The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 18

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Remember, McCain was beating Obama in the polls until voters got to know Sarah Palin

Wait, is this true? I don't recall McCain ever being in the lead in polls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Wait, is this true? I don't recall McCain ever being in the lead in polls.

I do seem to remember him being possibly within striking distance until he made that "The fundamentals of the economy are sound" statement.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

If I'm reading this correctly, there were three times when McCain overtook Obama: January, March and September of 2008.

Newt:   Come on guys.   Don't make me look like an idiot for taking part in the Trump Debate!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/07/newt-gingrich-donald-trump_n_1133633.html

The article is worth reading but this seemed interesting to me....

Since when does a moderator debate the candidates?   I won't lie.   I'm watching this debate.   It sounds too much like a trainwreck to miss.

Exactly!  And besides, no one is avoiding Trump's stunning intellect or debate skills.  They're avoiding him because he is one of our generations biggest toolboxes.

But then again, it's Newt.  One of our generations other biggest toolboxes.

I thought McCain did better than that pre-Palin (it does depend on what poll you look at) but he definitely had some serious momentum once he picked his running mate. Then Palin opened her mouth.

There's a very clear correlation: right-wing dogma and obvious stupidity turns off voters in the general election, for all that we tend to moan about the seeming popularity of folks like Palin. Bush won because he presents a fairly mild, moderate facade, despite all the crackpots in his party and administration.

If Romney wins, you can bet his VP nominee will be Tea Party-approved but not to the point it turns off moderates.  Rubio would probably be at the very top of the list.

And McCain was up in the polls following the Republican National Convention largely because of Sarah Palin.  She had a spectacular debut giving two speeches filled with fire and red meat for Republicans.  Conservatives who were lukewarm on McCain were energized by Palin.  Moderates were probably pretty intrigued by the fiery, attractive, and incredibly popular governor.  Then the financial crisis hit hard with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.  Obama was calm and in control.  McCain freaked out and, in turn, freaked out anyone who thought that this man might actually become president at the time of a crisis.  The icing on the cake was Palin's unraveling with embarrassing interviews showing that she was an unqualified novice who relied on barely-understood talking points and over-the-top rhetoric to mask her ignorance on the most pressing issues of the day.  Unscripted, she was a train wreck.  In fact, the 2008 presidential race was a train wreck for the Republicans in just about every way imaginable. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvc 

If Romney wins, you can bet his VP nominee will be Tea Party-approved but not to the point it turns off moderates.  Rubio would probably be at the very top of the list.

I could see some in the GOP leadership trying to get Chris Christie to accept the VP nominee position in a move to get him on the national stage....but I don't think Christie would like playing second fiddle AND Christie's ego would outshine anyone else around him.  

I have no doubt that the GOP have had wet dreams about Christie running for prez.

The GOP have been privately and publicly begging Christie to run for months. He's flat-out refused. I think in part because Christie is honest with himself enough to know that going against Obama is a losing battle and it's better for him politically to wait until 2016 or so. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

The GOP have been privately and publicly begging Christie to run for months. He's flat-out refused. I think in part because Christie is honest with himself enough to know that going against Obama is a losing battle and it's better for him politically to wait until 2016 or so. 

This is completely the kook round.  The serious candidates are waiting for 2016, but I honestly think that by then, with any luck, Chris Christie will be shamed into resigning as Governor.  What people like Christie are walking around defending and promoting right now will one day, hopefully soon, be viewed as being as odious and immoral as Watergate. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reasor 

Christie refuses to run because he has skeletons in the closet.

 

LOL 

I just read that first sentence and before I even got to the first letter of the next sentence/word, I had already finished the rest of the comment it in my head...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

The GOP have been privately and publicly begging Christie to run for months. He's flat-out refused. I think in part because Christie is honest with himself enough to know that going against Obama is a losing battle and it's better for him politically to wait until 2016 or so. 

Going against Obama is a losing battle?  Unemployment is high, the economy is stagnant, one of his signature accomplishments (the health care law) has had a disapproval rating at or above 50% for the past 2 years, and his approval numbers have been almost consistently in the 40s with his disapproval numbers around 50%.  Among recent presidents at this point in their first terms, only Carter had a lower approval rating.  He went on to win only 41% of the popular vote, 6 states, and 49 electoral votes in 1980.  Now, the map is much different and the country more polarized; so Obama pretty much has a floor of about 200 electoral votes.  But, unless the economy turns around fast (which I'm sure we're all hoping for), we get hit with a major terrorist attack that unites the country (God forbid), or the Republicans put up a bloated, egotistical, philandering, ticking time bomb of a candidate to run against Obama (that will never happen, right?), Obama is the most beatable sitting president one year out since Carter.

Which leads me to believe some of the good candidates had other valid reasons for sitting out.  Christie is a brand new governor and has the same moderate views that kept Giuliani from getting any traction in the 2008 Republican primary.  Thune at least has enough self-awareness to know that just looking like a president is no substitute for a record of actual accomplishment in the Senate.  Ryan just took over as chair of the House Budget Committee, which is a dream job for him.  He also probably knows how hard it is to go directly from the House to the White House.  Jindal had a disastrous debut on the national stage responding to a previous Obama speech.  Plus he knows he is young with plenty of time.  He can continue to build his record in Louisiana, where he is so popular he was just reelected with 66% of the vote and no serious opposition.  From most accounts, Daniels wanted to run, but his family didn't want him to do it, particularly his wife.  Jeb's got the whole last name/family dynasty strike against him.  People like Rubio and McDonnell are too new on the national stage.  Palin is making too much money and is at least smart enough to see she had no real chance of getting the nomination, let alone winning the general election. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvc 

Going against Obama is a losing battle?  Unemployment is high, the economy is stagnant, one of his signature accomplishments (the health care law) has had a disapproval rating at or above 50% for the past 2 years, and his approval numbers have been almost consistently in the 40s with his disapproval numbers around 50%.  Among recent presidents at this point in their first terms, only Carter had a lower approval rating.  He went on to win only 41% of the popular vote, 6 states, and 49 electoral votes in 1980.  Now, the map is much different and the country more polarized; so Obama pretty much has a floor of about 200 electoral votes.  But, unless the economy turns around fast (which I'm sure we're all hoping for), we get hit with a major terrorist attack that unites the country (God forbid), or the Republicans put up a bloated, egotistical, philandering, ticking time bomb of a candidate to run against Obama (that will never happen, right?), Obama is the most beatable sitting president one year out since Carter.

 

Which leads me to believe some of the good candidates had other valid reasons for sitting out.  Christie is a brand new governor and has the same moderate views that kept Giuliani from getting any traction in the 2008 Republican primary.  Thune at least has enough self-awareness to know that just looking like a president is no substitute for a record of actual accomplishment in the Senate.  Ryan just took over as chair of the House Budget Committee, which is a dream job for him.  He also probably knows how hard it is to go directly from the House to the White House.  Jindal had a disastrous debut on the national stage responding to a previous Obama speech.  Plus he knows he is young with plenty of time.  He can continue to build his record in Louisiana, where he is so popular he was just reelected with 66% of the vote and no serious opposition.  From most accounts, Daniels wanted to run, but his family didn't want him to do it, particularly his wife.  Jeb's got the whole last name/family dynasty strike against him.  People like Rubio and McDonnell are too new on the national stage.  Palin is making too much money and is at least smart enough to see she had no real chance of getting the nomination, let alone winning the general election. 

   .... despite all those names bandied about, the GOP field these days is nothing more than the political equivalent of the "Washington Generals".

They've gone so far to the right as to be unrecognizable compared to the GOP that existed in the first half of the 20th century and IMO, unless they are able to regain a degree of rationality, they're going to be fucked.  The election is Obama's to lose.

While I think you're right that Obama has to fight for this and it won't be an easy ride (judging by the latest in voter suppression and anticipating voting machine shenanigans), the economy is, in fact, growing.  There has been solid private sector job growth since he took office, and people are starting to understand that the healthcare bill is not death panels and has benefits (like the 85% of people's premiums having to be put into actual care part) kicking in that people like. 

But I don't think it's going to be an easy ride.  I don't think any of the reasons for these potential candidates sitting it out are viable.  If the party wanted them out there, they would be out there.  Obviously, the party is sacrificing Romney, whom they never liked, just like they sacrificed McCain, whom they also never liked.

Like I said, voter suppression and shenanigans coupled with the overwhelmingly negative coverage Obama gets in the "liberal media" could hurt him and yield a President Romney or President Gingrich (shudder), but I don't buy any of the excuses.  I think Chris Christie is sitting it out because he wants an easier ride in.  And I do think he's next in line, because he is the ONLY one of all those names you mention with any charisma at all.  If he weren't such an elitist supply sider who seems to be trying to kill public education and environmental controls in New Jersey, I would actually like the guy. 

Speaking of Perry, he just announced that he's NOT attending Trump's "debate".    Perry's not a big fan of debates to begin with so it's not a surprise he dropped out but even he has to see how embarassing it would be to show up.  Also, it looks like Bachman is leaning towards not going.   So that leaves Gingrich and Santorum to fight it out in the Trump Octagon.

Here's my crazy theory.   Newt's people make contact with the other candidates people and starts a conversation that goes something like this....

Newt's Campaign Manager:  So, hey.   Did you hear about this debate Donald Trump is going to put on?   Is your guy thinking of going?

GOP Candidate's Manager:   Oh yeah, wouldn't miss it for the world!   It'll be awesome.

Newt's Campaign Manager:  Awesome.   So your guy is going for sure?   Because it would sure be embarrassing if only my guy showed up.

GOP Candidate's Manager:  Don't worry man.   We'll be there.   Promise.

Newt's Campaign Manager:  Awesome.   Will call Trump up now and book.   See you there!

(Hangs up phone)

GOP Candidate's Manager:  Fucking idiot.....

Maybe it didn't go exactly like that but it's pretty clear that Newt got punked.   That's my theory.

It's official:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70141.html

It'd be great if the remaining 673 Republican debates consisted of nothing but moderaters who were previously seriously considered "frontrunners".

You know it's ironic but the Trump Debate would have been the only one I would have seen live.   That had trainwreck potential.   Also, a FOX News poll came out stating that anyone who got Trump's endorsement would actually lose supporters.   That might have been a factor in the mass defections.

This is why I would never vote for Christie, someone asked him if he believed in evolution. He said none of your business. The only right response is yes. Anything else means you used to think that inbreeding didn't lead to negative genetic side effects. I don't trust the decision making skills of someone who is going to ignore facts to believe something that makes him feel good.

It could also mean that he does but doesn't what to alienate his religious base.

  That leads me to my two problem with The Religious Right. Jesus once said that,"It is easier for a camel to pass though the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom." That doesn't sound like someone who believes in trickle down economics. Second, the vast majority of Jesus's miracles where healing the sick. I would think that He would be for Universal Health Care.

He's incredibly cocky because he's got the money rolling in.  The Koch brothers would empty their wallets for him if they could because he seems to love money above all things.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/08/384208/mitch-mcconnell-national-popular-vote/

Yup. McConnell thinks actually counting your vote, without it being interpreted by the electoral college, is a threat to the country.

I don't think anyone else has mentioned it but the "My Dinner with Trump" discussion...(in this case, calling it a 'debate' seems insulting to the word 'debate') ...is sponsored by the journalistic equivalent of "The Weekly World News", Newsmax.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/08/384208/mitch-mcconnell-national-popular-vote/

 

Yup. McConnell thinks actually counting your vote, without it being interpreted by the electoral college, is a threat to the country.

 

 

Well, no surprises there. The largest growing demographic groups either seem to hate The Republicans already or they're doing their best to alienate those who don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/10/palestinians-invented-people-newt-gingrich

"Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until the early 20th century", Gingrich said.

Wow, it's a terrible sight to behold when politicians start pandering so blatantly. It gets worse.

"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic," he said.

You could just as easily substitute 

Israel for Palestine

Israeli for Palestinian

and Jew for Arab

and try to make an equally awful non argument. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

I don't think anyone else has mentioned it but the "My Dinner with Trump" discussion...(in this case, calling it a 'debate' seems insulting to the word 'debate') ...is sponsored by the journalistic equivalent of "The Weekly World News", Newsmax.   

 For some reason I skimmed a copy of Newsmax just before the 08 election. There was a story about a US under Obama. Terrorist attacks happened all the time, and a reporter blamed himself because he didn't write any positive stories about Iraq. I got a good smirk out of it.

Huffington Post's Top 7 Rick Perry Parody ads.   Number 2 is my favorite....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/rick-perry-strong-commerc_n_1139527.html?ref=comedy#s532691&title=Mike_Macrae

I should add a couple of peoples you could argue are in the "recently invented" categories:

Namely Italians: (c.1870) and Germans (c.1871).

You could even want to add Americans (c.1776) if you want to go a bit further back.

Saw tonight's Republican Debate and I have to wonder.   How the hell is Gingrich leading in the polls?   The guy is a humorless pompous asshole.   Oh and he got applause from the audience when he talked about how poor kids should help out in school doing janitorial duties and undercutting the janitor unions in the process.   Oh and Mitt Romney casually bet Rick Perry $10,000 dollars if he can prove the passage about health care in his book was taken out.     Good 'ol Mitt with the common touch.  

I look at these candidates and I'm not even seeing an effort to connect with the middle class except with racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and islamaphobia.   For some, I guess that's enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

Saw tonight's Republican Debate and I have to wonder.   How the hell is Gingrich leading in the polls?   The guy is a humorless pompous asshole.   Oh and he got applause from the audience when he talked about how poor kids should help out in school doing janitorial duties and undercutting the janitor unions in the process.   Oh and Mitt Romney casually bet Rick Perry $10,000 dollars if he can prove the passage about health care in his book was taken out.     Good 'ol Mitt with the common touch.  

 

I look at these candidates and I'm not even seeing an effort to connect with the middle class except with racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and islamaphobia.   For some, I guess that's enough.

The Guardian had some great running commentary on the debate as it happened:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/11/gop-presidential-debate-iowa-live?commentpage=4#start-of-comments

Joshua Treviño@jstrevino

Never offer a ten thousand dollar bet. Offer a relatable bet for the middle class, like a private island.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

Saw tonight's Republican Debate and I have to wonder.   How the hell is Gingrich leading in the polls?   The guy is a humorless pompous asshole.

"humorless pompous asshole" just happens to be the "type" that the majority of the current GOP are attracted to....

I admire you guys who have the stomach to watch any of these debates.  I certainly don't.  Why do they have to have so many? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

I admire you guys who have the stomach to watch any of these debates.  I certainly don't.  Why do they have to have so many? 

I am beginning to believe that some of the writers from the Colbert Report and The Daily Show have infiltrated the GOP and are the ones responsible for the sheer number of debates. It's the gift that keeps on giving...

I do see that we have the "Stephen Colbert's South Carolina Serious, Classy Republican Debate" to look forward to.....

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403806/december-07-2011/stephen-colbert-s-south-carolina-serious--classy-republican-debate

....seriously, how fucking great would this be if it were to happen.

That I will totally watch.  He will probably get Buddy Roemer, maybe even Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman.  Colbert is such a genius. 

I wouldn't be surprised if all of them show up for Colbert's debate.    Actually a Comedy Central Debate with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be more substantive than the debates the mainstream media hosts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

Actually a Comedy Central Debate with John Stewart and Stephen Colbert would most definitely be more substantive than the debates the mainstream media hosts.

FTFY.

Lol...Newt loves child labor and so does the audience at this most recent debate....awesome. Every time these guys open their mouths they become even more of a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Dylan 

Lol...Newt loves child labor and so does the audience at this most recent debate....awesome. Every time these guys open their mouths they become even more of a joke.

Just as long as the joke doesn't end up on us I hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

Just as long as the joke doesn't end up on us I hope.

Amen, brother.  I thought Bush's second term was a joke, but look how that turned out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

I wouldn't be surprised if all of them show up for Colbert's debate.   

Not to be snarky, but you must have smoked some bad granola.

Absolute best case scenario, he gets Paul, Huntsman, and MAYBE Santorum or Bachmann are crazy/desperate enough to jump in. (They'd be eviscerated, of course, but they might figure they can use the publicity and wave off any substantive criticism as that mean ol' liberal media ganging up on them.) The other candidates all know that they'd be subject to real incisive questions in front of an unsympathetic audience, and would never want to risk it. Gingrich especially can't afford to leave the right-wing bubble, and certainly not to go on the show of the man who tore Dubya a new asshole at the correspondent's dinner. Romney's the same, his strategy is to stay quiet and wait for everyone else to kill each other off. If Herman Cain was still in the race he'd probably go for it, but, you know.

I could actually see Gingrich do something like that actually.   He seems like the kind of guy who would brag about going into the "lion's den" and coming out the other side unscathed.   It's actually a more respectable place to be seen than that Newsmax Trump debate but so is doing an honorary chair shot on the Undertaker at a WWE PPV.   One thing is for sure,  Stewart and Colbert would actually test these candidates in ways FOX, ABC, MSNBC, etc. haven't or wouldn't.

...Which is why most of the candidates are unlikely to show up.

I'll grant you that Gingrich made the bizarre choice to show up at Trump's debate, but that's still got to be fairly safe for him. Colbert wouldn't be.

A debated moderated by Colbert and Stewart would rock. And to borrow a word from a post above, the hosts would eviscerate the candidates. No way anyone beyond Huntsman, Paul and maybe Bachmann and Santorum show up. Gingrich would especially be ripe for exposure, because while he likes to use a lot of big words and long sentences, Colbert and Stewart are able and willing to unpack his bullshit and skewer him with it.

Unfortunately, the odds of a full blown Colbert/Stewart GOP debate with all the players won't occur....as mentioned before, they won't go out of their bubbles because they know they would be verbally ripped apart.

but I can dream....how I long to see Santorum or Bachmann trot out some sort of neo-religious talking point in front of Colbert. He would rip them several new assholes...that man knows his religion. ( sidenote- if you get a chance, watch Colbert and Jack White have a catholic 'throwdown')

As far as Cain showing up....IIRC, he was supposed to be on the Colbert Report a couple (2, 3 ?) times, but he bailed at the last minute each time.

Obama's 60 Minutes interview...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57341009-10391709/president-obama-the-full-60-minutes-interview/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I can't imagine any of the current crop of GOP candidates giving an hour long interview like this...with the exception of Newt; I think he likes to hear himself talk.