Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

schadenfreude wrote:The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I think he'd certainly do better than any of the others in actually running the country, but he has simply failed to capture people's imaginations, in an election where the base has been looking around to latch onto anyone who isn't Romney. It's possible that while he might be a very skilled official, he's just not the charisma needed to get people to follow him.

Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.

Sure, but the bigger issue is if Huntsman could wow the social conservatives to get out and vote for him. I mean, McCain had a whole lot of problems trying to get them out to vote for him, I'm not sure Huntsman would be any more successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Where does Ron Paul fit into this?

He continues to win votes from a small and highly confused minority of voters, same as he always has. He'll rally them together for the odd straw poll, and continue to pick up single digit votes in every general poll.

And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".

The swing voters matter, somewhat, but the bigger issue is convincing your side to get out and vote. Whoever the Republican candidate is, the trick will be keeping the various collections of Republican groups sufficiently happy that they'll show up to vote in big numbers. This means getting keeping up credibility on about a dozen little issues all at once, especially when those issues are often contradictory.

For Obama, this will involve convincing voters to bother at all, given the general state of the economy and failure to deliver on what voters thought he was going to deliver.

For Obama it is probably something along the lines of listing things he's attempted to do and pointing out the successes and the Republican obstructionism that caused most of the failures, with the insinuation that the Republicans ahve no real sane ideas of their own so they just say no to everyone else's. So vote for Obama and the democrats because they actually has a plan yada yada yada.

Dunno if the public would buy that, but playing up the obstructionist tactics of the past couple years seems a good idea for him regardless. Hopefully if it's Romney vs Obama it won't be a dirty fight... whichever one has the best plan should win, not who throws the mud the hardest.

Ahtman wrote:

jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term.

Just like Bush wasn't going to see a second term, right?

jblackheart13 wrote:I might just move to England.

Why do you hate America?

Or

When you go through Canada say "hi" to Alec Baldwin.

Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huntsman is a Democrat. Only Democrats like him.

Strangely enough I like Huntsman.

As an aside (found it while looking on Gallup's site for proof of Frazzle's claim), support for handgun bans is at a record low across the nation, about a quarter of US citizens.

And goddamn, 90+ polls on Obama's popularity? Did Gallup just run polls until they got one they liked? Even Bush only had 7.

They keep a running three day poll as do several polling agencies. I picked Gallup because it has long term hitorical comparables and is more neutral than say Rasmussen.

Frazzled wrote:Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans could run a paper cutout of President Obama and the paper cutout would win.

As one of the few conservatives on this forum, I don't like Romney. He may be a fiscal conservative, he may be a social conservative - but we don't know. His speeches and actions in office are at odds with one another. Given that any one of the Republican candidates could beat Obama, I would rather have a surefire candidate than one who we think is going to do what's right for the country.

Click and play.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

So Truman had far ,FAR lower approval ratings, meaning Obama's wasn't the record low it was said to be.

Melissia wrote:So Truman had far ,FAR lower approval ratings, meaning Obama's wasn't the record low it was said to be.

Not at this point in his presidency.



You'll also note the inflection point. Before Nixon approval ratings and support are substantially higher across the board. After...not so much.

Yes, and meanwhile, Obama's approval ratings are essentially the same on average as Bush, except that Bush had higher and lower extremes.

Melissia wrote:Yes, and meanwhile, Obama's approval ratings are essentially the same on average as Bush, except that Bush had higher and lower extremes.

Except that its not.

At this point in his Presidency Obama has lower ratings approval than any sitting President in the study except Carter.
He's also trending down, not up. Absent a strong 3rd party (which allowed Clinton to slip in - oh how I miss him now) or a Chavez moment Obama is a lame duck.

Frazzled wrote:Except that its not.

... yes it is, according to the link you gave.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Except that its not.

... yes it is, according to the link you gave.

Ok lets try this again.

Click the site.
Now click Bush the younger as well.

-You'll see Bush the Younger squiggly line is higher than Obama's all the way across right up to where Obama's ends. You'll also note Bush won.

Now if you are referring to Bush Sr. you'll see the same, but his ratings fall off later as the recession kicks in. We're already in a substantially deeper Reagan level recession.

As a counterpoint look at Reagan. He was rising at this point - almost directly in track with improvement in the economy.

You aren't paying much attention to the text you quoted, are you frazzled?

The site marks the average approval rating of the presidents (under historical trend, where the darker and lighter halves of the graph meet) and both Bush and Obama are pretty much the same. And seeing as I said "average", this is true according to the source you gave.

You know you can make comparable graph lines right? For reference at this day in both their Presidencies

Bush 53%
Obama 41%

from day 231 to day 1001 Bush is substantially higher.

Frazzled wrote:

Per Gallup, Obama polls lower at this point in his presidency than anyone except Carter. At this point the Republicans could put up a paper cutoff of Teddy Roosevelt and the paper cutout would win.

Hehe. I just pictured 40 years from now, telling my grandkids about how amazing times were under Paper Cutout Roosevelt, and how much we need to get away from the empty messages of 'hope' and 'change' that are always Elmer's glued to President Paper Cutout Obama.

d-usa wrote:You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

I'm surprised you don't move to Somalia. You could wear a pirate hat....




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the TOTUS could beat the POTUS at this point.

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/

I got my Long John Silvers hat, I am content.

Ahtman wrote:

jblackheart13 wrote:I might just move to England.

Why do you hate America?

Or

When you go through Canada say "hi" to Alec Baldwin.

Did you miss the part where he served in the US military? Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean, I think he'd certainly do better than any of the others in actually running the country, but he has simply failed to capture people's imaginations, in an election where the base has been looking around to latch onto anyone who isn't Romney. It's possible that while he might be a very skilled official, he's just not the charisma needed to get people to follow him.

I think the issue is more he just doesn't have the money to do it. He's a Washington outsider, Obama basically killed his chances of taking the presidency by posting him in China and thus marginalizing him/eliminating any chance of pre-election familiarity he might have with the voter base. Plus, he doesn't have the financial backing of the other major players right now, which limits the face time he gets.

Sure, but the bigger issue is if Huntsman could wow the social conservatives to get out and vote for him. I mean, McCain had a whole lot of problems trying to get them out to vote for him, I'm not sure Huntsman would be any more successful.

A Republican candidate doesn't need the social conservatives to carry an election. This is a fallacy that has dominated Republican thinking. Huntsman could easily win by carrying the vote of the rest of the people in this country that aren't psychotic christian fundamentalists.

Huntsman is a Democrat. Only Democrats like him.

Strangely enough I like Huntsman.

You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.

Shut your mouth and GTFO. Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.

No more comments like this please.

You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.

Billions of wiener dogs exhale their dragonlikie breath in your general direction
Get real. He's a RINO, and this is from someone who likes much of what he says.
If the NYT is for you, you're just this side of Trotsky.

Frazzled wrote:

You shut your dirty wiener dog mouth. He is a moderate Republican.

Billions of wiener dogs exhale their dragonlikie breath in your general direction
Get real. He's a RINO, and this is from someone who likes much of what he says.
If the NYT is for you, you're just this side of Trotsky.

Well, I never! The Times is a liberal rag that likes to use outdated and obscure language to reinforce its own pretentious notion of importance and self-worth. Real men (around these parts) read the New York Daily Post.

reds8n wrote:

Shut your mouth and GTFO. Have some respect for people that have done more for this country than you have.

No more comments like this please.

My apologies, heat of the moment and all that.

d-usa wrote:You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

QFT.

This is what the Tea party is saying: "America is a great nation EXCEPT that it's not enough like Somalia."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:As one of the few conservatives on this forum, I don't like Romney. He may be a fiscal conservative, he may be a social conservative - but we don't know.

TBH, he sounds like the perfect Republican candidate -- wait, I see what you mean -- he must seem like a conservative but then increase federal spending and do next to nothing (or just nothing) with regard to the social conservative issues. Yes, I agree -- the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be what he is: a corporate-minded weather vane.

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

This is what the Tea party is saying: "America is a great nation EXCEPT that it's not enough like Somalia."

I think I'd want to see the Tea Party rally sign extolling the virtues of Somalia before I'd buy that claim.

Best,

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:As one of the few conservatives on this forum, I don't like Romney. He may be a fiscal conservative, he may be a social conservative - but we don't know.

TBH, he sounds like the perfect Republican candidate -- wait, I see what you mean -- he must seem like a conservative but then increase federal spending and do next to nothing (or just nothing) with regard to the social conservative issues. Yes, I agree -- the trouble with Romney is that he appears to be what he is: a corporate-minded weather vane.

I don't know what I'd do without your intentional distortion of my comments Manchu.

Yours is truly a dazzling mind.

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

QFT.

This is what the Tea party is saying: "America is a great nation EXCEPT that it's not enough like Somalia."

Er...thats wrong. You're thinking the Libertarian Party.
The Tea Party is saying 1) balance the budget 2) small government works best. 3) Frazzled for 2012. Join the Wiener party. We'll chase those fat cats right out of Washington.

Thats kind of snappy now that I think about it. I already have the party emblem, and of course "the wiener dog song" would be the party theme song.

A vote for Frazzled is a vote for treats in every bowl, a warm blanket - even two- in every kennel. Frazzled for President, he'll shield us from the vultures of the world.

Phanatik wrote:I think I'd want to see the Tea Party rally sign extolling the virtues of Somalia before I'd buy that claim.

It's not too necessary that they say it explicitly. Sabotaging the operation of the government and the economy speak louder than any campaign poster.

biccat wrote:Yours is truly a dazzling mind.

Yes, my ability to correlate facts with intentions must appear quite awesome to you.

Frazzled wrote:You're thinking the Libertarian Party.

That's what I thought I was thinking, too, but then I read the news papers and found that it's actually this thing called the Tea Party. They're not an actual political party, you see -- it confused me, too!

It's not too necessary that they say it explicitly. Sabotaging the operation of the government and the economy speak louder than any campaign poster.

So by this logic the Democratic Party really are Leninists. After all, tax the rich doesn't say murderous killing fields, but its not too necessary that they say iut explicitly.

No, Frazzled, this is another case of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy. On the other hand, the notion that Democrats are going to come to your house, seize your guns and your person, and then put you up against the wall (borrowing your old favorite phrase there) is just a fantasy from a fantasy land.

Manchu wrote:No, Frazzled, this is another case of knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. In the past year, the Republican party actually has sabotaged the operation of the federal government and our national economy. On the other hand, the notion that Democrats are going to come to your house, seize your guns and your person, and then put you up against the wall (borrowing your old favorite phrase there) is just a fantasy from a fantasy land.

Really.
1. Republican Party is not the Tea Party.
2. You've just effectively inferred Treason. Please pray tell how they've committed Treason.
3. Gun control. All I have to say is Project Gunrunner.