts. The base is split, and there's no real obvious candidate besides Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unemployment: Is slowly but steadily decreasing. While this month may have seen the unemployment rate go up, the private sector added thousands of jobs, and has continued to add jobs for the past 14 months. I definitely think come election time Obama can show that he reduced unemployment and spin it in his favor.

 

I disagree. The economy has been sluggishly increasing for the last few years, but not nearly as fast as Obama led people to believe back in 2008. People expected him to be some magic solution to the economy, and he just hasn't really pulled through. "How's that whole hopey-changey thing working out for ya?" High unemployment, coupled with record high gas prices (which will be especially devastating if they don't come down) are going to be hard to spin as wins. People have very short term memories; many will vote republican in 2012 for the same reason they voted Obama back in 2008 - the promise of quick change.

 

 

Health care: If costs go up, Obama wins because he gets more people insurance. From the economic standpoint, insurance firms are going to start competing heavily to get the 50k+ people who don't have insurance and need it. This will usually lower insurance costs and help people out with rising costs. This is just pure economic speculation, but Obama has a good chance of winning on this issue.

 

The GOP won the media debate on health care. The bill that passed is socialist, massively expensive, and extremely unpopular. Whether it brings down costs in reality matters much less (in my opinion).

 

 

Government Spending: With the recent budget cuts and probably even more budget cuts to come during the 2012 fiscal year, it shouldn't be difficult for Obama to spin the fact that he is curbing government spending and win big. Especially since he can claim the money saved from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

 

 

 

I don't see Obama getting credit for budget cuts. Without touching military or entitlement spending, most cuts are pretty insignificant. The GOP will just keep reiterating how large the deficit still is, and (correctly) argue that we're still spending more than we're bringing in. Obama is branded as a "big-government-loving socialist." Whether it's true or not, people believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, you are lacking credibility because you are lacking warrants. Quoting Sarah Palin, accusations of socialism, and then more accusations of socialism makes me think that no matter what evidence is before you, every event in the news is good for the Palin/Bachmann ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, you are lacking credibility because you are lacking warrants. Quoting Sarah Palin, accusations of socialism, and then more accusations of socialism makes me think that no matter what evidence is before you, every event in the news is good for the Palin/Bachmann ticket.

 

I'm not giving warrants because most politicians don't give warrants. I'm just giving my take how the republican candidates will spin reality to get political support.

 

I don't think any event in the news is bad for Obama, just that the public's general discontent with the status quo will give the GOP a lot of offense come 2012. Last election Obama won on "change" - this time, people who want change are going to look for somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not giving warrants because most politicians don't give warrants. I'm just giving my take how the republican candidates will spin reality to get political support.

 

I don't think any event in the news is bad for Obama, just that the public's general discontent with the status quo will give the GOP a lot of offense come 2012. Last election Obama won on "change" - this time, people who want change are going to look for somebody else.

 

I agree to a large extent. I think Obamas fighting an uphill battle IF and i really mean IF the GOP can actually unify during this election and nominate someone new, smart and experienced. What ive seen from my own personal experience is a lot of people who voted obama in '08 now feel betrayed or lied to and will prolly be swing votes by '12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, you are lacking credibility because you are lacking warrants. Quoting Sarah Palin, accusations of socialism, and then more accusations of socialism makes me think that no matter what evidence is before you, every event in the news is good for the Palin/Bachmann ticket.

 

I wouldnt be suprised to see Palin running. Regardless of how you feel, she has the experience, and the support.

Also i dont think he was making accusations as much as he was indicating the way the conservative media is spinning things and the american public seems to be believing that. Socialist or not its bad to be on the side of big government these days and unfortunately that appears to be the side Obama is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt be suprised to see Palin running. Regardless of how you feel, she has the experience, and the support.

Also i dont think he was making accusations as much as he was indicating the way the conservative media is spinning things and the american public seems to be believing that. Socialist or not its bad to be on the side of big government these days and unfortunately that appears to be the side Obama is on.

 

She doesn't have the experience. Just the support.

Obama would beat Palin in a landslide because her base of supporters are ideologically divided into groups of hardcore Obama haters and very dedicated neocons. Republicans and independents won't vote for her because the election process will reveal a lot of shit about her she probably doesn't want coming out. Give the Obama team a few months and she'll become a symbol for trailer park, back woods America with not a shred of dignity in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not giving warrants because most politicians don't give warrants. I'm just giving my take how the republican candidates will spin reality to get political support.

 

I don't think any event in the news is bad for Obama, just that the public's general discontent with the status quo will give the GOP a lot of offense come 2012. Last election Obama won on "change" - this time, people who want change are going to look for somebody else.

 

yeah, there was an election in between there where independents got duped into voting for the most extreme congress evar.

 

i don't think people are going to be rushing to the right, again. if anything, the pendulum is already swinging back to the centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She doesn't have the experience. Just the support.

Obama would beat Palin in a landslide because her base of supporters are ideologically divided into groups of hardcore Obama haters and very dedicated neocons. Republicans and independents won't vote for her because the election process will reveal a lot of shit about her she probably doesn't want coming out. Give the Obama team a few months and she'll become a symbol for trailer park, back woods America with not a shred of dignity in sight.

 

1. No shes never been president but she does have experience. At the top is of course running her own state. If were talking period of time and things accomplished she had more experience then obama back in '08. Your argument is equivalent to the republicans saying Obama doesnt have the experience. In reality both candidates were new to the running for president but thats what people thought would make them perfect candidates, they would bring something new to the table.

 

2. Republicans and independents would vote for her. Absent the lack of a candidate the republicans are more unified now then they were back in '08. Independents might swing republican or "against obama" in '12 because of issues listed above. Honestly i dont think Palin would have to change too much up. If she were to stick to her principles shes been blastin for the last few years i think Obama is gunna be on the defensive most of the election.

 

3. Her life has been under a telescope for a long time. So far she has pulled through. Most "issues" have blown over. Plus this accusation is only speculative. I see palin as a candidate that people would vote for merely because they didnt want to vote for Obama at the least and at the most shes a conservative obama, promising change from the other side of the spectrum. I think these last couple years shes been catering to her base through irrelavent issues such as the birthers and the tea party movements to stay in the game. Closer to election time look for her to come out swingin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...