GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

[Earnie Shavers]

Romney is very, very much on the wrong side of the prevailing mood, on both sides (and globally). Obama is not doing great, but my bet is he takes Romney fairly easily in the end.

 

[deep]

I would not vote for Christie, with a BMI that high.

A lack of self discipline concerning weight and health issues is very serious.

Obesity is one of our most preventable health issues.

Our health system costs are a top concern, not to mention shortened life spans and quality of life.


Having an obese Surgeon Generall is not a good thing.

She has been in office for 2 years. I keep hoping she will set a positive example and bring her BMI down a few points. It may still happen.

 

[deep]

Romney is very, very much on the wrong side of the prevailing mood, on both sides (and globally). Obama is not doing great, but my bet is he takes Romney fairly easily in the end.

I kind of have been thinking that too.

But then I can see a couple of different outcomes too.

I think in a few more months, probably around June, I will feel confident enough to make my call.

 

[yolland]

he would have made a terriffice Liberal

Perhaps in part because of the misspelling, I initially read this as "he would have made a terrorist Liberace."


I actually think Christie's appearance (weight) would in all likelihood render him inelectable no matter how well he campaigned; he's too overweight to pull off the "just a portly guy" thing. His persona would make for some brilliant parody though. (I rather like him, actually)

 

[Irvine511]

Romney is very, very much on the wrong side of the prevailing mood, on both sides (and globally). Obama is not doing great, but my bet is he takes Romney fairly easily in the end.

the very broad, very quick CW over here is that the three "leaders" represent three different factions of the GOP/American right:

Romney: rich people who want to stay rich and want American foreign policy to feel like it did in the 1980s
Paul: libertarian-ish people who don't want Hillary to tell them what to do, also the Black Helicopter conspiracy crowd
Santorum: religious fanatics who envy more about Iran than they'd care to admit

what GWB did very well was that he was able to sew together these contentious groups by offering up not just the bluest of the blue blood pedigrees but equal doses proud ignorance and "witnessing" 'bout Jesus. that was enough to squeak out a win in 2004. (we'll ignore 2000, as that was the year that the US officially jumped the shark/nuked the fridge).

Romney's issue is that the Paul people think he looks like the guy who fired their dad, and the fanatics think he's a cultist who's secretly pro-choice.

Romney uses his apparent sanity to make it close until about late September when the upper middle class suburbs start to break for Obama, and then we get a margin of victory equal to 2008.

economic signs, at least on this side of the Atlantic, are much improving. no, it's not 1983, or 1996, but it isn't 2009 or 1979 either.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Both have to get the extreme ends out to vote as well. Relatively easy for Romney as on the far nutty right, Obama !!!SOCIALIST!!! hate is so strong, and they'll want to STAND UP!!! AND SAVE AMERICA!!! FOR FREEDOM!!!, plus it's been proven they'll huff and puff and then you just add some dumb as a post fundamentalist nutcase as VP and you've got them straight back. Throw Santorum in there. Nuke the gay Iranians for Jesus, and all that. Perfect. But for Obama? Seems he might have his work cut out for him?

 

[Irvine511]

the "BOMB IRAN BEFORE THEY MAKE US GAY MARRY ABORTIONISTS" crowd is, thankfully, far more represented in the primaries than in the general election. the things that stimulate the base are actually much more personal characteristics that a candidate either has, or doesn't have. is he "one of us"? GWB came off like "one of us" for the religious base of the party, and they showed up. Santorum more or less does, though he's Catholic. no matter who Romney promises to discriminate against, he's fundamentally (ha! n00t!) not "one of us."

and, in fairness, Obama, to me, felt like "one of us." like he was from my class of people, shared my values, viewed the world in the same way i did, and someone that, yes, i'd like to have a beer with. it does work both ways. so even though Obama might be much more Christian than i'd ever be in my life, i know he'd never be a dick about it. and it's also why i cut him the benefit of the doubt so many times, and why i believe that he really is for same-sex marriage, and other things of that nature. whether good or bad, there's something personal about the American presidency that's not true about, say, a Prime Minister.

but general elections are usually won by playing to the middle (or scaring the middle). so you'll hear tough talk against Iran, but the GOP nominee, no matter who it is, will not actually advocate military action against their nuclear sites (even though Santorum has said this in the primary).

the election will not be a cakewalk. but if the economy is improving, as it appears to be, then it will take something major to unseat Obama. in my opinion. because only 10-15% of the country actually thinks he's a Kenyan Marxist secret agent recruited by the Soviets to destroy America from the inside out.

 

[financeguy]

economic signs, at least on this side of the Atlantic, are much improving.

I know this is going to sound awfully arrogant seeing as I don't even live in the US...but, according to my sources, well, you're just flat wrong here. I am seeing no signs. Where are the green shoots?

Some analyst was saying recently that the best hope for improvement in US economy in the near term is capital flight from Europe induced by a sovereign debt and/or currency crisis! There is a small but finite chance of this, certainly, but I wouldn't exactly bet the ranch either.

no, it's not 1983, or 1996, but it isn't 2009 or 1979 either.

As in the 1979 when less than 30% of all jobs were low income jobs, as compared to more than 40% today? You're right, it isn't 1979, it's a lot worse.

30 Statistics That Show That The Middle Class Is Dying Right In Front Of Our Eyes As We Enter 2012

 

[financeguy]

Paul: libertarian-ish people who don't want Hillary to tell them what to do, also the Black Helicopter conspiracy crowd

The Paul base is quite interesting to me. There's the anti-war contingent, there are people with an interest in finance who follow the Austrian school, there's the white nationalist fringe, you've got your survivalists too and there's some cross-over between the latter two groups, though it's unfair to view all survivalists as racists.

What a lot of people don't realise is his relatively strong support base among well-educated youth. This was building through a grassroots online campaign at a time when he was being ignored by the war party shilling MSM.

 

[PhilsFan]

Obama and Paul are easily the two favorite candidates of people my age, no doubt.

 

[financeguy]

Obama and Paul are easily the two favorite candidates of people my age, no doubt.

Really? That's very interesting.

 

[Irvine511]

I know this is going to sound awfully arrogant seeing as I don't even live in the US...but, according to my sources, well, you're just flat wrong here. I am seeing no signs. Where are the green shoots?

i am hardly an economist. i just know what i read in the news.

Consumer Comfort in U.S. Climbs to Five-Month High: Economy - BusinessWeek



i know conspiracies and doomsday scenarios involving the overhaul of modern life are sexy, but it really doesn't seem as if capitalism is over just yet.

i.e.

The Economic Collapse

Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Collapse And The Next Great Depression?

 

[financeguy]

i am hardly an economist. i just know what i read in the news.

Consumer Comfort in U.S. Climbs to Five-Month High: Economy - BusinessWeek



i know conspiracies and doomsday scenarios involving the overhaul of modern life are sexy, but it really doesn't seem as if capitalism is over just yet.

i.e.

There are no solutions to the problems engendered by the collapse of two (arguably, three) enormous successive credit bubbles that do not involve hardship, dislocation, bad stuff, etc.

 

[PhilsFan]

Really? That's very interesting.

what would you have expected? i am curious.

 

[financeguy]

what would you have expected? i am curious.

Well, I don't really know what I would have expected. It probably confirms an impression I had, but being a bit of a Paul fan I feared I might have over-estimated his support among "the youth", plus on here there are plenty of Americans, most of them youngish, and yet support for Paulite policy gains no traction.

 

[BVS]

If there were to be a Ron Paul type of leader that would emerge in the future, but without Paul's crazy baggage, I believe he/ she would solitify the "youth" and win with an overwhelming landslide.

 

[yolland]

I think it's less about his "policy" than the (accurate enough) perception that he can always be relied on to say what he thinks, and doesn't care who he pisses off. As opposed to strategic attempts to piss people off (red meat) or blandly placating bureaucratese.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

And it's obvious that a lot of those bullet points - anti war, end drug war etc - would have massive youth appeal.

 

[financeguy]

If there were to be a Ron Paul type of leader that would emerge in the future, but without Paul's crazy baggage, I believe he/ she would solitify the "youth" and win with an overwhelming landslide.

If they reduced the voting age he'd be a shoe-in with the 12-15 demographic with his "abolish the Department of Education" thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qga5eONXU_4

 

[BVS]

If they reduced the voting age he'd be a shoe-in with the 12-15 demographic with his "abolish the Department of Education" thing:

That's funny on so many levels...

 

[PhilsFan]

Well, I don't really know what I would have expected. It probably confirms an impression I had, but being a bit of a Paul fan I feared I might have over-estimated his support among "the youth", plus on here there are plenty of Americans, most of them youngish, and yet support for Paulite policy gains no traction.

Obviously liberals are going to be pro-Obama or apathetic entirely (I'm somewhere in between), but yes, most people my age who lean conservative have been very pro-Paul so far in this season. He's the only one I'd ever expect to see in a random Twitter or Facebook post from my conservative friends.

I do go to a college that is atypically conservative, so the election cycle will be fascinating when we return to school in August.

 

[HBK-79]

This year I've come across many young voters between 18-30, and they kept gushing about Ron Paul. Surprisingly, most of them were either independents or non-committed liberals.

I have yet to understand Paul's appeal to young people. Yes, he has that anti-Washington machine aura. And he tells it like it is. But no one sees him as "electable".

Still, I find it odd how Obama had a majority of the young voters behind him in 2008, and now Paul seems to have captured that type of demographic.

And Obama was "electable" back then.

 

[deep]

A good portion of Paul's youth support may be related to his wanting to end the drug war > legalize drugs.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly. Pro-drug legalization policy will always get you votes, no matter which side you're on. And I have always liked his stance on our endless itch to go overseas and fight people for...some reason or other, which changes every five minutes and which depends on who we're friends with or not friends with at the time.

But the conspiracy theory stuff, as well as the rumors about those papers (if his ties to them are indeed true)...errrrr. Yeah. That's when I start to back away very slowly.

Irvine's analysis of the upcoming year election-wise, as well as the broad categorization of the supporters of respective GOP candidates, is spot on, I say (and hopeful and reassuring in spots, too).

All I know about him is that some on the right seem to revere him as some kind of intellectual powerhouse, a point of view I cannot understand.

Join the club. Every time I've heard him speak he's always come off like a pompous idiot to me. I get the feeling he and Donald Trump could be good buddies, which doesn't speak well for either person in my book.

I couldn't give any less of a care about politicians' looks. If I'm mystified as to why anyone would support them or marry them or whatever, it's because I think they've got despicable personalities/viewpoints. I fail to see why anyone would be attracted to someone with the kinds of views Michele Bachmann has, and I also fail to see why anyone would be attracted to someone with the kinds of views Santorum has.

 

[Canadiens1131]

This year I've come across many young voters between 18-30, and they kept gushing about Ron Paul. Surprisingly, most of them were either independents or non-committed liberals.

I have yet to understand Paul's appeal to young people. Yes, he has that anti-Washington machine aura. And he tells it like it is. But no one sees him as "electable".

Still, I find it odd how Obama had a majority of the young voters behind him in 2008, and now Paul seems to have captured that type of demographic.

And Obama was "electable" back then.

Paul had a ton of support from Internet communities in 2008 as well.

From what I gather, my young, college-age compatriots like him because:

• He is anti-interventionism
• Wants to end the useless war on drugs (money waster + pot heads jus' wanna get hiiiigh)
• Is actually a likeable person running under the usually idiot candidate-magnet Republican banner, though Paul is a libertarian

 

[deep]

BREAKING: Boston Globe backs Huntsman – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

wow, this is huge
wasn't Romney the governor of MA?
I think Huntsman will be on the upswing now, Santorum better watch out.



wait, nobody reads newspapers anymore, never-mind

 

[diamond]

Ron Paul:

Pro drug legalization
Pro prostitution legalization.

Anti war candidate at any cost-would have stayed out off WWII if he were President in 1940s.: his words.

He's not a Republican, but a Libertarian posing as a Republican, basically making him a fraud, having no real integrity by misrepresentation; a distraction in the GOP field.

20-30 hedonist sycophants may love him for their own hedonist reasons, in the end he doesn't represent most of GOP-he's a side show.


<>

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

BREAKING: Boston Globe backs Huntsman – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

wow, this is huge
wasn't Romney the governor of MA?

Yes he was. But it's no surprise, the Globe was notoriously biased against Romney and did that whole investigation into his lawn service that employed illegal immigrants. So they couldn't exactly endorse him now.

The Globe is a liberal paper, symbolic of that MA that people like Gingrich and Santorum keep mentioning as if it's the modern day mecca of all that is sinful and evil and destructive of family and country. I think Newt called Romney a Massachusetts moderate about 10 times yesterday in NH. Santorum spoke at a college there yesterday and got booed for his views on gay marriage.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Santorum is denying that he said make black people's lives better

"I looked at that, and I didn't say that," Santorum told O'Reilly. "If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of -- blah -- came out. And people said I said 'black.' I didn't."

So, ok..it's only "blacks" who are on food stamps and living off of "other peoples" (whites?) money?

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Thursday he is willing to go before the NAACP and urge blacks to demand paychecks, not food stamps.

Gingrich told a town hall meeting at a senior center in Plymouth, N.H., that if the NAACP invites him to its annual convention this year, he'd go there and talk about "why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

He also said he'd pitch a new Social Security program aimed at helping young people, particularly African-American males, who he said get the smallest return on Social Security.

Gingrich routinely lambasts President Barack Obama as the "best food stamp president in American history." He also has spoken previously about welcoming an invitation from the NAACP to speak and has been critical of GOP candidates who have not accepted such an invitation.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had no immediate comment on Gingrich's remarks. His campaign spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said the former Georgia congressman has often said the GOP needs to be inclusive of all Americans.

"He has said since he became a presidential candidate that any Republican should always accept an invitation to speak to the NAACP on any topic," Hammond said.

Gingrich's comments follow those by rival candidate Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania who said Sunday that he did not want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

Santorum's comments were criticized by National Urban League President Marc H. Morial as pandering to racist elements within the GOP. Morial also said that 70 percent of people on food stamps are white. The Agriculture Department does not break down food stamp participation rates by race.

NAACP President Ben Jealous also criticized Santorum's remarks.

Food stamp participation and costs have risen under Obama, from 28.2 million participants at a cost of $37.6 billion in 2008 to 44.7 million participants at a cost of $75.3 billion last year, according to federal data of what is officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The increases followed the steep economic downturn that began in 2008.

Gingrich said if he has a chance to go before the NAACP, he would explain a "brand-new Social Security opportunity" for young people, "which would be particularly good for African-American males, because they are the group that gets the smallest return on Social Security."

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Pro drug legalization
Pro prostitution legalization.

The arguments for both of those - or some degree of both of those - are very, very strong (you're a realist, aren't you?) and at the very least, deserve a serious and honest debate. I'd like to see Ron Paul as the nominee (no worries - he'd get his arse kicked) just so that issues like these get the headline treatment they absolutely deserve.

Anti war candidate at any cost-would have stayed out off WWII if he were President in 1940s.: his words.

Being a complete isolationist in the 21st century is ridiculous - you don't have a choice. But I would think you should certainly look at the nature (and expense) of US entanglements and engagements and style of influence around the globe. He's absolutely right about Iran and Israel, at least.