GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-02-2011, 09:05 PM   #46
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Well, here are some other Republicans to consider:

Tom Ridge
Charlie Christ
Lindsey Graham
Colin Powell
General Patreus-although he would not run until 2016 if he does.
Robert Gates-like Patreus not until 2016.
Most of these are considered traitors by the far right, they would lose in a landslide.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-02-2011, 09:08 PM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner El Guapo View Post
My pick, Rick Perry (Gov of Texas) is the conservative Republican archetype. Like GW Bush with more intellect (yeah, yeah...I know) and less pedigree. Most importantly, no DC baggage, unlike nearly all the rest.
He has plenty of baggage here in TX, considering the political landscape he should have won by a much bigger margin in Nov, there's no way he would win on a national level. Plus he's been shown publicly supporting the idea of seccesion, not good for the national spotlight.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-03-2011, 09:18 AM   #48
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
From what I've seen of Tim Pawlenty, he seems quite smart and I don't think he should be underestimated. Not the most charismatic or naturally appealing guy, but if he impresses in the debates he could jump right up there with Romney for me.
Tim Pawlenty is a weak candidate at best. In his two elections as governor, neither time did he receive a majority of the vote--a third party candidate split the vote each time. He has spent his last six years in office disparaging government as an evil entity despite the fact that both he and his wife have spent the majority of their adult lives as government employees. He's a fraud and a bully who gives a good speech occasionally. Even in neighboring Iowa, where he's visited many times, he's not making any progress in his poll numbers.

He's a second-tier candidate at best.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 09:58 AM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:09 PM
at this point, it's really Romney vs. Palin.

but in early 2007, we all thought it was going to be Giuliani vs. Hillary.

i still think the candidate who might have the best shot would be Chris Christie, but as i noted before, it's probably way too soon for him, and he's not going to read well in Dixie -- Tony Soprano is only popular amongst elitists who like paying for high minded cable dramas that show lots of boobs and blood.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 11:21 AM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
at this point, it's really Romney vs. Palin.
Which both have major hurdles to cross... Right now this is a good thing for our country that there is no sure fire canidate on this side.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:03 PM   #51
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
the only thing that stands between Obama and a smashing re-election is the employment rate, barring any unforeseen catastrophe.

and that's a big thing, no doubt. i am betting the smarter Republicans are going to hold off until 2016.
If the unemployment rate stays above 9%, taking out Obama is going to be pretty easy for almost anyone the Republicans put up. That would also mean 2016 would be about the re-election of that particular Republican. So Republicans that sit out 2012 would really have to wait until 2020.

More specifically, how is Obama going to win states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina given the current economic situation? GDP growth of only 2% or 3% is not enough given the amount of time left before the election. Reagan had GDP growth rates of over 7% back in 1983 and 1984, which is what brought down the unemployment rate significantly over a short period of time.
__________________
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:14 PM   #52
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
Totally agree.

And, the economy and the unemployment rate won't matter until September/October 2012. The U.S. population's short attention span means that people simply assess how they are doing at the time that they need to decide on a candidate.

Like you said, barring anything unforeseen, the recovery of our economy will work in Obama's favor. The positive trends will be seen favorably by anyone with a slightly longer attention span than average.
Oh it will matter before September/October 2012. Starting in November 2011, Republicans will starting asking the question, Are you better off than you were four years ago? When you compare a 9.5% unemployment rate to one that was just 4.8% four years earlier, most people are going to answer that question with a big NO.

There is still time for improvement, but it needs to start to happen significantly over the next 8 months before the 2012 campaign kicks into full swing. Otherwise, increased media coverage of the economy under Obama will slowly eat away at him. There is not going to be a September/October 2012 miracle. For Obama to get re-elected, he needs significant and sustained improvments to start over the next 8 months. It won't be enough to slowly get the unemployment rate down to say 8.5% by October 2012.
__________________
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:18 PM   #53
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Mitt Romney couldn't beat John McCain or Mike Huckabee. and he's burned his moderate credentials to the ground, and if the GOP wants to make repealing "Obamacare" their raison-d'etre, by all means, go ahead. because "Obamacare" is pretty much "Romneycare" in Massachusetts. Obama himself made this point after it passed.
.
Mitt Romney was 2nd to John McCain in the primaries and McCain had a tough fight to win over Romney.

Quote:

the issue really is whether or not the unemployment rate can beat Obama in 2012.

and, ironically, the president doesn't have very much control over that
At least thats what he wants everyone to believe. Presidents tie themselves to the economy when its good, but distance themselves from the economy when its bad.
__________________
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:21 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 07:09 PM
And don't forget about the new census numbers, giving GOP states a pickup of something like 7 or 8 EVs. Not insignificant in a potentially close election.

With the GOP taking power this week, people keep saying "they're going to find it a lot harder being the party in power than in being the opposition." In this economic environment, the same will hold true for Obama come election time. I have to think that he'll be starting the race as the underdog in places like FL, OH, VA.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:21 PM   #55
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Most of these are considered traitors by the far right, they would lose in a landslide.
Well, the same was said about John McCain, and he still won the nomination. Plus, once a party is out of power in the White House, the desire to compromise in order to win increases.

Also, I don't know any Republican that considers General Patreus to be a "traitor". You won't get that from any Republican but you sure do get that from Democrats especially moveon.org
__________________
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:24 PM   #56
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Which both have major hurdles to cross... Right now this is a good thing for our country that there is no sure fire canidate on this side.
Palin has major hurdles that she won't be able to cross. Romney really does not have any, and being from outside Washington DC is going to be a plus in 2012. Congress and the White House have not become more popular over the last two years.
__________________
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:31 PM   #57
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
And don't forget about the new census numbers, giving GOP states a pickup of something like 7 or 8 EVs. Not insignificant in a potentially close election.

With the GOP taking power this week, people keep saying "they're going to find it a lot harder being the party in power than in being the opposition." In this economic environment, the same will hold true for Obama come election time. I have to think that he'll be starting the race as the underdog in places like FL, OH, VA.
Very good point. The 2010 census was a nice little gift for the GOP. Also remember that the Republicans control the house, but not the Senate, so the burden on the democrats is really still there in both congress and the white house.

One Republican dream team for 2012 would be Charlie Christ and Tom Ridge. That gives the Republicans Florida and Pennsylvania right away, and would probably insure Virginia and Ohio as well, and that would pretty much be the election.

McCain's original choice for a running mate was Tom Ridge but he was told there would be to many party defections if he picked Tom Ridge. It would still be a long shot for Ridge in 2012, but with the Republicans out of the white house these past four years, the willingness to compromise in order to win increases.
__________________
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:42 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
One Republican dream team for 2012 would be Charlie Christ and Tom Ridge. That gives the Republicans Florida and Pennsylvania right away, and would probably insure Virginia and Ohio as well, and that would pretty much be the election.


Charlie Crist is an independent.

and gay.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:46 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,689
Local Time: 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
At least thats what he wants everyone to believe.

Well it's part of the conservative mantra as well.

They say the economy will heal itself and that it's independent of the government except when a Dem is in control.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:48 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
If the unemployment rate stays above 9%, taking out Obama is going to be pretty easy for almost anyone the Republicans put up.


you should ask yourself why Obama's approval ratings are actually very strong, and steady (especially compared with Reagan and Clinton at this point in their first terms) when considering a 9.8% unemployment rate.

you also need to look at the fact that when Obama took office the economy was shedding jobs, now it is adding jobs. the economy is fundamentally better now than it was at the end of 2008. it's not a comparison of 2000 vs. 2012, or 2004 vs. 2012. yes, the unemployment rate is much higher than it was under Bush, but Bush's continued abysmal approval ratings (and the fact that no Republican will go near him) demonstrates that most voters actually do place blame for the unemployment rate with him rather than with Obama.

now, whether or not Obama has done enough to fix it is the question, not whether or not he is the cause of the 9.8% unemployment.

it's more the sense of things having deteriorated under a president -- i.e., Bush 1 and Carter -- that leads to reelection or not.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com