EPTRepublican nominations - Page 82
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:16 Cloud9157 wrote: You can't seriously be suggesting they would elect Bachman over him... PLEASE tell me you aren't suggesting that. Ron Paul I can almost see... But he has some weird views, other than his foreign policy. I can give him credit for that. The rest are nobodies who don't even deserve attention. Pretty much all of them have some story that makes people say "wtf...?" Eh, if the economy stays the way it is, Bachmann vs Obama might be a 50/50 race. Polls tend to show: a) random sample of adults b) registered voters or c) "likely" voters (at this point mostly based on historical trends in voting patterns) The first two always skew more left than the final poll results, even when the Democrat wins. Democrats have a real issue with getting parts of their base (namely poor urban voters) to actually vote. But "likely voters" projections even overestimate Obama, because (as was the case in 2010) the Tea Party is unbelievably energized, while progressives/liberals are kinda meh on Obama and the urban poor feel let down by him. So sure, when a pollster asks them if they'd vote for Obama or [Perry/Romney/Bachmann/etc] they answer Obama. Are they actually going to vote, at all? I'm doubtful, particularly about the latter. Perry's social views may motivate the liberals to hold their nose and vote Obama, but the disaffected poor/unemployed don't really care about that (in fact many of these people are social conservatives, especially regarding gay rights). I don't think it will be like 2010, but I don't see Obama winning a state like Iowa, Ohio, or Virginia right now and he probably needs one of those three. | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:16 Cloud9157 wrote: You can't seriously be suggesting they would elect Bachman over him... PLEASE tell me you aren't suggesting that. Ron Paul I can almost see... But he has some weird views, other than his foreign policy. I can give him credit for that. The rest are nobodies who don't even deserve attention. Pretty much all of them have some story that makes people say "wtf...?" News flash: Bachmann is no longer campaigning for POTUS nomination. She is not a serious contender but is at this point campaigning for permanent punditry rights, martyrdom among her fringe faction, and possibly book deals. Wolf Blitzer asked more questions of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich than Michelle Bachmann. | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:13 Klogon wrote: The only reason Obama seems more left than he used to be in 2008 is because the GOP has shifted dramatically to the right. In fact, that so many have gone to such an extreme worries me because like we have seen over and over, extremism in politics is not healthy. No. By all accounts Obama is the most progressive president the US has ever seen. People are shifting to the right because they are tired of the same old bull shit politics and just want government to get out of their way and fix the national debt. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:09 xDaunt wrote: With all due respect, it doesn't really matter what Canadians, Europeans, or even Martians think about the spectrum of American politics. In the US, Obama is perceived as a left-wing politician. That's because we have a perception problem.. not because it's true.. Obama would be considered right wing in most european countries. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:19 hi19hi19 wrote: It's disconcerting, wanting strongly to vote against Obama, but finding the freakshow of options presented by the GOP to be no better. I COULD vote for an independent candidate, after which said candidate would still lose anyway because of the bipartisan system we have. And then people wonder why so many people just don't vote. Where do you live? Especially if you live in an noncompetitive state, just vote 3rd party for president and make your votes count for your congressman/senator and any local ballot issues. As a new resident of DC, I have no qualms whatsoever with writing in Ron Paul as a protest vote, because the district will go for Obama by 60+ points. In the meantime, I can still make a good choice for our Sena.... oh wait. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7291 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:27 Yergidy wrote: No. By all accounts Obama is the most progressive president the US has ever seen. People are shifting to the right because they are tired of the same old bull shit politics and just want government to get out of their way and fix the national debt. Civl Rights Act, FDA, New Deal, etc. Hes not even close. Infact none of those things would pass nowadays with all the bullshit we have going on. USA was more progressive 30-40 years ago than it is today. | ||
|
Pillage
United States804 Posts
I agree that entitlements and welfare reform are one of the biggest problems in the country, but what I was saying is completely different. Entitlement and welfare IS the biggest problem our country faces fiscally, as I've demonstrated in my previous posts. Democrats refuse to address these issues, which is why they do not have my support. I'm just making the analysis that both sides can be equally susceptible to waste. True, but when you look at who has a larger incentive to minimize waste, its the private sector by a long shot. In my opinion, many of these spending programs are not inherently waste but instead have become wasteful and redundant due to circumstances where we haven't reformed programs in the last few years. This we can agree on. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
Oh, but I will keep Social Security and Medicare; They MUST remain federal. They help so many people. SOCIALIST OBAMA CUT YOUR MEDICARE! - Republican confusion from every debate thus far. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
I think people in this thread are forgetting how complacent people in general are. The United States re-elected G.W. Bush in 2004, when he had been president when 9/11 happened, started 2 wars with no end in sight, and watched as Americans put their entire life worth into the housing bubble, that even then looked a little dangerous. People tend to stick with what they know, even if they aren't terribly happy, especially if the other option is to reinstate the guy that got us here. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:35 Sadist wrote: Civl Rights Act, FDA, New Deal, etc. Hes not even close. Infact none of those things would pass nowadays with all the bullshit we have going on. USA was more progressive 30-40 years ago than it is today. Don't Ask Don't tell repealed, Stimulus(despite all the rabble rabble help stave off the worst economic case scenario), Healthcare Reform are pretty big domestic policy reforms for a couple of decades. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:35 Sadist wrote: Civl Rights Act, FDA, New Deal, etc. Hes not even close. Infact none of those things would pass nowadays with all the bullshit we have going on. USA was more progressive 30-40 years ago than it is today. Dude, except for "Obamacare," Bush 3rd term. It speaks to how liberal Bush was in a sense and how Obama is conservative in a sense. Also how much war and the debt dominates the current political climate. | ||
|
Phant
United States737 Posts
Cain, Bachman, and Paul will not win simply because they don't look/sound like presidents. Perry looks the most president-like and will win. Doesn't matter what their policies are, it's the looks that count. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
I don't have health insurance. Society won't allow me to die, so I don't need health insurance. If I need medical care, I will receive it. If they bill me, I won't pay it, because I don't have enough money to pay it. Why should I bother paying for something that society considers a human right? Other people who choose to pay for their medical care will be paying my bills as well, and they will be wondering why medical costs keep increasing, like it's some mystery. Eventually the few individuals will not be able to support the rest of the countries medical costs, and the government will simply socialize the whole system, further removing any possibility of me being held accountable for my own irresponsibility. trololol? By the way, I'm a smoker. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:40 Romantic wrote: The federal government is terrible (States rule), people should die if they don't have health insurance, and mandates are terribly wrong. Oh, but I will keep Social Security and Medicare; They MUST remain federal. They help so many people. SOCIALIST OBAMA CUT YOUR MEDICARE! - Republican confusion from every debate thus far. if by progressive you mean liberal, then you're wrong. Obama is pretty heavily a leftist. the main problem with the left is that they can't budget for their policies, and destroy the economy with over-regulation and moral hazzards. Of course, you can come back and say that the republicans also can't balance for their spending, and that's also because the republican party is way more liberal than it ever was before economically. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On September 13 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: if by progressive you mean liberal, then you're wrong. Obama is pretty heavily a leftist. the main problem with the left is that they can't budget for their policies, and destroy the economy with over-regulation and moral hazzards. Of course, you can come back and say that the republicans also can't balance for their spending, and that's also because the republican party is way more liberal than it ever was before economically. Do you think Clinton was a leftist, that question goes out to anybody and if the answer is yes then I simply point out he had Republican controlled houses, Newt Gingrich of all people, that worked with him. Look what the results were, across the board good with the bad and wonder what Obama would/could have done if it wasn't for all the Republican filibustering and delay tactics. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
First, let me say that this was the best debate so far. Kudos to CNN for putting it together and asking excellent questions that encouraged meaningful interactions between the candidates. Perry: I'm not sure that there was a clearcut winner in this debate, but Perry walked into the debate as the frontrunner and likely walked out as the frontrunner. Everyone was gunning for him, but I don't get the sense that any significant wounds have been inflicted yet. Bachmann's HPV-vaccination attack on Perry backfired on her, and I don't think that Romney's attacks on Perry over Social Security rhetoric are gaining much traction -- mostly because I think most people understand that it is just rhetoric and that there isn't really much difference between what Perry or Romney would do to Social Security. Though I do not agree with Perry on all of his policy positions, I do like the fact that he sticks to his guns and refuses to back down. That trait is going to gain him a lot of supporters. Romney: Unsurprisingly, Romney put in another solid performance. He looks and sounds the most presidential of all of the candidates. He gave a number of A+ answers to questions, with my favorite being the one where he stated that he'd bring Churchill's bust back into the White House (I commented to my wife as soon as Blitzer stated that he was going to ask that question that my answer would be Churchill's bust). However, Romney's one failure was his inability to take Perry down a notch. His current lines of attack have been ineffective -- particularly the attacks on Perry's Social Security rhetoric. The problem is that most republicans (if not Americans) agree that Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Bachmann: Bachmann was tonight's big loser. Her HPV attack on Perry backfired spectacularly, and she hasn't been able to regain any of the momentum that Perry sucked out of her campaign after the Ames Straw Poll. She's rapidly fading as a contending candidate. Paul: Ron Paul was Ron Paul. You know what you're gonna get from him, and tonight was no different. Like most republicans, I would never nominate Ron Paul over someone like Perry or Romney, but I do appreciate Paul's intellectual consistency. Huntsman: This guy is a tool. This is the second debate in a row where he's come out with some real nasty, yet retarded, one-line zingers against Romney and Perry. Beyond that fact that I disagree with him on too many policy issues to ever support him, there's something wrong with his demeanor and presentation -- something awkward. I don't know what it is, but the guy just doesn't rub me the right way when I see him speak. Santorum: Santorum's like a little rabid dog. He bites everyone because he's a little bit crazy and wants to be as relevant as the big dogs. Gingrich: Gingrich had another good showing at the debate. I still think that, despite all of his flaws, he's still the smartest of the candidates (and one of the smartest politicians of the past few decades). I'm trying to figure out why Gingrich is still in the race, because his campaign obviously isn't going anywhere. I'm not sure that he's looking to be VP so much as he's looking to intellectually guide the nomination process. We'll see. Cain: I really like Cain. I like his energy, I like his approach, and I like a lot of his ideas. Like Gingrich, he has steadfastly refused to attack other candidates. I think that Cain is looking to be a VP or cabinet pick of the eventual nominee. He'd probably make a pretty good selection. I can't really think of a better one off the top of my head other than someone like Rubio (who probably won't accept it). As for who my preferred candidate is, I'm still waffling between Perry and Romney. Neither is perfect, but both are acceptable so far. Of the two, I think that I am most likely to support Romney. I just don't know yet, though. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 13 2011 13:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Do you think Clinton was a leftist, that question goes out to anybody and if the answer is yes then I simply point out he had Republican controlled houses, Newt Gingrich of all people, that worked with him. Look what the results were, across the board good with the bad and wonder what Obama would/could have done if it wasn't for all the Republican filibustering and delay tactics. Clinton moved signficantly to the right and worked with Republicans on Republican initiatives (welfare reform being the big one) whereas Obama has largely antagonized Republicans and pursued Democratic initiatives (Obamacare being the big one). Here's the biggest difference between Clinton and Obama: Clinton had Dick Morris, and Obama has no Dick Morris equivalent. EDIT: Alright, the Dick Morris comment's a little unfair to Clinton. The reality is that Clinton is a politician first and an idealogue second. He also was silky smooth in all of his political dealings in a way that Obama will never be. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 13:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Do you think Clinton was a leftist, that question goes out to anybody and if the answer is yes then I simply point out he had Republican controlled houses, Newt Gingrich of all people, that worked with him. Look what the results were, across the board good with the bad and wonder what Obama would/could have done if it wasn't for all the Republican filibustering and delay tactics. well clinton had a part in starting the housing bubble and stuff, but he was less leftist than Obama | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I also don't understand the Perry love. This absolute unwillingness to back down on anything can't possibly help him in a general election when he has to define ideas which are radical and only something a portion of even the republican party think should go through. The saddest thing about this whole race is that the Tea Party has a grossly disproportionate influence on the Republican party and a debate like this only feeds this. | ||
| ||
