Friday night topic: Handicapping 2012

Like it or not, the next U.S. presidential race is upon us. That means the candidates in the party out of power—the GOP, in this case—are lining up to seek their party’s nomination to face the incumbent, President Obama, in the general election.

The thing is, the Republican primary race looks wide open at this point, with a huge field of potentials and no strong frontrunner, as far as I can tell. Political discussions can get a bit messy, so I’m going to ask you all to answer several specific questions in order to keep things on track. They are:

1. Who will win the GOP nomination and why? Not looking for your favorite here, but the candidate you think will be the eventual victor.

2. Who should win the GOP nomination? Who do you prefer as the nominee among the apparent choices, and why?

3. Who will win the general election, the GOP nominee or Obama? Why?

Try to keep things civil and related to actually handicapping the race or explaining your preferences in positive terms, please. Folks who just want to scream their violent hatred toward Sarah Palin or whatever are welcome to refrain from participation.

Honestly, I can’t say I know how to answer question #1. My sense is that Mitt Romney, for all his problems (health care record, charisma, etc.), is probably the most likely nominee thanks to a strong organization and the sense that, well, it’s his turn. The GOP tends to nominate the next guy in line, the guy who has the support of the local party establishments, and Romney seems to be that guy more than anyone else. I think.

What are your picks and why? Discuss. Oh, and we may revisit these predictions after the fact, to see who called it best.

Comments closed
    • trackerben
    • 9 years ago

    1. If the economy goes down further, I’d say Palin. Her imaging is as far as you can get from that of the incumbent, in background (middle-class), ideology (non-elitist conservative), manner (passionate and resourceful), and appearance and nomen (Christian woman). The average voter will be under greater stress and uncertainty by then and so we will see more reactionary movements against existential threats in all areas, perceived or real. Uncertain healthcare availability, certain inflationary growth in prices, oil supply shock arising from clueless handling of the broken Arabic world, these will be at the top of the list.

    2. The perception may be that a woman would not be as cold and unseeing as the usual Democrat or Republican old boy. Palin has a track record for unapologetically pursuing growth in energy production. Her feigned distance from clueless imperial washington and its eunuch media is a plus. The problem is that her experience is not that much deeper than that of the incumbent, in international affairs she actually has less gravitas, a wonder. Like the mismaligned Bush, she’s a bit smarter and wiser than most people give her credit for. It’s just that she fits certain stereotypical biases which work against her manner of presentation.

    There is a possible solution, in terms of what’s good for the country. The Republicans are ahead of the curve, but the Democrats aren’t all lame refurbs like many of the R candidates. So we may see a exodus from the Democratic Party and maybe, just maybe, someone useful crossing into the opposite camp but skipping straight to the tea section. Someone like Hillary. If the GOP does get her even as a neoTea, they would have a tough woman candidate who Hillarycares, who helped oversee a prosperous era and has more experience than a Palin and two Obamas put together, who is arguably wiser than her husband. Significantly, she has convinced many that she is far less prone to useless partisanship than her supersmart boss, who thought it important to strum crafty Trump’s PR strings while Egypt burned. And tea partiers may see a reformed fellow traveller, a voice of reason skimmed over by her own party despite its leaders’ consensus that she was the “better man” for the job in 2008.

    This outrageous scenario isn’t likely, as Hillary is a known Democrat standard bearer and would also have a hard time with female GOP voters. So with less wishful thinking, laughter, and slightly less optimality I will pick Romney, but on a qualified basis. Because this early he has proved he is willing to make tough and risky choices rather than procrastinate or play popular. But if and only if Gingrich goes back to running congress and keeping Republicans honest. He is the only one who can lead the GOP back into the principled, reformist movement it was poised to become before its leaders got coopted by their rivals into the comfortable status-quo.

    3. I’d say anyone credibly fielded by the Republicans who has Tea support and pulls in the funds, and that means either Romney or Palin. None of the two are badly overexposed and their track records are still relatively pristine for being so untested, except for Romney’s unfortunate insurance debacle. History is a harsh judge and all things equal, second terms don’t get earned on talking-up skills but on delivering results. Like a Third World leader, the incumbent still retains the trust of that minority of the electorate which identifies with his racial heritage, but the rest have seen what he can do and it just wasn’t what was expected of a world-changing, almost millenarian prodigy. Most people will be under greater stress and uncertainty by then, and they will remember who said he would change things for the better, for all.

    Voters know that Obama got lucky back in 2008, and they are determined it will be their turn next time.

    Edit: If good governance is really a blessing bestowed and not an achievement earned, then a Romney and Gingrich double team looks to be it for now. Without Gingrich helming the party, Romney will have his way and may wind up compromising to a fault with party hacks as much as W. Bush did.

    Because if nations really do get the government they deserve and the American Experiment is no exception, then it will be Obama reborn over.

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    1.) Probably Romney

    2.) Don’t really care, because it doesn’t matter in the long-run. The USA is going to hit another great depression that may end up dissolving the Union (collapse of the Federal government). We are plagued by a infrastructure that is about to become a very expensive deadweight (Extremely depended on cheap energy and hydrocarbons). Any action that would help to mitigate the inevitable painful transition (less dependent on energy and more centralization) requires some kind of dictatorship.

    3.) Obama will win again, but the margins will be really close (a.k.a 2000 election)

    • Kenuzara
    • 9 years ago

    1. Romney. For all the reasons listed in this thread. He’s the most moderate candidate likely to have a chance in the general election & it really is “his time” according the GOP clock.

    2. Romney again. As an independent he’s the closest i’d come to touching the GOP. Otherwise most of their candidates are too stupid, too polarizing or too slimy.

    3. Obama. Not a one of the GOP candidates has his charisma on the warpath. He can go toe to toe in a debate with any of them and crush them I’m pretty certain.

    That said, what I’d love to see is for Obama to have a press conference where he chunks the deuce to the Dems and announces he’s now part of the GOP. He’ll then go on to talk about how this decision was fueled by the fact that the majority of his policy is centrist-right Republican policy from the ’90s. This massive upset will leave the Dems scrambling to figure out what to do, putting a weak candidate on the poll leading to Obama being elected anyway.

    Seriously though, it’d be nice if our political scale wasn’t middle-right to extreme right. I don’t think there are any true liberals left in Washington (maybe Ron Paul, he’s so far right he looks left these days).

    Here’s just one reason why Palin is unelectable: [url<]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43274699#43274699[/url<] Bachmann has just as many stupid moments.

    • Johnny5
    • 9 years ago

    I voted for Kodos.

      • 5150
      • 9 years ago

      Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

    • rika13
    • 9 years ago

    1. The most likely winner would be either Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain. Newt has experience as Speaker and has name recognition, whilst Cain has experience running a large company (Godfather’s), ran the Federal Reserver Bank of Kansas City, and (being black) can defeat the Obama strategy of having his lackeys play the race card (Obama has traditionally had others do the dirty work of campaigning to maintain his clean image).

    The non-winners would include all the guys who run every year, Romney due to his health care plan being too similar to Obama’s, Pawlenty who is an unknown and has negotiated trade with other countries (might not sound bad, but states aren’t allowed to do stuff with other nations).

    The maybe is Gary Johnson, since his big things are never having raised taxes and lowering them 14 times during his time as governor and his legalization of drugs, changing it from a criminal to a health issue.

    2. I’d like Herman Cain to win, except for his support of FairTax (the problems with it being strains on cash flow of the lower classes and increased price volatility due to it being a % of the price, much like why Illinois refuses offer tax relief on gas), his policies are the most sensible.

    3. A tough one.

    Traditional DNC groups will throw their support (unions, blacks, women, gays, college students, the poor, most of the press), his campaign has shown an extreme ability to advertise in areas where federal election laws regarding equal advertising do not apply (games, saw a movie where one of the characters works in an Obama campaign office, etc), and the use of lackeys to do dirty work (Biden playing race card, the press to get sealed records to burn Jack Ryan about his divorce, the Black Panthers to “discourage” people from voting against him in Chicago).

    Going against Obama is practically everything he has done and said, from the now illegal occupation of Libya (he did not seek Congressional authorization as required by the War Powers Resolution), pissing off Israel by demanding they go back to the 1967 borders, the stimulus which only stimulated our debt, his wife hugging the Queen (you do not touch the monarch), appointing various “czars” without Senate approval (32 unapproved) for less than important things (weatherization and Asian Carp czars), the
    “stimulus” which was really a spending spree for democrat pet projects, and, most all, his economy (his policies have actually made the recession WORSE and the economy is recovering despite his efforts, ironically, his dad was an economist).

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    I really dont care who it is as long as they are not a complete f[ire tr]uking idiot, like the georgies a few years ago. There is no room for incompetence in a superpower with so much at stake.

    I need someone that sticks up for the people and what America stood for. How about starting to create more things MADE IN USA instead of importing cr@p made in china. Having great products means having a great economy. This is a nation of business. Get those jobs back that went to india and china in the services sector by putting pressure on those companies with taxes and such.

    I also want someone that can fix the healthcare system. The cost of insurance is an astronomical joke. you are only pushing people to go on welfare so they can get free medical coverage when the costs are so high that an entire salary has go to towards paying it. you are also putting hospitals at risk of bankruptcy when many don’t pay their extra large medical bills. I have seen way to many of these hospitals close in new york city that have fallen on hard times.

      • mesyn191
      • 9 years ago

      +1

    • FireGryphon
    • 9 years ago

    You need to lock the comments so that people don’t edit them later at the actual election.

    • HighTech4US2
    • 9 years ago

    Answers

    #1 It doesn’t matter

    #2 It doesn’t matter

    #3 It doesn’t matter

    Bottom line: no matter which of the two parties win each will add to the growth of the US debt and take us one step closer to financial armageddon. In the near future we will become one of the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) that are in constant financial meltdown.

      • mesyn191
      • 9 years ago

      I’m putting HighTech4US2 as a write in on my ballot & ballet.

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        I didn’t realise you do dancing.

          • mesyn191
          • 9 years ago

          😀

      • crose
      • 9 years ago

      You are wrong to compare the US to the PIIGS. US as control over its’ own currency and the dollar is still the dominant currency. The PIIGS are locked to using the EUR which is too strong for their economy.

        • Krogoth
        • 9 years ago

        The problem is that US Dollar is in great danger of losing its status as “dominant” currency in the global market. Middle East, Russia, EU, India and China made it no secret that they want to move away from the US Dollar.

        Once the US Dollar looses its status, say hello to hyper-inflation in the USA.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    It doesn’t matter. Electoral colleges will only ever vote for one of the two big parties and your ‘popular’ vote doesn’t even matter. Just a biproduct of an old and antiquated system.

    • cheerful hamster
    • 9 years ago

    1. Romney. He’s the establishment candidate. At least he’s not a walking cadaver like McCain was/is. Palin inspires both irrational love and hate in similar way to Reagan, but will 2012 really be another 1980? There are striking parallels, but it could just as easily be another 1932…

    2. Ron Paul with caveats. A bit disappointed with his new open-borders-lite stance on immigration in his book, which is my #1 issue living here in LA. Pawlenty as a second choice, Cain third.

    3. Could go either way. The economy will determine all, and at the moment, Obama looks to be toast. Despite his best efforts there was a slight rebound last year. People eventually get sick of bad economic times, and no matter how bad the gov’t is, we finally rely on ourselves to find a way to survive. But given the recent fit hitting the shan, nothing I’ve seen indicates anything but more economic misery.

    • Hsew
    • 9 years ago

    If Herman Cain can save a place like Godfather’s Pizza, he is our best shot at turning around our hopeless situation. Plus, he nullifies the Race Card the left loves to play.

    But, seeing as how Obama killed Osama (BS), it may be difficult for America to vote against him.

    What I’m really hoping for is someone who can somehow get us out of this obsolete, contemptible form of government we have called a democracy, and put us on a path towards becoming a republic. As opposed to a democracy in which the lawmakers are above the law (just look it up: our divine legislators don’t have to follow ANY of the laws they create), a republic would put the law above the lawmakers. I know it’s a pipe dream, but hey, better to be a dreamer than a moper.

    • thesmileman
    • 9 years ago

    “Folks who just want to scream their violent hatred toward Sarah Palin or whatever are welcome to refrain from participation.”

    Have a good evening then. 🙂

    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 9 years ago

    I’d love it to be Newt or one of the other more batshit insane hard right candidates but it will likely be Romney unless someone does a dirty tricks number on him.

    There is no republican that has a chance, with one caveat – if a credible leftist third party candidate comes along to siphon the left vote that Obama’s successfully alienated.

    Again the only first world country with a 2 party system. Look up one party, two wings.

    Both parties are by, for, and of the corporations.

      • mcnabney
      • 9 years ago

      You can thank SCOTUS for guaranteeing money’s roll in politics. I always thought it was bribery to give a politician money in hopes of a ‘return on investment’… turns out it is just speech.

      • mesyn191
      • 9 years ago

      So you’re an Accelerationist?

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 9 years ago

        In what context? I did a search and I don’t see a cohesive answer.

          • mesyn191
          • 9 years ago

          [url<]http://leniency.blogspot.com/2008/10/accelerationism.html[/url<] Google pooped that out quickish for me and I think it does a good job of outlining it. Usually Marxists use it (I'm not one BTW, though I do lean far left of most) but mostly I'm seeing it pop up more and more now with certain people. Definitely not mainstream sort of thinking though.

    • RickyTick
    • 9 years ago

    It’s still quite early for making predictions, but this is fun stuff nonetheless.

    1) It’s Romney’s to loose. He’s experienced in both business and politics, he has name recognition, he has money, he’s done the work to establish himself as the front runner. Romney’s a smart guy and could pull this off with the right strategy, and yeah it’s kind of his turn. Had he gotten the nomination in 08, there may have been a different result, hard to say for sure. There are a lot of unknowns yet to happen that could change everything in 2012.

    2) Romney should win for all the reasons listed in #1. Of the current field, I think Romney and Gingrich are the ones most capable of being real leaders. If it’s possible to overlook Gingrich’s negatives, he’s probably the best overall candidate, but if frogs had wings…
    Palin is the wildcard and a double edged sword. If she enters, then all the other candidates instantly look much better, at the same time her candidacy would turn a lot of people away, especially Independents.

    3) It’s the same as “92. “It’s the economy stupid.”
    There was a lot of talk this week about a possible double-dip recession. If the economy does not show real signs of recovery, gas prices stay high, and unemployment doesn’t fall below 8%, Obama is in real trouble, and rightly so. He may not have caused this mess, but after 3 or more years, people expect positive results. Otherwise, he wins fairly easily.
    Besides, Doctor Love predicts he will win. [url<]http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/06/03/exclusive-gene-simmons-disappointed-in-obama-but-predicts-will-win-2012/?test=faces[/url<] I'd also add that for Romney to win, he will need to pick a VP mate thats either from the Southeast or Southwest, maybe Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, or some unknown. If Obama wins, I predict a huge victory for Chris Christie in 2016.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]If Obama wins, I predict a huge victory for Chris Christie in 2016.[/quote<] I'd be interested to hear why do you think Christie would win in 2016? I understand that a lot of top republican candidates are waiting for Obama's 2nd season to be over, but why would a republican win the election? Do you expect the republican/democrat 'oscillation' (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama) to continue?

        • RickyTick
        • 9 years ago

        Christie already has a lot of support even though he has little name recognition outside of NJ & NY. He is the real “straight shooter”, at least as far as anyone can tell at this point. I’m not aware of any skeletons or baggage that could hurt him. He could obviously self-destruct like most politicians do after a few years in office, but he is a stark contrast to Obama and that gives him a huge platform in 16.

        Besides, I can’t fathom Biden even making a run at all. He’ll be 74 in 2016 and is already senile. If Gore couldn’t beat a weak candidate like Bush in “00 after 8 years of a “somewhat popular” Clinton, then Biden wouldn’t have a prayer. Also at that point, the Dems will be faced with the same awkward position that the Reps faced in 08. Hillary will be 69 in 2016, so she’s unlikely. It’s hard to say now who will be the face of the Democratic Party in 2016.

          • bthylafh
          • 9 years ago

          I think Gore lost in ’00 because of the Clinton fundraising scandals, myself.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            I don’t. He ran a terrible campaign, he didn’t let Clinton campaign for him, he brought in Lieberman which eliminated any built in left base plus his wife Tipper that pushed the PMRC.

            His campaign made him out to the Pepsi conservative candidate – and with all that still came close (or won it depending on who you listen to).

            Then when he lost, his supporters had the nerve to say it was all Nader and his supporters fault (despite the fact that Nader had no votes to speak of in Florida, or any other non-blue state).

            • Geistbar
            • 9 years ago

            Somewhat incorrect on the Nader comment (I was not yet old enough at the time for me to be able to comment on Gore’s actual campaigning.. ).

            If about 1/3 of the votes for Nader in NH had been for Gore (about 7,000 vote changes total), he would have won with 271 electoral votes.

            There were also nearly 100,000 votes for Nader in Florida, according to wikipedia*. It would only have required 1% of those changing to Gore for the election to have had a different outcome.

            * Link: [url<]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_results,_2000_(detail)[/url<]

      • mesyn191
      • 9 years ago

      Gingrich the best candidate, really? That guy is scum of the earth for what he did to his 1st wife alone and then followed it up with dumping his 2nd wife for a 3rd when he found the 2nd had MS all the while trying to get Clinton kicked out of office for cheating on his wife while he was cheating on his 2nd wife with his 3rd. Who could believe a hypocrite of that magnitude and with morals like that would be suitable for office or for that matter flipping burgers?

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 9 years ago

        Ergo the perfect right wing candidate.

        Hypocrisy and ethics don’t matter when it comes from the right.

          • RickyTick
          • 9 years ago

          Kind of like Clinton’s re-election in ’96.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            Yes because a bj is comparable to deposing democratically elected governments, spying on your own people, arming Indonesia so they can better carry out their genocide on East Timor, selling arms to Iran, selling cocaine to your own people, lying to congress and the UN etc. ad nauseum.

            Yep, totally the same.

            • RickyTick
            • 9 years ago

            Please don’t insinuate that Righties are all immoral hypocrites and the Left is a bastion of morality.

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            He didn’t do that at all, you’re reading into what he is saying.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            Way to sidestep the point.

            However when you, your party, and/or your coalition campaigns on family values it is incumbent upon you to actually _have_ the moral high ground.

            Not being gay, black, a woman, a mexican, islamic, grasping the fact of evolution, having an education ad nauseum is not enough.

        • RickyTick
        • 9 years ago

        Like I said, “If it’s possible to overlook his negatives”. Otherwise, he’s an accomplished legislator. Well educated, experienced, excellent orator, and rather charismatic. He’s more of a policy wonk than he is a “rock star”.

        Reading your views on Gingrich’s lack of morals, I’d be interested in what you thought of Bill Clinton.

          • mesyn191
          • 9 years ago

          I don’t care how good of a politician he is if he has the morals and ethics of a snake. If anything its even worse that you’d advocate him for a political position knowing well and good what sort of person he is just because he is good at politics, because someone like that in a position of power will do no good for anyone but himself.

          He would use is political acumen to abuse the rules or flat out rewrite them in his favor while making himself come out smelling like roses. I can’t imagine the sort of mental gymnastics you have to pull off to think he’d be good in office other than typical politics as football sort of thinking that has become so common.

          Pro tip: just because someone calls them self a republican and says a lot of stuff you agree with doesn’t mean they’re on your side or that they’re right, and just because someone says they’re a democrat it doesn’t mean that they’re actually a leftist.

          And I think Clinton was a d-bag too, as was Bush Sr. and Regan before him. Carter was a good man but a crappy president for that matter as well. I don’t think we’ve had a good president in decades.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            I’d argue none since FDR. Kennedy has his adherents certainly and did try to make actual reforms.

            Since then? No one worth discussing.

            • bthylafh
            • 9 years ago

            Not even Eisenhower?

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            About the only thing of note that Eisenhower did that I can respect was his comment about the military industrial complex – and that was when he was a lame duck. Oh and his limited support to desegregation.

            The deposing of Mossadeq? The Suez Crisis? Under Eisenhower. The Dulles brothers and their ilk never had it so good. The solidification of the US as an imperialist nation and the end of any ability to say that we support democracy.

      • mutarasector
      • 9 years ago

      It is indeed Romney’s to lose. I suspect that if, as you said, he had he gotten the nomination in 08, it might have been a different result. McCain was polling just slightly ahead of Obama just prior to the election right up until the mortgage meltdown crisis hit. That’s when the campaign went south for McCain real quick. I can’t help but think Mitt’s business experience might have helped paint him as the more credible Presidential hopeful in a shade of ‘messiah halo’. Of course, Mitt should have got the party nod last time around but the GOP knowing full well it was going to be a bad year for the party, decided to use McCain as a “Uriah the Hittite” sacrificial lamb. Why else would Romney have pulled out as unexpectedly as he did while still polling very close with McCain? I still say the GOP put a ‘bug’ in Romney’s ear.

      re: Of the current field, I think Romney and Gingrich are the ones most capable of being real leaders.
      If it’s possible to overlook Gingrich’s negatives, he’s probably the best overall candidate, but if frogs had wings…

      A pretty spot on assessment if you ask me. I’d *LOVE* to see Newt go toe-to-toe with Obama in a Presidential debate and tear Obama a new one, and it would be real interesting to see if Newt could get a favorable bump in the polls just prior to the big poll-day, and if it would carry him to a win or not.

      Problem with that is I suspect it’s more important to get Obama out of office, so if I had to say right now, I’d probably go with Romney.

      “Palin is the wildcard and a double edged sword. If she enters, then all the other candidates instantly look much better, at the same time her candidacy would turn a lot of people away, especially Independents.”

      I doubt she’d have the effect of turning away independents simply by _entering_. If she actually won the party nod, I would agree. The independents would walk away, but so would 1/2 of the party electorate. My guess is she’s a non-starter and doesn’t even actually run – unless she intends to do so just to position herself to swing behind another candidate at the last minute.

      “I’d also add that for Romney to win, he will need to pick a VP mate thats either from the Southeast or Southwest, maybe Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, or some unknown.”

      … or Newt? I’d take a Romney/Newt ticket _any_ day. (or vice-versa). Hell, I’d take a Romney/Bachman, a Newt/Bachman, or Bachman/Newt ticket.

      “If Obama wins, I predict a huge victory for Chris Christie in 2016”

      🙂 Agreed.

      re: Gene Simmons

      One would think of all people, he should have seen what was coming before swinging a lever for Obama. Simmons previously spoke of his disappointment with Obama over Obamacare, but now that Obama has also thrown Israel under the bus, I suspect Simmons has been snapped out of his Hollyweird myopia just a bit for the moment.

      One interesting scenario would have been seeing Trump actually running and winning the party nod and even the White House. It might have been interesting to see a Trump administration with Ted Nugent as Secretary of Defense, and Gene Simmons as Treasury Secretary.

      <bfg>

      • Turkina
      • 9 years ago

      IMHO Chris Christie has several issues: He has shown a willingness to demonize his enemies that may come back to haunt him, and his fiscal reforms haven’t exactly paid dividends yet (and might end up being costly in the long run, as some of his policies towards cutting public works may pay off in the short run but end up problematic when infrastructure problems arise down the road).
      Plus his fundamental problem of being a republican from a democratic state is very similar to Romney’s historical problems energizing the “base” of the party.

    • bthylafh
    • 9 years ago

    Supposing Obama wins in 2012, how long until the Republicans start casting about for an excuse to trump up impeachment charges? Washington has that mid-late ’90s odor about it again.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 9 years ago

      I give it 3 months tops.

      • jackaroon
      • 9 years ago

      Well, the Libya war is clearly illegal, now, so they really ought to impeach him. haha, yeah right. I don’t even want him to get impeached, but he’s not acting like he doesn’t want to get impeached.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 9 years ago

        Folks love wars. Love them. Even if they impeach him they lose.

    • LiquidSpace
    • 9 years ago

    David Duke for me. WINNING

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    I really was hoping for Trump/Palin … oh well.

    In Canada we just had an election that was called fought and counted in just over 3 months. We are efficient. We elected a conservative government, our people are no smarter than yours.

    I am going to enjoy every bit of your massive undertaking as I take it as theater, which it most certainly is. Your country is so well locked down that no election result possible will change a thing. I watched Obama turn directly to the dark side right after he was elected. Bought and paid for. There is no chance anyone can change the path your overlords have chosen.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 9 years ago

      That would have been comedy gold.

      • anotherengineer
      • 9 years ago

      Conservative Government FTW!!!

      Edit – Bring back Bill Clinton!!!!!!!

    • Cranx
    • 9 years ago

    1). I’m in favor of anyone but palin.
    2). Ron Paul because he is about small gov.
    3). Obama will win. When the economy turns then he’ll be the favorite. Also if you look at the debt situation and recession factually you will realize that Obama didn’t put us here. He may have added onto the debt, but its not his fault we’re here.

    Whatever happens we need to start working together instead of setting the other side up for failure. I was a republican until my party abandoned all logic and reason in favor of winning no matter the cost.

    If palin wins I’m moving out of the country! Japan, China, Bora Bora, suggestions?

      • danny e.
      • 9 years ago

      feel free to move out now.

      The country had a leg wound. Obama shot it in the face.

      98% of the economic problems in this country are directly related to liberal /leftists ideas.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 9 years ago

        Any proof? No. Any logic? No. Any idea of who and what the left actually is? No.

        No matter who is in power the global agenda will be the same. WTO, IMF, World Bank, so-called free trade.

        Both dems and republicans support a neo-liberal agenda. The only substantive difference is what’s done on the domestic front.

        Try reading sometime and not just listening to Fox and Rush.

          • spigzone
          • 9 years ago

          Winner winner, chicken dinner … though what is now called ‘neo-liberal’ USED to be called ‘neo-conservative’. After the Bush/Cheney fiasco trashed ‘neo-conservative’ the conservatives~media machine mounted a campaign to recast it as neo-LIBERAL thereby associating the word ‘liberal’ with what had become a very unpopular policy-philosophy. And dis-accociating the word ‘conservative’ with the same.

          They were successful in this. Hence your use of the term neo-liberal for a philosophy that 8 years ago was solely termed neo-conservative.

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            Bingo! Neo-liberal today doesn’t mean what it used to nearly 100 years ago. Today’s neo-liberals are yesteryear’s extreme right.

          • mutarasector
          • 9 years ago

          Is “neo-liberal” the term progressives are planning to transition to these days?

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            No arch conservatives already have it.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            Neoliberalism: [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism[/url<] Related - inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy: [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism[/url<]

        • BoBzeBuilder
        • 9 years ago

        Damn Bush and his liberal /leftist ideas.

        I want Danny.E/Palin in office.

        • mesyn191
        • 9 years ago

        So the left caused all our problems while the Repubs were in office and had congress for, what? at least 2 terms?

        Also there is next to no left in America. The extreme right, right, and center right make up the majority of the country’s population.

          • mutarasector
          • 9 years ago

          Progressives used to do the exact same thing before they become emboldened by Obama’s victory: They stopped bothering to disguise themselves as ‘liberals’.

          “There’s no left in America anymore. Move on – nothing to see here, move on folks” … yeah, right.

          Why else do you see the progressives popping out the woodwork so willingly and openly admitting to being socialists these days?

          “left” and “right” are almost as irrelevant terms as “Ds” and “Rs” are. These are labels in name only – both parties have been co-opted by so called “progressives” (an oxymoronic usage of word if there ever was). They’re opposite sides of the >same coin<, or a more accurate metaphor might be ‘L/R/D/R are simply different facets of the same die’.

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            So I’m confused are you saying Bush and republicans who held congress throughout most of the time period when he was in office are actually secret crytpo leftists or what?

            Oh yea so so many leftists and socialists and progressives out there today…voting in who? The Tea Partiers? Good god…are you saying the Tea Partier’s are actually sooper sekrit leftists or what?

            Left and Right actually do mean something in politics BTW, its the people you have to watch out for who say they stand for something and then do the opposite.

            • nanoflower
            • 9 years ago

            It sounds like he’s suggesting that for foreign policies there is no difference between left and right. Sadly that does seem to be the case in terms of the leaders of each of the political parties since it’s hard to think of how Bush and Obama vary on the foreign politics. The big difference is in President Bush’s inability or unwillingness to articulate a clear policy while President Obama does a much better job of articulating his policy (while maintaining and extending much of President Bush’s policies.)

            It’s in the domestic politics where the two parties seem to differ the most but not in all areas. In terms of corporation support there seems to be little difference (witness the support of copyright extensions and the support of RIAA/MPAA by many members of both sides.) It’s only in the social program areas that I can see some real differences between the parties with the Republican Congressional members pushing to drastically change/reduce social programs while the Democratic Congressional members wish to extend them. Though it’s not clear that those differences are due to heart felt differences or due to their pandering to their own constituents. (Witness what Gingrich said when questioned about Paul Ryan’s budget plan and how he responded a few days later after being chastised by many Republican leaders.)

            • evilpaul
            • 9 years ago

            “Arch conservative” Glenn Greenwald spent eight years decrying George W. Bush’s imperial foreign policy abroad and police state-building at home. He’s been doing the same now for three years of Obama. And by “Arch conservative” I mean he self-identifies as a “progressive.” The intellectually honest members of the left, and libertarians, haven’t suddenly changed their critiques about what the US government is actually doing.

            The Republicans in Congress make noise about defunding the EPA or whatever, the Democrats yell to think of the children, and in the end what happens? The Republicans compromise and absolutely nothing happens. It’s political theatre for the feebleminded.

            “The debt ceiling” is the current sideshow. Guess what’s going to happen? The Republicans will decry Obama as a communist or something and demand drastic spending cuts or no increased debt ceiling. Obama will cry out to think of the children. The Republicans will compromise and the debt ceiling will go up and spending won’t be cut drastically, if at all.

        • Cranx
        • 9 years ago

        Are you trying to say that Obama signed all of the sub-prime mortgages and then sold the bad securities?

        Obama didn’t cause the financial crisis. It certainly was much more then a leg wound. I think a major problem is the lack of knowledge on the situation.

          • bthylafh
          • 9 years ago

          He’s saying that anybody he disagrees with is evil and wrong, but he hasn’t got the intelligence to back that up with facts.

        • A_Pickle
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]The country had just been released from the hospital with a very optimistic prognosis. Bush shot it in the face.[/quote<] FTFY

    • Hurstmeister
    • 9 years ago

    I just cant wait for someone to replace Obama. I felt he was a better candidate then McCain was,.. but it wasnt long before I had second thoughts and regretted choosing Obama.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      I don’t know… I’m thinking that every president is somewhat affected during their first term by the expectation to get re-elected. They don’t go for all the things that they [i<]really[/i<] believe in, but instead try to walk the fine line of moderation to maximize the chances of getting a second term. I would guess the second term is when stuff can really get done (assuming the Congress sides with the president). I'm personally leaning heavily to the Democratic side, but I understand the arguments from both sides - both 'approaches' have merits. Overall, I think I'd prefer having [i<]either[/i<] camp taking over the presidency and the congress to get sh*t done, instead of this gridlocked bickering with filibusters and special sessions that get nothing done. But whichever party wins, I [i<]truly[/i<] hope that lobbying will be banned. In the current system, lobbying dollars diminish the power of the people - the votes don't matter when anybody and everybody can be bought. Blocking lobbying would fix everything naturally; when re-elections aren't dependent on dollars from special interests, people's voices and preferences will be heard again.

        • mesyn191
        • 9 years ago

        Nice sentiment re: lobbying but it doesn’t matter who you vote for, none of them will take away the gravy train that lobbying allows. Voting D or R at this point is a waste of time, they’re both for the same thing; the rich and themselves.

        • bthylafh
        • 9 years ago

        I don’t know about you, kemosabe, but I remember how things were when the Republicans ran everything a few years back and have no desire to return to that.

        I’m young enough that I don’t believe the Dems ran both houses and the Presidency in my lifetime, but while I suppose that at least wouldn’t be batsh*t-insane, it probably wouldn’t be for the best either.

        edit: yes, I know the Dems had the majority in both houses in ’08 to ’10, but with those people a majority != running things.

    • jensend
    • 9 years ago

    The only reasons Romney’s health care record is an issue: people are extremists or are ignorant of the tenth amendment. The point of federalism isn’t to minimize all government; at some level, you have to face the reality that government is *us*, it’s the representation of the public will. The point of federalism is to make more self-determination possible by limiting the powers of broader governments. When you try to have one-size-fits-all federal laws for everything, at least 49% of the population will be pretty unhappy about it; when different laws are crafted to match the desires and needs of different states and different communities, tyranny is minimized and people are more free to determine what kind of society they want to live in.

    The people of Massachusetts wanted their state government to take action on health care. Romney helped craft a solution which worked to meet their needs while avoiding the ills of state-run socialist health care. The plan certainly has its problems, but it was a good start, and the state can continue to tinker with and experiment with it until they find it satisfactory.

    Federal programs are a lot harder to tinker with, and imposing one federal program means different ideas don’t get a chance to compete against each other and we can’t learn from what does and doesn’t work in other states (the laboratories of democracy- Brandeis). More importantly, concentrating such power at a federal level violates the terms under which we joined this nation in the first place. But this power- and all other powers not explicitly denied the states by the Constitution- [i<]are[/i<] permitted to the states so people can make their own decisions at that level. Republicans who attack Romney because of RomneyCare generally ignore the vital difference between a state program and a federal program. This betrays the federalism which is at the core of the Constitution they often pretend to be making such a big deal of protecting. If Republicans don't like RomneyCare, they should simply find something which works better for their state. They need to stop pretending that Romney would try to impose it as federal law and stop pretending that they should be able to tell the State of Massachusetts to do things differently.

      • clone
      • 9 years ago

      who should win the GOP nod is Mitt Romney, why because he’s actually gotten things working at least decently and at worst in need of minor tweaking.

      that is who should win, their is no guarantee who will win regardless of qualification.

      as for the purpose of Government and it’s programs the problem in the U.S. is the lack of honesty amongst so many other problems.

      anyone wanting to get into power is unwilling to admit that the U.S. if it wants to become a part of the global community is going to have to lose and lose quite badly for a long while until the playing field levels off regarding overall efficiency and productivity.

      politicians hate nationalized health care because the providers know it will take power away from them, the reason health care will forever remain nationalized is because profit in front of service could only hide cost when monopolized which is not nearly the case given the complex health care market that is the U.S.

      uninformed voters who can’t afford it along with voters who simply can’t afford it on their own want employers who paid for it in the past to continue to do so, on the surface it makes sense “I work / contribute as a part of society so screw the rest of ya!!” but even a tiny peak under the surface and it’s obvious the costs have gotten so out of line that companies can no longer and will not any longer continue to do so for the sake of productivity and efficiency.

      this leaves the only options as being universal health care in order to reduce cost or a hybrid universal health care to address 95% of health issues leaving the other 5% boutique issues within reach of those who have the money, the base believes it’s covered and the rich get a bigger slice at the base’s expense which is what they’ve always wanted throughout history.

      the only viable alternative is government intervention in the form of leveraging access to the U.S. marketplace, this may still happen as we continue onwards with the “jobless recovery/stalemate” which will inevitably lead to a me first screw the rest mentality (always been around but remains ill informed and unfocused) which will reintroduce inflation to a system that was always built around the concept and will eventually level out value across the board at the publics expense.

      my $0.02 which is overvalued.

        • mutarasector
        • 9 years ago

        “anyone wanting to get into power is unwilling to admit that the U.S. if it wants to become a part of the global community is going to have to lose and lose quite badly for a long while until the playing field levels off regarding overall efficiency and productivity.”

        What “global community” vision would that be? Utopia, or ‘mandated mediocrity’?

        Nor do I care for “overall efficiency and productivity”. “Overall” >what<, specifically? World wide? We’ve got enough problems domestically to be concerned with a world wide agenda. The situation on the ground (globally speaking) is it’s all a zero-sum game.

        Screw the “Soros-speak” and his playbook….

    • Lee_144
    • 9 years ago

    1. Who knows? Palin attracts the media like a circus act, they have too much fun destroying her, but she’s resilient and a great distraction for a sleeper candidate. There’s a lot of talk about Romney, but he’s a Republican from primarily liberal state. By definition, his liberal/moderate tendencies that got him elected in Massachusetts, are a liability for getting the GOP nomination. However in the Race He can steal the middle from obama and hardcore conservatives will have to select him as the lesser evil. I suspect that the GOP will select neither of them.

    2. Newt Gingrich – Newt knows the issues and he understands the pros and cons that go with them. He’s conservative, but doesn’t blindly follow the party line. He has had problems with talking too frankly about issues and solutions and hasn’t embraced creating an image over ideas. (i.e. Obama= superstar, but weak on understanding how to create jobs and stimulate an economy. He’s unable or unwilling to consider that the free market has greater power to grow by itself than a market directed by government mandate)

    3. If Obama cannot get the economy turned around and get the country feeling good about itself, he will lose. However, if the GOP picks too radical of a conservative, Obama could take the middle and pull it out.

    Either way, expect a circus and a lot of name calling. I am getting really tired of the hate from both sides. I am hopeful that a reasonable candidate will appear that is moderate enough to get the GOP nomination and steer more down the middle. I like it when both the radical left and radical right are unhappy.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 9 years ago

      Palin attracts media because she’s a joke… and not in a good way.

      I guarantee that a significant amount of people voted for Arnold as Governor simply because “well hey, that’d be funny, and he was a badass Conan/Terminator/Everything, and who the hell are these other people ? Arnold it is ! “.

      Palin on the otherhand, “Eh she’s witty sometimes, and has a funny down-on-the-ranch voice… but this lady really is an idiot, I better vote for anyone but her…hmm Newt , that’s a funny name, imma circle that one ! “.

        • RickyTick
        • 9 years ago

        I know it’s fun to make fun of her, but she really isn’t a joke nor an idiot. I’m no Palin fan, but let’s keep it real. She appeals to the common man, like Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber.

        There’s a lot people that are tired of being led by elitist from Harvard and Yale. Every president, and almost every presidential candidate for the last two decades has been a graduate of Harvard or Yale. On the Supreme Court, Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Thomas are Yale Law grads, while Scalia, Roberts, Breyer, Kennedy and Kagan all went to Harvard. Ginsberg graduated from Columbia Law, but she attended Harvard before transferring there.

        William F. Buckley said it best, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

        Palin speaks to a lot of common-folk. There’s certainly a place for her in politics, but probably not POTUS.

          • bthylafh
          • 9 years ago

          The place for her is as a rabble-rouser to keep that segment of society angry and afraid.

    • danny e.
    • 9 years ago

    Herman Cain! We need someone with a CS degree in the whitehouse to help us downtrodden programmers.

    • evilpaul
    • 9 years ago

    1.) I think Newt Gingrich will probably win the nomination. He’s good at talking up the “small government, fiscal conservatism, family values” stuff that Republican voters love to hear and Republican politicians claim to be all big into when they’re out of power.

    2.) Ron Paul. For all his odd stuff (gold, Federal Reserve, etc.) he actually votes along the lines of how Republicans claim they’ll vote if they get elected. He’ll be ignored or ridiculed by the media (both Fox News and CNN), maybe come in second in a primary or two, before fizzling out on Super Tuesday.

    3.) I think it’ll be too close to call barring some HUGE scandal in either campaign. The first Obama campaign had the “HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” stuff, and I don’t think the second one is going to be able to plausibly claim he’s the different from the rest politician. Young people aren’t going to be the most riled up for him they’ve been since Howard Dean this time around.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 9 years ago

      You make some good points. As much as you are right that Obama’s largely lost his youth and left base a Newt win of the nomination would bring them back in spades for the dems. Newt is hopelessly divisive. Not to mention the only congressman I’m aware of that’s been censured for an ethics violation.

      He might make it to the nomination. I can’t see him winning the presidential election.

      • mutarasector
      • 9 years ago

      1.) I think Newt Gingrich will probably win the nomination…

      As much as I’d prefer to see it happen, I don’t think he will win. I’d settle for a Romney/Newt ticket however.

      2.) Ron Paul. For all his odd stuff (gold, Federal Reserve, etc.) he actually votes along the lines of how Republicans claim they’ll vote if they get elected…

      I tend to think Ron Paul might be a dark horse here. and there’s a lot to like about Ron Paul, but unfortunately I think Trump is right about Ron Paul – he just can’t win.

      3.) I think it’ll be too close to call barring some HUGE scandal in either campaign. The first Obama campaign had the “HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” stuff, and I don’t think the second one is going to be able to plausibly claim he’s the different from the rest politician. Young people aren’t going to be the most riled up for him they’ve been since Howard Dean this time around.

      The ‘youth vote’ factor is/was overblown in Obama’s election. It was the independent vote that won it for him – with some help from a perfectly timed mortgage meltdown crisis.

      • nanoflower
      • 9 years ago

      I don’t think Ron Paul has a chance at winning the nomination but I will say that he seems to be getting a fair amount of coverage this time around. He got a nice segment on Candy Crowley’s State of the Union on CNN this Sunday morning. The problem is that most reporters just talk about him running and not about what he actually proposes.

        • cygnus1
        • 9 years ago

        Reporters don’t talk about what he proposes because it’s fairly different than what most politicians spout off about. It would then require actually thinking about what he said to have a reasonable conversation.

    • yogibbear
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t get this, are you seriously telling me that in the US you only get to pick from [u<]2[/u<] people? How the hell is [i<]that[/i<] a choice?

      • mesyn191
      • 9 years ago

      Maybe once upon a time there was choice but today there isn’t any. FPTP voting systems tend to devolve into our current situation. A better system would be one based on the Borda Count, but it’ll probably never happen if for no other reason than that the system is easily misunderstood.

      FPTP wiki: [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting[/url<] more info. : [url<]http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54[/url<] Borda Count wiki: [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count[/url<]

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<] and to elect members of the Parliament of Nauru.[/quote<] I'm not a big Avatar fan, sorry.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    In my opinion, since this country is already going down the crapper, we should elect the most bat-s___ crazy people available for sheer entertainment value. Palin/Bachman get my vote.

    /goes back to watching Owww! My balls!

    • Nevermind
    • 9 years ago

    The first 2 questions are pointless.

    The GOP has painted itself into a corner with its own broad brush of morality and accountability.

    NONE of them have ANY chance of coming within 10 points of Obama.

    • VILLAIN_xx
    • 9 years ago

    3. Obama of course. Just make believe Obama is near the 50% approval rate around election time and the race will be appear to be neck in neck and fair.

    Just look at how much the current administration has gotten away with already, so why not keep it around for another 4 years. Also, It’s truly silly to really think that the blue and red team are different at this level of power. No one cares though. 🙂

    • FuturePastNow
    • 9 years ago

    1) Romney has the best organization, and he’s not insane. But his sanity counts against him with the Republican base who vote in primaries. I honestly have no idea. In part it depends on how far Palin is willing to take the charade that she’s running.

    2) Romney, for his aforementioned organization and sanity, would probably do the best in the general. But I don’t “prefer” any of them, in part because…

    3) …they’re all losers. Unless the economy gets noticeably worse in the next 15 months, Obama will be reelected.

    • tbone8ty
    • 9 years ago

    Id love for Ron Paul to win but unfortunately it will wont happen.

    I have a hard time seeing any GOP nominee beating Obama, all depends on how the economy is doing when the debates start heating up.

    and my final thoughts are this country is F’d

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    Whomever causes anarchy has my vote. Let’s bring this ship down as fast as possible, get it over with.

      • 5150
      • 9 years ago

      Just when I think it isn’t possible to love you anymore, you post something like this, and I’m proven wrong.

      • Bensam123
      • 9 years ago

      Who needs civlization when you have a double-barrel, right?

      I’m sure everything can be fought and won with that. Inbred hicks or ignorant well educated ones are all the same.

    • jjj
    • 9 years ago

    3. Obama since the reps don’t even have an ideology anymore (then again Bush won twice and that was utterly nuts).
    Shame you guys don’t have a second party with at least a bit of common sense.

    • Peldor
    • 9 years ago

    1. Romney. He’s off to a good start and that matters a lot to the GOP.

    2. Petraeus would have been a great shot for the GOP (had he not declined) possibly with Romney as VP. 90% of Romney’s “problems” are pretty much non-issues if he’s not in the top slot. We will still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and looking at ME unrest (of course). It would be pretty hard to discount his leadership, American values, etc. Americans like war heros, and he could pull in the middle ground voters. I don’t really know what his domestic policy would look like though.

    3. Obama will win if Congress moves the debt limit and the economy has a chance to move forward. If they don’t, we’re right proper done on both sides of the aisle and the election will just be a race to see who gets to jiggle the handle on the toilet after it’s been flushed. Of course if the Tea Party is goofy enough to run a third party and split the voters from the right, Obama wins probably 80% of the EC.

      • The Wanderer
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]Of course if the Tea Party is goofy enough to run a third party and split the voters from the right, Obama wins probably 80% of the EC.[/quote<] What I hope happens is that A: The Tea Party splits off to form an independent political party on the far right. B: The remainder of the Republican party, being almost by definition less conservative than the parts that went into the Tea Party, moves left towards the center. C: The more conservative elements of the Democratic party split off to join the diminished Republican party, in or near the center. D: The remainder of the Democratic party, being by definition less conservative than the parts that split off, moves left. And we thus end up with three viable parties, occupying three different segments of the political spectrum. (Three isn't enough, in either case, but it's much better than the two we have now.) Unfortunately, the political instincts of those with the mental corrosion which is almost inevitable in attaining national office will probably militate against either B or C ever happening.

        • thermistor
        • 9 years ago

        This could be a scenario except that much of the Tea movement was astroturf, organized and funded by traditional Republican operatives, like Dick Armey’s Freedomworks. The “true believers” in the Tea movement who truly thought they were riding a new rightist movement have shown to have been poor organizers as the traditional R organization is top-down, thus diluting the strength and power of any supposed movement.

        Polling confirms that most of the Tea movement is disaffected and very conservative R’s.

          • The Wanderer
          • 9 years ago

          [quote<]Polling confirms that most of the Tea movement is disaffected and very conservative R's.[/quote<] Which is exactly why it would make sense for them to split off from the less-conservative-on-average-than-they-are Republican party, to join with the rest of the just-as-conservative-as-they-are movement in a new far-right party. Being relatively disorganized is a barrier to being successful that way, I'll admit, but not necessarily an insuperable one. If there really are that many disaffected Republicans, who think the Republican party isn't conservative enough, splitting off into a new party might indeed make sense - and even if it began as astroturf, the apparent success and/or popularity of the Tea Party movement could give those true believers something to embrace as a more-conservative alternative to their current party. In fact, that's pretty much what it's already done, it just hasn't come to the extreme of founding an actual formal political party yet.

            • bthylafh
            • 9 years ago

            Except it wouldn’t, thanks to our broken-as-designed political system. If they broke off, they’d split the conservative vote and that would tend to mean that a Democrat gets elected.

            • The Wanderer
            • 9 years ago

            True enough; don’t get me started on voting systems. (Not that I wouldn’t like to rant, but I’m not really up on the details anymore.)

            Still, though, the apparent success of the Tea Party movement has left us closer to the opportunity for a true viable third party than we’ve seemed to be in decades at the least. I might even be willing to accept a(nother) period of conservative ascendancy if it would bring that opportunity to fruition…

            • bthylafh
            • 9 years ago

            There was Ross Perot’s old Reform Party, which seemed to be going along OK until Pat Buchanan (may he be bitten by the fleas of a thousand camels) hijacked it in ’00… also the year that the Green Party gained notoriety and they ended up going off the rails too.

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            There’s already any number of far right political parties – they don’t need to form another. That said, I’d be more than happy to see them abandon the republican party.

            The so-called traction of the tea partyers will die in the next election cycle since all non-presidential election cycles skew right.

            We’ll have forgotten they ever existed within the next six years.

            • The Wanderer
            • 9 years ago

            True enough, but as far as I’m aware, none of the existing far-right political parties have ever had such a degree of apparent success – and, therefore, such a strong “hey, there really are that many people out there who actually agree with us!” effect – that the Tea Party has had.

            It’s all about name recognition, in some respects. The Tea Party movement throwing its support behind one of the existing fringe parties might not get much traction, in that people either don’t recognize that existing party at all or they recognize it as “one of those wacko fringe groups”; the Tea Party forming their own party, however, has the advantage of already being a nationally-recognized name and lacks the disadvantage of any baggage one of the existing parties might have. All they’d really need is the right launch moment and the right rhetoric (though a charismatic initial figurehead wouldn’t hurt).

            That said, however, you’re probably right in the forecast of what will actually happen.

    • puppetworx
    • 9 years ago

    1. Romney because it’s his turn, people already know his name and he should have won the last nomination.

    2. Ron Paul because he’s anti big-government. He [i<]should[/i<] also win because he's the favourite amongst party members and the tea party movement love him. He won't win because the media are against him and nobody wants to fund him. 3. Obama is great at getting elected. If he doesn't do it again it will be because of a major cock-up between now and then - perhaps too much intervention in the middle-east.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 9 years ago

      Ron Paul would be the best guy for the country, who knows if he can win. I will say that his support has massively increased over the past 4 years, and he doesn’t have any blemishes like Romney Care. I don’t see any Rep candidate who has similar views to Obama winning. Also, flip-floppers will not do well either. I think there are a lot of people who are disappointed in Obama for flip-flopping on things like abolishing the patriot act, being transparent, getting rid of lobbyists, etc. Ron sticks to his principles, has support across both sides, and if he gets honest media coverage, I could see him winning. Even without the media, his grassroot support is amazing, and his fundraisers/money bombs do really well. Ron also won the CPAC straw poll twice in a row. I’m really optimistic, but it’s too early to tell.

        • PrecambrianRabbit
        • 9 years ago

        Not Ron Paul, please, please, not Ron Paul. His grasp of economics is 120 years out of date and he doesn’t know it.

          • l33t-g4m3r
          • 9 years ago

          No, Ron certainly does grasp economics, Austrian economics, and the reality is that we currently have a Keynesian centrally planned economy with a “federal” bank that is corrupt, unconstitutional, and the root of all our problems. Right now the gov. has a blank check in inflating our currency like Zimbabwe. The fed needs to be audited, the people have the right to know where all the bailout money disappeared.
          Watch this: [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc[/url<]

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            You clearly have no idea what a planned economy is. If anyone “planned” our economy it is wall street.

            I don’t mind the Fed being looked into but in no way, shape or form are we a command economy.

            • mcnabney
            • 9 years ago

            You don’t have any idea what you are talking about. You are just parroting talking points you have heard from someone even more clueless than you.
            We couldn’t deflate like Zimbabwe or post-WW1 Germany if we tried. Our GDP is just too big. We could monetize the entire Federal Debt tomorrow, and prices would only triple.
            Also, you do understand that the bailout money didn’t touch the Fed, right? It went to a variety of banks, and most of it has already been repaid…with interest.
            Please grow up, take an Econ class, and spend some time learning how our nations financial system works.

            • LovermanOwens
            • 9 years ago

            Most of it has been repaid? Are you forgetting about Fanny and Freddy, and the massive loans that GM hasn’t paid back yet? Also I don’t think AIG has completely come back as well. We have made money on some of the loans that is very true, but i am pretty sure that there is still alot out there.

            • mcnabney
            • 9 years ago

            I was talking about the $800B Wall Street bailout. The direct investment in GM and Chrysler HAS been paid back/equity sold. Now there had been previous aid to GM, Ford, and Chrysler (under Bush) that has NOT been repaid because the government didn’t receive any stake in the company. See, that is the difference between cronies and professionals running the government. Both Bush and Obama had good reason to assist the US auto industry, the difference is that Obama got something in exchange and Bush did not. That is why Obama’s money was repaid and Bush’s wasn’t. That is why it is best to elect adults and not children to office.

            You are right about AIG, they have repaid about 2/3. There is a good chance they will repay it all, but I’m not holding my breath. We should have run AIG through bankruptcy and screwed their shareholders, fired their board, and invalidated previously negotiated bonuses.

            Overall, I think $150B out of $800 is still outstanding. That is where is was in late winter.

            • cygnus1
            • 9 years ago

            What about the 10’s to 100’s of billions that the FED loaned out to non-US banks? European banks? Giant conglomerates? Every dollar the FED loans is a dollar made up out of thin air. The FED is not a department of the government, it does not represent the people it is unconstitutional for it to have the power to print money. Corruption brought the FED into existence, and it will continue to be a source of corruption until it is abolished.

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            That guy is a d-bag and wrong about the economy in general but it should be pointed out that the banks essentially paid us back with our own money. No really, they’ve been taking the money we’ve been giving them and lending it back out at higher interest rate back to the government at the local and state levels as well as to Wall St. which used the cash to pump up the market.

            This has effectively socialized the losses while privatizing the profits, which is why the rich are even richer now than before the boom while everyone else is poorer.

            [url<]http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/guest-post-congressional-research-service-confirms-big-banks-borrowed-cash-for-next-to-nothing-then-lent-it-back-to-the-federal-government-at-much-higher-rates.html[/url<] "You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards, it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite. " -Hudson

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 9 years ago

            Can’t rate this post up high enough.

            • esterhasz
            • 9 years ago

            A significant part of that money also went directly into speculation in commodity markets. The next bubble.

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            Yep. I think you’re going to keep seeing booms and mini bubbles pop up until the cheap money gets taken away from the banks and Wall St.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 9 years ago

            Have you heard about “QE2”? The fed is monetizing the debt. Printing money.
            Ben Bernanke even admits it, right after claiming he wasn’t going to do just that.
            [url<]http://dailybail.com/home/watch-jon-stewart-expose-bernankes-lies-from-60-minutes-the.html[/url<] We are already seeing inflation, just look at gas prices, food prices, price of utilities, etc. Meanwhile, you don't get a cost of living increase. Also, what's keeping us from hitting a Zimbabwe crisis, is that the dollar is the world's reserve currency, but that will only help for so long. China is moving out of the dollar, and now deals with Russia directly. If and when oil is no longer sold with the dollar, that will mark the end of the American empire. America needs to start producing real, tangible goods, and stop being a nation of bureaucrats/bankers/scam artists.

            • esterhasz
            • 9 years ago

            You are right about the fed printing money. You are also right that this will lead to higher inflation rates. But comparing the situation in the US to Zimbabwe or the Weimar republic is misleading if only, as mcnabney mentioned, for the size of the US’ GDP and the role of the dollar as an international currency. The free-riding may come to an end, true, but with no alternative currency in sight, the US can probably inflate significant parts of its debt away before foreign investors get pissed enough to do something about it…

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 9 years ago

            I believe the Chinese are already that pissed. We just aren’t being told about it by the media.
            Chinese pianist plays anthem at WH:
            [url<]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350269/Chinese-pianist-plays-anti-American-anthem-Obamas-White-House-dinner.html[/url<] China tests missle off calif coast with stealth sub: [url<]http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/11/wnd-report-missile-off-california-coast-was-from-chinese-sub-2/[/url<] Chinese video game, "Glorious Mission" kills American troops: [url<]http://www.businessinsider.com/glorious-mission-2011-5[/url<] So let's just elect another big gov, welfare/warfare state, scumbag like Romney, and see how the Chinese react then. IMO, we can't keep playing chicken with the world's economy without someone attempting to stop us.

            • PrecambrianRabbit
            • 9 years ago

            I can understand why terms like “printing money” would make you nervous, but I think you’re misunderstanding “QE2”. It’s nothing really exceptional, just an extension of the Fed’s usual activity – which is to manage the money supply (i.e., print money) to strike a balance between unemployment and inflation. Right now, inflation is very low and unemployment is very high, so the Fed should push interest rates lower, which increases the money supply. Since standard rates are as low as they can go, QE2 (converting long term bonds into short term) is an extended tactic, and a fairly conservative one.

            As far as inflation, food and gas prices are not good metrics – they are extremely volatile, and right now they are increasing due to a number of factors, including economic recovery in the developing world, limits on the supply rate of oil, and last year’s heat wave in Russia that severely damaged their wheat output. As you noted, wages haven’t been going up, which is a sign that inflation is not actually occurring, since inflation requires that money in general become less valuable, rather than the prices of a few select goods increasing due to supply and demand.

            • PrecambrianRabbit
            • 9 years ago

            Deflating our currency like Zimbabwe? That’s exactly backwards from what happened in Zimbabwe, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a typo. In any case, inflation in the US is exceptionally low at the present. It’s not a problem right now – unemployment and lack of growth are the problems.

        • mesyn191
        • 9 years ago

        Ron Paul, Obama, and Romney all are pretty crappy. There isn’t any one of the likely people to win from any of the major parties who’ll do any good. Just more of the same pro-corp pro-rich status quo crap at the expense of the poor and middle class who represent the overwhelming majority of the people in the country.

        FWIW I’m voting random small 3rd party, which is as close to a vote of “no confidence” as you can get in the US’s voting system. I’d rather throw my vote away then give it to one of the other guys who’ll just use to further their own ends.

          • mcnabney
          • 9 years ago

          In what magical place and time have politicians been any different than they are now?

            • mesyn191
            • 9 years ago

            They’re few and far in between but we seem to have lucked out and had a good to decent president or congress from time to time. Or at the very least a non-terrible president or congress.

            Very much IMO but I think the last good president we had was FDR, congress is harder to pin down. Roosevelt, Lincoln, Adams, and Washington would certainly be other good ones.

    • rogue426
    • 9 years ago

    1. Romney, Damage said it best.

    2. Palin, I really like her, like Cap said, I think she appeals to Americana the most. She doesn’t try to be anything but who she is.

    3. Three quarters of the people I talk to think Obama is done, I echo the sentiment. If the economy picks up however Id agree Obama has the inside track . If Palin wins GOP nomination her choice in VP I think will be a key in her possible victory.

      • herothezero
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]Three quarters of the people I talk to think Obama is done, I echo the sentiment.[/quote<] If that's ever going to happen, the GOP has to put something out there that actually resembles a platform not directed at corporate America. Right now, all they're saying is, um, Vote GOP; our guy won't be Obama? Profit?

    • no51
    • 9 years ago

    1. Probably Mitt Romney. Probably the most level headed of the ‘popular’ candidates.
    2. Ron Paul for s&g’s, realistically though Gary Johnson.
    3. Unless the GOP does something to distance itself from the crazies, 4 more years.

    • hakioawa
    • 9 years ago

    1. Romney. Nobody else has a chance. I do hope Palin runs as the world will quickly see how little support she actually has. Pawlently has an outside chance, but only if he panders to the right.

    2. Romney. But really, maybe Ron Paul. Now I’m not a Paulite at all. But he speaks his mind. I guess you could say Newt does too, but he panders like crazy.

    3. Obama. My sense is Romney is the only candidate that is anywhere near the public on most issues. Perhaps Pawlently is too, but his only hope in getting the nomination is to pander to the right, and hope tha Palin and Bachman get in and destroy eachother. Romney is the only guy that is centrist enough to come close to representing the country as a whole, but if he wins, I don’t think the base will be too energized and many will stay home. In that scenario I could see a Tea Party Candidate (Bachman) syphoning of 7-12% of the vote too. His biggest weakness in the general election will be his move to the right to secure the nomination. I think if he ran on his record as Gov. of Mass, he could win, but this is very unlikley.

    Obama’s problem is the unemployment rate. This is his BIGGEST weakness. On just about everything else he’ll get a B+ grade. Many people will scream healthcare, but like it or not, nothing bad has happened yet. He’ll get a pass on the terrorism card. With the auto bailout doing well he’ll get creditfor that (even if Bush should get some). He’ll be able to remind folks that the economic mess started under Bush. If the Republican’s can’t get their message straight on Medicare, and if the play too long with the debt ceiling, they are in a world of hurt.

    • odizzido
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t really know what you’re really talking about since I don’t live in your country, but I think it’s a shame that the third candidate has no chance of winning.

      • bdwilcox
      • 9 years ago

      I live in this country and I agree with you 100%.

      • no51
      • 9 years ago

      QFTMFT

    • Captain Ned
    • 9 years ago

    1: Romney, for the same reasons Damage elucidated.

    2: Palin. She speaks to the heartland, to those who actually live the “American life” so idealized by the coastal self-appointed elites (and whom the elites would never recognize even if they turned up under their upturned, spray-tanned, Botoxed noses). An additional plus is that she simply refuses to play the media game on the media’s terms. She knows they hate her and will do whatever it takes to sink her, so why should she play their games? She also has a far more coherent plan WRT to domestic energy production and is not willing to abandon Israel to the Palestinians.

    3: If it’s Romney, Obama wins. RomneyCare’s debacle will insulate Obama from any and all discussion of ObamaCare and this will be enough to get him a 2nd term even in a crappy economy. If it’s Palin, I hate to say that Obama will still win but the margin will be much closer than with Romney, as it will be a straight-out fight between Heartland Americans and Weenie Coastal Liberals. Don’t forget that the WCLs are stealthily pushing through the 50 states a compact where states agree to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, thus removing one of the single most important Constitutional features that allowed the small states to give their assent to the Constitution.

      • bthylafh
      • 9 years ago

      Nice, first post and we’re already up to name-calling.

      edit: To keep things on track:

      1) Of the available field so far, Romney, because he’s probably the most grown-up of the lot.

      2) Ditto, same reason.

      3) That’s the kicker. Obama if the economy starts perking up, the Republicans otherwise.

      • Chun¢
      • 9 years ago

      I don’t agree with states giving their votes to the popular winner, but in the long run, the winner take all system is a bigger menace than that.

      • XaiaX
      • 9 years ago

      If Palin wins the nomination, the GOP deserves to lose. She’s a halfwit. She fled her governorship for the greener pastures of the media. She bumbled her way through school before that. She has a tenuous grasp on trivialities such as facts, history, and critical thinking. The only reason she became an even semi-prominent figure is that she was plucked from the aether by the McCain campaign and set as the VP candidate. She would be utterly eaten alive by a field of GOP contenders actually campaigning against her. If she somehow managed to acquire the nomination, the margin for Obama wouldn’t be even remotely tiny, she would be left nothing but the votes of rigid party-liners and those sympathetic to an inevitable slaughter in the debates and vacuously easy negative campaigning.

      Nice trolling though, you’ve got the whole diminutive reference to artificial and imagined regional boundaries, derogatory allusions to the moral inherency of “Middle America”, and the requisite talking points like “the media hates Palin”. (Which is, of course, patently ridiculous. Every time she goes on TV she says something amazingly ignorant or just plain stupid, it makes for fantastic viewing. They love having her on. They would be over the moon if she put up a serious effort to run.)

      You do know that more people voted for McCain in California than in Texas, right?
      Look it up. I know facts are inconvenient to ridiculous ideologies like believing in “red states” and “blue states”, but they can be enlightening.

      1. Romney. He’s got the money. The only other serious contender is Pawlenty, who doesn’t.

      2. Should? Ron Paul. Because it would be [i<]hilarious[/i<]. So would Johnson. He was governor of New Mexico for a time while I was there. His attitude toward the drug war is the single best thing about him, and if he won and actually did attempt to dismantle the DEA and our pointless War On Some Drugs That Aren't Patentable But Are Used Or Made By Brown People that would be fantastic. Obama will win. It will not be terribly close. The only way the GOP has a shot is if Obama holds a press conference, removes a mask to reveal himself to be a shapeshifting lizard hitler clone, produces documentation that he was born in Kendonesia, then smokes a baby wrapped in a US flag. While chanting "Death to the USA." I'm not sure how you chant and smoke a baby at the same time, I'm just spitballing here.

        • no51
        • 9 years ago

        that’s easy, he’ll reveal himself to have many mouths. one can chant, one can smoke a baby, one can smoke pot and another can be french kissing bin laden who was later revealed to be alive.

      • Turkina
      • 9 years ago

      “She also has a far more coherent plan WRT to domestic energy production and is not willing to abandon Israel to the Palestinians.” Can you tell me what that plan is? Drilling in ANWR is not a plan in and of itself. She has spoken out against drilling in the Gulf several times (mainly after the BP incident), and for it several times (mainly after the drilling ban was enacted).
      I have never heard anything resembling a plan or coherent position from her – everything she says seems to be purely reactionary to what the opponent of the day believes or front running to stay ahead of the momentum of those she is trying to persuade.

      Edit: And it saddens me to see you reduce a complicated issue to 5 words (“abandon Israel to the Palestinians”). I dont think its coastal elitist weeinism to insist people actually think deeply about issues instead of reducing them to a handful of easily shouted words.

        • bthylafh
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]I dont think its coastal elitist weeinism to insist people actually think deeply about issues instead of reducing them to a handful of easily shouted words.[/quote<] It is in Teabagistan.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This