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 01-03-2011, 11:52 AM   #61
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
No, they weren't really that vocal about it until after the fact... pretty convenient for them don't you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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
You haven't been paying attention.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 11:55 AM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
You're pretty tone deaf if you truly believe he doesn't have any. His religion doesn't sit well with some "real" christian types. Romney care is going to be a big hurdle as well...
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:17 PM   #63
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
You're giving people WAY too much credit. The average American will interpret that question in whatever timeframe they feel like. Very few people are so clinical about answering that type of question.

Since the economy will be improving (barring...), the only question Republicans can ask in 2012 is "Why hasn't the recovery been faster?" And, given their role in congress, they will have to be careful about vilifying Obama/the economy too much, since they will have had a significant seat at the table for the past 2 years.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 01:56 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
[/B]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.

.

check your stats

when Bush left office unemployment was closer to 8%
and the country was in a free-fall economic collapse
deep is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 02:02 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You're pretty tone deaf if you truly believe he doesn't have any. His religion doesn't sit well with some "real" christian types. Romney care is going to be a big hurdle as well...

things change, McCain was rejected by the party in 2000 and got the nom pretty easy in 2008

Romney came in pretty strong in 2008, also like Nixon did after losing in 1960 he has done a lot of work shoring up support in the party, that worked well for Nixon in 1968.

Also Reagan ran in 1976, lost to Ford and shored up support for a successful 1980. I am not saying Romney will get the nom for sure, I am just sayong he has a good shot. Much better than he did in 2008 and he did better than many expected then.
deep is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 02:38 PM   #66
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
Mitt Romney was 2nd to John McCain in the primaries and McCain had a tough fight to win over Romney.
2008 Delegate count
McCain 1,575
Huckabee 278
Romney 271

Actually Mitt was 3rd and McCain crushed them both.
Romney was beaten into submission (ran out of $$$) or else he would have finished 2nd. Huckabee conserved his money and was able to pick up enough delegates to actually be the runner-up.

But in the spirit of moment, I think it is probably appropriate to say that Romney, if not the actual runner-up, was the runner-up in spirit. But with that said, I don't think "tough fight" is accurate. Romney underperformed, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
Couldn't disagree more. I think MA healthcare will sink him.
But absolutely agree that being from outside of DC will help.
If Romney can weasel his way out of the HC issue, he should be very formidable.
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 04:25 PM   #67
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
What makes you so sure? For Palin and Newt you're probably right, but Romney? Seems like a smart, successful businessman former governor moderate Republican in the midst of 9-something unemployment would do well. How can you say that with a number of polls showing him beating Obama?
I've seen one poll taken a couple weeks ago that shows Romney beating Obama. I've seen a half dozen taken in the last few months that show Obama beating Romney. But it's really not about that.

Romney just isn't a great campaigner. People don't like him very much. Obama is the opposite. People really like him. The more he speaks, the more they like him. Remember, the bulk of the electorate is made up of people who don't watch cable news, who don't live and breathe politics the way you and I do. They don't start paying attention until the campaigns heat up. When Obama gets that campaign engine started, and the speeches begin and the ground game is organized, he's going to be pretty tough to beat.

That's why I think the only person who CAN beat him is someone just like him. Someone new. A fresh face who can match his energy.

Further, Obama's approval ratings have been hovering just below 50% since August of 2009. Considering the unemployment rate, those numbers are nothing short of astonishing. Higher than Reagan, higher than Clinton.

You give his campaign an improving economy to sell—set against a republican party with far lower approval ratings than Obama—and it's hard to see how the President doesn't get reelected.
LPU2 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 04:42 PM   #68
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 706
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
I think you're underestimating the American electorate. Only the extraordinarily naive (OK, Fox News viewers) blame Obama for the unemployment.

Here's a visual. Guess where Obama came in?

LPU2 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 04:46 PM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:10 PM
I think he's part of that electorate, hence the naivety.
BVS is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 07:23 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPU2 View Post
I've seen one poll taken a couple weeks ago that shows Romney beating Obama. I've seen a half dozen taken in the last few months that show Obama beating Romney. But it's really not about that.

Romney just isn't a great campaigner. People don't like him very much. Obama is the opposite. People really like him. The more he speaks, the more they like him. Remember, the bulk of the electorate is made up of people who don't watch cable news, who don't live and breathe politics the way you and I do. They don't start paying attention until the campaigns heat up. When Obama gets that campaign engine started, and the speeches begin and the ground game is organized, he's going to be pretty tough to beat.

That's why I think the only person who CAN beat him is someone just like him. Someone new. A fresh face who can match his energy.

Further, Obama's approval ratings have been hovering just below 50% since August of 2009. Considering the unemployment rate, those numbers are nothing short of astonishing. Higher than Reagan, higher than Clinton.

You give his campaign an improving economy to sell—set against a republican party with far lower approval ratings than Obama—and it's hard to see how the President doesn't get reelected.
I agree with this, cautiously. I guess I'm always a bit doubtful. I wasn't ready to believe Obama would really win in 2008 until the polls closed on Election Night.

I wonder how much of our prognistication is more about what we want to be true and less about what actually is true. Not a lot of conservative posters suggesting Obama can win, not a lot of liberal posters suggesting Obama could lose (though this group is somewhat more open to that possiblity). Conicidence? I think not.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 09:27 AM   #71
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I wonder how much of our prognistication is more about what we want to be true and less about what actually is true. Not a lot of conservative posters suggesting Obama can win, not a lot of liberal posters suggesting Obama could lose (though this group is somewhat more open to that possiblity). Conicidence? I think not.


though Mitch McConnell did say that the #1 priority of the GOP was to defeat Obama in 2012 (as opposed to, say, making the country better), are there many right wing pundits or politicians (beyond Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc.) who are highly confident that Obama will lose?

i'm genuinely curious.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 09:56 AM   #72
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
Obama does have a grace period, but its not going to last forever. His approval ratings have been as low as 41% over the past few months which is not good regardless of the situation or comparisons to past Presidents. Obama's monthly average on approval will continue to decline the longer the unemployment rate remains so high.

Quote:
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.
In February of 2008, Bush's last year in office, the unemployment rate was only 4.8%. Its true that in Bush's last 6 months in office the unemployment rate suddenly and steadily climbed. When Obama came in, in January, unemployment was about 7.5%. But after Obama was in, it climbed as high as 10.1%, is currently at 9.8% and is not really moving much.

Its not enough that jobs are being added. You have to add jobs every month just to keep up with new people entering the work force. Its not enough to have some GDP growth and some job growth. Voters won't feel that.

What voters do feel is the most difficult job market since the 1930s. A jobs situation that worsened for months after Obama entered office and has not noticably improved for the voters. Obama still has time to try and change the situation, but time is running out. Obama cannot run against George Bush in 2012. He can't really run against Republicans in 2012 since they only control the house. He is going to be on the defensive and will have to explain to voters why he deserves another term. Sustained unemployment rates above 9% are not going to increase voter appreciation. People are going to start to look elsewhere when the campaign starts if the situation continues.

Quote:
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.
Well, not all voters look at it that way. Many will remember what life was like four years ago and simply conclude that Obama has done a poor job. The fact is, whether he is at fault or not, the overwhelming majority of the high monthly unemployment rates have happened under Obama. If that persist, that is what people will remember and think about on election day. No one is going to remember that the economy started to deteriate in the last 6 months when Bush was President. They are going to be focused on four years of unemployment above 8% or 9% under Obama, consistantly, month after month, which is something the country has not seen since the 1930s.

Even people that generally like Obama will be attracted to someone new, something different, in order to bring about some sort of change in the jobs situation.

Bottom line, there has to be significant improvement in the jobs situation for voters in order for Obama to have a decent chance at re-election. The next 8 months is very important.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:00 AM   #73
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Charlie Crist is an independent.

and gay.
Well, he can quickly switch back to being a Republican. He is also married to a women. Even if he is gay in the closet, as long as he survives the primary, the general election would not be a problem.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:03 AM   #74
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No, they weren't really that vocal about it until after the fact... pretty convenient for them don't you think?



You haven't been paying attention.
There was massive opposition to John McCain in the Republican party. In fact Democrats would often bring that up with glee because they feared running against McCain the most. Had the economy not collapsed at the end of 2008, McCain would likely have won.

I don't know of any Republicans that have refered to Patreus as a "Traitor". Can you tell us which Republicans in congress think General Patreus is a "traitor"?
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:05 AM   #75
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You're pretty tone deaf if you truly believe he doesn't have any. His religion doesn't sit well with some "real" christian types. Romney care is going to be a big hurdle as well...
The hurdle that no one wants to have is Obama's. Its 9.8% unemployment. As long as you can't be tied to that, your in a good position.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:12 AM   #76
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
You're giving people WAY too much credit. The average American will interpret that question in whatever timeframe they feel like. Very few people are so clinical about answering that type of question.

.
On the contrary, people often do look at it that way. Reagan exploited this particular question in both 1980 and 1984 and it worked magnificently!

Quote:
Since the economy will be improving (barring...), the only question Republicans can ask in 2012 is "Why hasn't the recovery been faster?" And, given their role in congress, they will have to be careful about vilifying Obama/the economy too much, since they will have had a significant seat at the table for the past 2 years
Its a weak seat relative to Democratic control of the Senate and the White House. Its unknown yet what the unemployment situation will look like a in 8 months or 20 months. But that will be the measure by which people will assess the economic situation. It won't be enough to site 2% or 3% GDP growth, but with the unemployment figures locked at 9%. This is the worse unemployment rate since the 1930s, and its going to take some real heavy lifting in between now and election day for things to change substantially so Obama can be re-elected. Its definitely possible. Reagan did it in 1983-1984. But the improvement has to be sustained and significant enough that the voters on the street can feel it.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:19 AM   #77
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
check your stats

when Bush left office unemployment was closer to 8%
and the country was in a free-fall economic collapse
In February of 2008, the unemployment rate was only 4.8%. When the 2012 election is in full swing in February 2012, what will the unemployment rate be? Will it be 9% compared to just 4.8% four years earlier?

The unemployment rate did not start to go up until the last 6 months Bush was in office, and it never topped 8%. With Obama, the unemployment rate has topped 8% for all 24 months and 9.4% for 20 of those months including a high of 10.1%. People are not going to be looking at Bush's last 6 months in office on November 2, 2012, they are going to be looking at the past 45 months that Obama was in office. What type of jobs situation did they live under for the past 45 months? Thats going to have a powerful impact on whether or not Obama gets re-elected. The longer the unmployment rate stays above 9%, the chances that Obama will be re-elected steadily decrease.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:23 AM   #78
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPU2 View Post
I think you're underestimating the American electorate. Only the extraordinarily naive (OK, Fox News viewers) blame Obama for the unemployment.

Here's a visual. Guess where Obama came in?

Whats extraordinarily naive is to think that voters won't care what the economic and job situation was for the past 45 months under Obama on election day. Obama can't run against Bush in 2012. He is going to have to defend his OWN record. He is not going to be able to pass off 9% unemployment in 2012 on someone who has not been President in four years. The unemployment rate is a negative, a big negative, and if Obama cannot sigificantly correct it, he is unlikely to be re-elected.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:30 AM   #79
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner El Guapo View Post
2008 Delegate count
McCain 1,575
Huckabee 278
Romney 271

Actually Mitt was 3rd and McCain crushed them both.
Romney was beaten into submission (ran out of $$$) or else he would have finished 2nd. Huckabee conserved his money and was able to pick up enough delegates to actually be the runner-up.

But in the spirit of moment, I think it is probably appropriate to say that Romney, if not the actual runner-up, was the runner-up in spirit. But with that said, I don't think "tough fight" is accurate. Romney underperformed, period.



Couldn't disagree more. I think MA healthcare will sink him.
But absolutely agree that being from outside of DC will help.
If Romney can weasel his way out of the HC issue, he should be very formidable.
I'm talking about the race itself. If McCain had not beaten Romney in Florida, Romney may have won. The early states and key victories in the early states is what matters. After that its all just a formality. The winner always has a large margin in delegates because victory or defeat often happens early in the race in the key states. Then the rest of the States just jump on board with the winner.
adam4bono is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 10:32 AM   #80
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
There was massive opposition to John McCain in the Republican party. In fact Democrats would often bring that up with glee because they feared running against McCain the most. Had the economy not collapsed at the end of 2008, McCain would likely have won.

I don't know of any Republicans that have refered to Patreus as a "Traitor". Can you tell us which Republicans in congress think General Patreus is a "traitor"?
Massive opposition? Really?

You really think McCain had an easy win up until that point? You must be paying attention to a different world than I am.

I didn't say Republicans in congress, I said the far right. Limbaugh and many others(in fact there may have been a few in Congress) didn't like his stance on torture and Gitmo and accused him of catering to Obama.
__________________

BVS 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 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×