EPTI think Romney is by far and away the most realistic challenger to Obama at this point. That being said i personally like paul and huntsman (and romney) more than the other kooks. Pick your poison i guess.
Republican nominations - Page 123
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
I think Romney is by far and away the most realistic challenger to Obama at this point. That being said i personally like paul and huntsman (and romney) more than the other kooks. Pick your poison i guess. | ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On October 12 2011 11:54 Signet wrote: I don't understand how Rick Perry, governor of the state with the most job creation in the last 3 years, failed to take advantage of a debate on economics. And no I don't really believe that Perry caused said job creation or that he has the best policies (though some are useful and have helped Texas), but it's a damn effective talking point to have, and Perry needed to re-energize his campaign tonight after Cain had clearly taken his place as the Anybody-but-Romney candidate. Its because Perry creates jobs by stealing them from other states by offering low taxes and other business friendly things. This works great when you are running texas but when you have to grow jobs for the whole nations he has no clue what to do. He has never really created a job so much as moved them from other states. This will never work for america as a whole because where are we going to move the jobs from? we cant undercut mexico | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On October 12 2011 11:37 hoganftw wrote: Romney and Cain seem to be hogging most of the spotlight, with 90% of the questions targeted towards them. Perry and Bachmann getting the leftover questions, and the rest getting the scraps. It's pretty sad how these debates basically already chose the candidates by giving them all of the spotlight. Why can't these debates ever have equal amounts of questions and air time for each candidate? They've already picked the frontrunners for us. Wait so Bloomberg and The Washington Post picked Herman Cain as a frontrunner? They are reacting to popular opinion through polling. If the media exclusively was picking our candidates for us Herman Cain would still be a bookend instead of where he is now. My thoughts on the performances tonight: Romney was very good. He's using these debates to polish his message and debating in preparation for the general election. He came in the frontrunner and left that way, easily. He seems to be growing into a better and better candidate as time goes by. He's coming across less as a stuffed shirt and more as a real person. I'd argue that was what he was missing in 2008. Cain did well enough, and more importantly did what Perry couldn't do in past debates and weather the storm of being the target the second tier tried to take out. He may have solidified his place as the "anti-Romney". Where Perry fell apart when he was the savior, Cain did well. Perry was terrible again, someone has told him that running on energy policy for everything will get him elected, and I think they are wrong. He's not ready for the national debating spotlight and I suspect will continue to flounder. I honestly think Santorum is angry because he just doesn't understand how he can't possibly be up with the frontrunners and why he doesn't get any more attention from the moderators or other candidates. He wasn't terrible tonight, but will continue to be irrelevant. Bachmann was better, but is just too far out there, even for us Republicans. I like Ron Paul, I really do but he'll never get nominated. I think he wasn't bad tonight, I'm sure he won some points with hitting Cain on the fed but I doubt that gets him anywhere. Gingrich is basically running for the role of Republican Party Ideas Guy at this point. I always enjoy listening to him talk policy because he really is quite the policy wonk (just like Bill Clinton was) and is a genuinely intelligent guy. He's obviously not really running to beat anyone at this point. Huntsman I almost forgot to mention. He was better tonight, but I'd be shocked to see him pick up steam at this point. He had his shot and blew it. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 12 2011 12:33 Deathmanbob wrote: Its because Perry creates jobs by stealing them from other states by offering low taxes and other business friendly things. This works great when you are running texas but when you have to grow jobs for the whole nations he has no clue what to do. He has never really created a job so much as moved them from other states. This will never work for america as a whole because where are we going to move the jobs from? we cant undercut mexico I largely agree, but that doesn't mean Perry shouldn't be using this statistics or the issue in general to his advantage. Besides, a GOP crowd isn't going to want to hear that cutting the education budget so that you can lower corporate taxes won't work on a national level, so in the primaries at least Perry is somewhat safe from this criticism. "I created X jobs in our nation's second-largest state" plays pretty well against "I was CEO of a pizza chain most of you had never heard of before." | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On October 12 2011 13:29 Signet wrote: I largely agree, but that doesn't mean Perry shouldn't be using this statistics or the issue in general to his advantage. Besides, a GOP crowd isn't going to want to hear that cutting the education budget so that you can lower corporate taxes won't work on a national level, so in the primaries at least Perry is somewhat safe from this criticism. "I created X jobs in our nation's second-largest state" plays pretty well against "I was CEO of a pizza chain most of you had never heard of before." no, if you look at history, if anything Perry has destroyed jobs. Job creation has been better in Texas under all previous governers for a while now, Texas is in general a state that has great influx of workers, Perry actually raised the taxes, and did a bunch of other economically liberal stuff which resulted in less jobs. If you want to look for a champion in "job creation" I guess you can look at Huntsman he's not terrible, and Utah actually created a bunch of jobs, and has low unemployment during his being in office. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On October 12 2011 14:09 Kiarip wrote: no, if you look at history, if anything Perry has destroyed jobs. Job creation has been better in Texas under all previous governers for a while now, Texas is in general a state that has great influx of workers, Perry actually raised the taxes, and did a bunch of other economically liberal stuff which resulted in less jobs. If you want to look for a champion in "job creation" I guess you can look at Huntsman he's not terrible, and Utah actually created a bunch of jobs, and has low unemployment during his being in office. Maybe Perry is hesitant to bring it up because he doesn't want to invite more scrutiny. In debates thus far Romney has proven sufficiently capable of putting Perry in his place when it comes to that, although I think he should hire xDaunt to refine his talking points about job creation  If I were Huntsman, I wouldn't stop talking about jobs in Utah. Did he get to drill that point a lot tonight? | ||
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
| ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On October 12 2011 15:20 lizzard_warish wrote: You know im increasingly warming up to the idea of a Romney-Cain ticket. I dont really like Romney, for the same reason most republicans dont, he seems very inauthentic and just kind of...in it for the pride or whatever. But Cain IS authentic, and checks every box [I] want in a candidate. Conservative socially, fiscally, devout christian ecetera. I think the two of them could bring down Obama. I dont think you want Cain as the running mate, he has said WAYYYYY to many things to get rid of so many voters that he will bring a ticket down. (case in point i cant see how a single muslim would vote for someone who said they will never appoint any muslim to their staff or to judgeship.) | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On October 12 2011 15:38 Deathmanbob wrote: I dont think you want Cain as the running mate, he has said WAYYYYY to many things to get rid of so many voters that he will bring a ticket down. (case in point i cant see how a single muslim would vote for someone who said they will never appoint any muslim to their staff or to judgeship.) Doubt Muslims are a particularly important demographic for US electoral concerns, at least on a national level. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On October 12 2011 15:40 Elegy wrote: Doubt Muslims are a particularly important demographic for US electoral concerns, at least on a national level. Every minority group is more important then the majority. The majority is almost always going to be cleanly split between demo and repub. Minorities are often less individualistic and as such easier to win as a group. For example Barack Obama won the black vote by an incredible margin, a degree wich would be impossible for a white candidate to achieve on the majority white population. Considering the majority is largely unwinnable i think focussing on minorities is actually the key to succes for any presidential race. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
Could be wrong! | ||
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
On October 12 2011 15:38 Deathmanbob wrote: Sorry, but to be frank, your either ignorant or your just be stupidly sensationalistic. Cain is not a liability at all because of a couple remarks against muslims, especially given that he will pull [due to his conservative christianity and blackness] a lot of black voters away from obama.I dont think you want Cain as the running mate, he has said WAYYYYY to many things to get rid of so many voters that he will bring a ticket down. (case in point i cant see how a single muslim would vote for someone who said they will never appoint any muslim to their staff or to judgeship.) On October 12 2011 15:55 zalz wrote: You really dont know what your talking about at all, do you? Whites arent split fifty fifty for example, a majority of whites go for the republican party. And yeah...if were talking about minorities the hispanic and black vote matter, not the Muslim one. They arent even 1% of the population.Every minority group is more important then the majority. The majority is almost always going to be cleanly split between demo and repub. Minorities are often less individualistic and as such easier to win as a group. For example Barack Obama won the black vote by an incredible margin, a degree wich would be impossible for a white candidate to achieve on the majority white population. Considering the majority is largely unwinnable i think focussing on minorities is actually the key to succes for any presidential race. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 12 2011 14:09 Kiarip wrote: no, if you look at history, if anything Perry has destroyed jobs. Job creation has been better in Texas under all previous governers for a while now, Texas is in general a state that has great influx of workers, Perry actually raised the taxes, and did a bunch of other economically liberal stuff which resulted in less jobs. If you want to look for a champion in "job creation" I guess you can look at Huntsman he's not terrible, and Utah actually created a bunch of jobs, and has low unemployment during his being in office. Again, I'm suggesting this purely as a campaign strategy. Not as a debate position to take versus a Chicago economics faculty member. Personally, I don't want Perry to win and I'd much rather have Huntsman now that you bring him up, so I'm not arguing this strategy out if self-interest either. I'm more likely to believe that he wants to keep this particular bow in his quiver to be used to bludgeon Obama with. (ie he doesn't want to invite scrutiny at this point) His problem is that, as things stand, he isn't going to be on the Republican ticket. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
You really dont know what your talking about at all, do you? Whites arent split fifty fifty for example, a majority of whites go for the republican party. And yeah...if were talking about minorities the hispanic and black vote matter, not the Muslim one. They arent even 1% of the population. What would happen if someone actually dropped some actuall numbers... Carter / Ford 47%/52% Clinton / Bush 39%/40% Clinton / Dole 43%/46% I suppose it's easier to pretend to know what you are talking about then to actually look up the numbers and change your flawed to an opinion supported by facts. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 12 2011 15:55 zalz wrote: Every minority group is more important then the majority. The majority is almost always going to be cleanly split between demo and repub. Minorities are often less individualistic and as such easier to win as a group. For example Barack Obama won the black vote by an incredible margin, a degree wich would be impossible for a white candidate to achieve on the majority white population. Considering the majority is largely unwinnable i think focussing on minorities is actually the key to succes for any presidential race. The one-sidedness of the black vote has more to do with the Southern Strategy than with minorities being some monolithic entity. Republicans and Demicrats both try to appeal to white voters, but Republicans spent most of the post-War 20th century actively alienating blacks to exploit white racism. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy This isn't as relevant today, but now they're stuck with the legacy of that strategy. On that note, if the GOP really wants to be an irrelevant regional party in 20 years, they'll keep up the anti-Hispanic xenophobia. Bush understood this, Perry mostly gets it, but they're in the party's minority on these issues. | ||
|
legendre20
United States316 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 12 2011 15:40 Elegy wrote: Doubt Muslims are a particularly important demographic for US electoral concerns, at least on a national level. Muslims are about 1% of the US population. http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html There are probably more hardcore islamophobes in this country than there are Muslims, so anti-Muslim rhetoric can be an effective tactic. (regardless of the ethical issues with said tactics) Even if they were voting 80-90% for one party as happens with black voters, there are so few of them it doesn't really make a difference. Blacks, on the other hand, are 12% of the US population (but only something like 8% of voters) and it's similar for Hispanics, so deliberately alienating them is a tactical blunder. You'd need to find a similar-sized group of racist voters to offset such a loss, which is thankfully becoming more rare in our society. [trying to recall racial demographics offhand, apologies if I was off] | ||
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:37 zalz wrote: What the fuck is this, seriously? If its pretending to be white voting patterns, its only so close as you added it up to the total of voters as a whole and cut the whites votes in, rather than merely looking at a white votes. 43-46 suddenly becomes basically an 8 point split. Under Bush whites were nearly 60% in favour of Republicans. The democrats havent taken the white vote in decades...What would happen if someone actually dropped some actuall numbers... Carter / Ford 47%/52% Clinton / Bush 39%/40% Clinton / Dole 43%/46% I suppose it's easier to pretend to know what you are talking about then to actually look up the numbers and change your flawed to an opinion supported by facts. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 13 2011 02:36 lizzard_warish wrote: What the fuck is this, seriously? If its pretending to be white voting patterns, its only so close as you added it up to the total of voters as a whole and cut the whites votes in, rather than merely looking at a white votes. 43-46 suddenly becomes basically an 8 point split. Under Bush whites were nearly 60% in favour of Republicans. The democrats havent taken the white vote in decades... The Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole numbers don't add up to 100% because of Ross Perot. However I do agree with you that these numbers aren't all that telling. Clinton won 370 and 379 electoral votes in those elections. The numbers in a close Republican win (like 2000, 2004) and a big Republican win (1980, 1984, 1988) should have larger margins. It seems from the Clinton numbers that the worst case scenario fir Republicans is to only win white voters by 1%. Reagan's numbers should give us an estimate of their best case scenario. | ||
| ||
