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.

biccat wrote:
I never said they had to be impartial. But it certainly blows the lid off of his "I'm just a comedian" schtick.

So when one comedian hands control of his comedic enterprise over to another comedian, the receiving comedian is not doing something purely for comedic purposes.

biccat wrote:
I have no idea what that means. I'm just going to assume you're trying to be insulting.

I'm saying that you complaining about someone else not being impartial is like taunting someone, holding a rock, in your glass house.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Yes the press makes a lot of hay over it, but it nowhere close to over people.

Last time around McCain didn't come out to the top until a week or so after super Tuesday, when a large number o fsouthern states went to Huckabee. It was Huckabee at the time who then dropped out and pledged all his delegates to McCain, putting him from about 3rd, to first.

2008 was a very different election. There were many competitive choices. This year, you have Newt Gingrich and Rick Freaking Santorum, a man who lost re-election in his own state by the largest margin in the history of it. It's like Cynthia McKinney being talked about as seriously having a chance. Saying Romney is the likely candidate is not exactly a crazy belief.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:If you are a registered Democrat, and left leaning, why on earth would anyone on the Republican side listen to your opinion on what would be the best chance for a Republican ticket???!!!

Seriously, you are voting Obama, your opinion on this has no weight, I say this of the mass media as well. They love to say "What the Republicans need to do to stand a chance is ________." Sadly, some people still listen to them, of the net effect of hearing the same guys name over and over and over and over for half a year finally sinks to far into thier brains, they just vote for them.

I'm relatively certain this is directed at me, since I opined on what would make a winning ticket.

1.) I'm hardly a registered Democrat. I'm not a registered anything. I vote for Democrats and Republicans on a more or less even split, with independents as I fancy them. The only political donation I made in my life was to a Republican (which I totally regret since it made for a lifetime of junk mail and robocalls). The best way to describe how I feel about American politics, circa 2012, is that I enjoy watching the game even if I don't support either team, like football.

2.) Being a member of a political party doesn't suddenly absolve you of all perspective. I'd actually rather argue the opposite: if I were, in fact, a hardcore Democrat banner-waver, I'd image that I've be finely attuned to just what Obama's weakest points are, and what opponent is most likely to successively exploit them. Obama is very vulnerable this year, and although I think he's likely to win, it's less to do with my favoritism and more to do with my assessment of the current political realities. If the Republicans run someone with extreme right wing beliefs like Rick Santorum, they will lose despite Obama's weakness, just as the nigh-unelectable Harry Reid held onto his seat solely because Sharron Angle was his opponent.

3.) In any event, if I wrote in a vote every year for Abbadon the Despoiler, my opinion would hold just as much weight as yours would, thank you very much. But thank you for completely invalidating my opinion not with facts, but with your perceived (and incorrect) interpretation of my political beliefs.

Ouze - believe it or not, I did not direct it at you.

I was just making a statement, because every thread like this ends up the same, with the left leaning majority dakka piling in with "helpful" suggestions about how what the Republicans could do to have a better chance at winning.

When they in fact have no interest in the Republican party winning anything.

You see what I mean? If I am heading up a rugby team, and playing vs another, Do you think my "helpful" suggestions to othe team would be valid? Even if they were, thay would have to be taken with a huge grain of salt, because I obviously would want my team to win, not thiers.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I was just making a statement, because every thread like this ends up the same, with the left leaning majority dakka piling in with "helpful" suggestions about how what the Republicans could do to have a better chance at winning.

I'm socially quite liberal, but fiscally I'm more conservative. When the two intersect my fiscal conservatism tends to win out.

Add it all up and I'm probably a right-leaning moderate.

The economy is going to be the big, big swing point for unaffiliated moderates like myself. If the economy is still generally bumping along at upper single digits unemployment and little real progress towards material recovery by Q4 2012, the election is the Republicans' to lose provided they can keep issues focused squarely on the lack of traction achieved in the last 4 years.

In that respect, Romney is a fine choice for a not-Obama. He doesn't have the baggage or the monkey on his back like Newt, Paul, and Santorum to derail his campaign.

I cannot think of a better way to let Obama transform the Presidential election into a populist, popularity contest that he will walk away with than to allow Paul to continue his bitter old man doomsaying, Santorum to get on his gay-hating, abortion-banning soapbox, or for Newt's luggage car full of dirty laundry to get hauled out under public scrutiny.

Huntsman seemed alright, but why romney? Because he's more handsome that Ron Paul? Romney is a jack-wagon piece of dog gak.

I hear ya sourclams,

I am about the same persuassion as you are, a bit to the right, fiscal conservatism beats out my socially liberal voting tendancies quite often.

Whacky Libertarian and all that.

I will just apologize now for getting worked up and being cranky. I live in a very liberal, socialist and communist leaning area of my state. I hear a constant barrage from people with Obama bumper stickers of thier "helpful" suggestions on what the Republicans can do to win.

I personally really like Ron Paul, he is my kind of nut, will he make it through, nope. I know that.

Sadly I feel like the Republican party is having another case of "it's his turn" nomination and it will be Romney just for that fact.

I am seriously depressed by it all, and that because of the way the system is set up, we rarely get much of a choice at all.

My gut tells me after seeing Romney campaign this cycle and last, and what he has done in the meantime, that if he was to get elected, we would overall be sold a bill of goods.

The fact McCain endorsed Romney last week is really not sitting well with me either.

I also do not think Romney would beat Obama in the General, simply because there are too many areas where they look so similiar, perceived or actual.

I think I am going to avoid the political discussions on Dakka for awhile. Try and keep it civil folks, be nice to each other, we are all just people trying to get by.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Ouze - believe it or not, I did not direct it at you.

Fair enough.

I think many people aren't necessarily on a team, per se. I think a lot of people who follow politics do it like a sport, at least in my very limited experience. Some people watch baseball even if the Yankees aren't playing.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
You see what I mean? If I am heading up a rugby team, and playing vs another, Do you think my "helpful" suggestions to othe team would be valid? Even if they were, thay would have to be taken with a huge grain of salt, because I obviously would want my team to win, not thiers.

I think its a bit different in the case of politics, because we're primarily talking about spectators, rather than team members.

Granted, I'm a political analyst so I know a bit about what I'm doing, but when people say X should do Y in order to win, but don't want him to win, its sort of like fans watching a rugby game and talking about what the other team should do.

Take someone like Santorum, who I absolutely loathe on a personal level. I can look at his campaign and see where he slips up even though I'm not the guy he's appealing to.

Granted, lots of people conflate political errors with behavior they don't like, but that's a bit of a different matter.

AustonT wrote:I don't think the RNC will pick anyone from the primaries, my best guess is a former governor that hiertofor has not been mentioned. But not from Alaska...

Many eyes are on Rubio for VP.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Huntsman seemed alright, but why romney? Because he's more handsome that Ron Paul? Romney is a jack-wagon piece of dog gak.

Are you asking "Why Romney and not Ron Paul?"?

Because if that's the case its because Ron Paul takes many positions that are best described as "niche". In fact, I'd wager he's done so well thus far in large part because the establishment candidate (Romney) is fairly weak in context, and the rest of the field is rather blase.

He also has a solidly run campaign, and name recognition after last year, but a popular center right Republican would easily best him by more than what Romney has managed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Many eyes are on Rubio for VP.

The least Cuban looking Cuban of all time.

I've heard that too (Though Rubio himself has played the "not interested" card, and I doubt he's accept from Romney.), I've also heard Rob Portman discussed.

Frazzled wrote:Many eyes are on Rubio for VP.

I look forward, should that happen, to a fresh wave of ever-amusing birtherism all around.

Isn't Rubio a first term junior senator with virtually no record to stand o...oh I see what you did there.

dogma wrote:

Easy E wrote:
You have to give your base a reason to vote. Romney isn't it.

The base hates Obama, that will be their reason to vote.

True.

I heard a poll (I wish I remember which one) that had Obama 46%, Romney 45%. Then, they broke it down a bit. 75% of Obama backers were voting in support of Obama, while 35% of Romney backers were voting Romney to thwart Obama. Interesting. I wish I could find the actual poll, instead of just regurgitating gak i heard ont eh radio.

So, here is my list of VP candidates based on nothing:
1. Chris Christie
2. Rick Santorum
3. John Huntsman

Anyone else I should be adding?

You don't want Huntsman as VP. He's another Mormon, and a distant cousin to Romney to boot. The tinfoil hat crowd would fire up some sort of 'birther-esque' movement about the impending doom facing us as a Mormon empire subverts the US, one polite housecall at a time.

Really I think you would want some hardline, hardcore right of center guy to give Romney's campaign conservative street cred.

Easy E wrote:

dogma wrote:

Easy E wrote:
You have to give your base a reason to vote. Romney isn't it.

The base hates Obama, that will be their reason to vote.

True.

I heard a poll (I wish I remember which one) that had Obama 46%, Romney 45%. Then, they broke it down a bit. 75% of Obama backers were voting in support of Obama, while 35% of Romney backers were voting Romney to thwart Obama. Interesting. I wish I could find the actual poll, instead of just regurgitating gak i heard ont eh radio.

So, here is my list of VP candidates based on nothing:
1. Chris Christie
2. Rick Santorum
3. John Huntsman

Anyone else I should be adding?

Anyone and everyone else. Personally I think you've made a list of the least likely people to run wiht Romney. Chris Christie will say no, Rick Santorum is crazy, and Jon Huntsman brings absolutely nothing to the table.
Romney actually mention Nikki Haley, he can say what ever he wants about why she's in the mix because she has a dark skin tone and conservative politics tha will pander to the South. He's not a name on people lips but Marc Racicot is a possibility, his association with Bush will please the hawks but he is largely a moderate who LOOKS conservative. David Petreaus, were a recently retired military officer to be considered it would be him. He has a Phd or masters or some gak in foreign relations and diplomacy from Princeton and a successful career dealing with foreign leaders to stand on, he's not likely and I'd rather see McChrystal but he's available and a good choice. Marc Rubio has already said he won't accept a VP offer.
Romney claims they have a deep bench, I think maybe most republicans are thinking this election is a fools errand, otherwise why is the candidate field so weak in the first place. Anyone who is a legitimate future candidate won't be on the Romney ticket so expect an unknown rather than a name already tired and used or the plucky upstart freshman senators the media love.

sourclams wrote:Mormon empire subverts the US, one polite housecall at a time.

This actually made me spit coffee out. Very good, very very good.

I don't particularly dislike Romney, but he seems far too similar to Obama. A slick willie who hasn't said much of substance. I also think certain groups are overestimating his chances to beat Obama, especially when Ron Paul is polling almost equal with Mitt vs "O."

I'll just leave this here, I thought it was funny, and a bit sarcastic...

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote:

dogma wrote:

Easy E wrote:
You have to give your base a reason to vote. Romney isn't it.

The base hates Obama, that will be their reason to vote.

True.

I heard a poll (I wish I remember which one) that had Obama 46%, Romney 45%. Then, they broke it down a bit. 75% of Obama backers were voting in support of Obama, while 35% of Romney backers were voting Romney to thwart Obama. Interesting. I wish I could find the actual poll, instead of just regurgitating gak i heard ont eh radio.

So, here is my list of VP candidates based on nothing:
1. Chris Christie
2. Rick Santorum
3. John Huntsman

Anyone else I should be adding?

Anyone and everyone else. Personally I think you've made a list of the least likely people to run wiht Romney. Chris Christie will say no, Rick Santorum is crazy, and Jon Huntsman brings absolutely nothing to the table.
Romney actually mention Nikki Haley, he can say what ever he wants about why she's in the mix because she has a dark skin tone and conservative politics tha will pander to the South. He's not a name on people lips but Marc Racicot is a possibility, his association with Bush will please the hawks but he is largely a moderate who LOOKS conservative. David Petreaus, were a recently retired military officer to be considered it would be him. He has a Phd or masters or some gak in foreign relations and diplomacy from Princeton and a successful career dealing with foreign leaders to stand on, he's not likely and I'd rather see McChrystal but he's available and a good choice. Marc Rubio has already said he won't accept a VP offer.
Romney claims they have a deep bench, I think maybe most republicans are thinking this election is a fools errand, otherwise why is the candidate field so weak in the first place. Anyone who is a legitimate future candidate won't be on the Romney ticket so expect an unknown rather than a name already tired and used or the plucky upstart freshman senators the media love.

Interestings. If the Repub bench is deep, I guess I'm not seeing it.

You are probably right, it won;t be someone all ready in the race. They have flung too much poo.

I think Petraeaus or McChrystal is a pretty outside shot if any at all.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Pay attetion people, as of right now, there has officially been ONE primary. Romney has won a whopping one primary, and one cacaus (where they do not event send delegates)

I have been paying attention. And there's a lot more to pay attention to than just the results of the primaries (even then I was paying enough attention to know there'd been more than one).

Look at Romney's numbers. Look at his polling numbers in Florida. Look at the scale of his ground operations in comparison to other Republican candidates - this is a guy who's built a platform for a presidential election over a decade, and he's up against a bunch of people who decided they'd have a crack at it in the last few months and it shows.

Look at the pattern of polling information up to this point - Romney holding steady at between 20 and 25% of the vote, every one else surging up as the anti-Romney then falling away as people realised each of those candidates was crazy. For someone to stand up and make themselves the unifying choice for anti-Romney sentiment they needed to take one of the early primaries. That hasn't happened and now Romney is pulling further away from the field, most of whom have already surged and then fallen away badly once exposed to national media attention.

It'd be a hell of thing for Romney to lose from here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Huntsman seemed alright, but why romney? Because he's more handsome that Ron Paul? Romney is a jack-wagon piece of dog gak.

Because Romney has a powerful field operation, compared to most of the other candidates who've relied largely on TV spots (which can help grow numbers, but if things turn for you you're left without much goodwill and so your numbers will likely drop even faster than they grew).

Because Romney just stood there as the establishment candidate, knowing that'd be enough unless one of the underdogs managed to do something exceptional, and no-one did anything exceptional (except Perry, who was exceptionally awful).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The base hates Obama, that will be their reason to vote.

Pretty much. It's classic small target opposition stuff. Be as small a target as possible, and just don't give people a reason not to vote for you, and keep giving them reasons to vote against your opponent.

The Democrats put up their own lukewarm, refried blander than beige candidate in 2004 to run against their unpopular Bush. It didn't work for a whole lot of reasons, mainly that while Bush may have been generally unpopular, he didn't lack for enthusiasm among the core Republican voters. It may work this time, because the Democrats may well have trouble getting their numbers out to vote on election day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Really I think you would want some hardline, hardcore right of center guy to give Romney's campaign conservative street cred.

I think they'll run small target, though, and shy away from giving the Democrats a target to scare up their base like Palin was in '08.

It's a tough thing, because the Romney camp will know they lack enthusiasm among evangelicals, and they'll know how important those guys are to any Republican presidential campaign. I don't know if there's anyone out there that can help boost numbers among evangelicals, without looking too scary to anyone else. I mean, if such a person existed they probably should have just run for and won the primary themselves.

I think the big issue will be finding a VP and reinforcing his platform in general in a way that can play down the fact that Romney is a rich guy, while building up that he is a successful businessman.

This election is going to be won or lost on whether Obama can keep America more angry at rich people than at government spending/growing government.

FIRST ON CNN: Sources: Perry dropping out of GOP race

Posted by
CNN Political Reporter Peter Hamby

Charleston, South Carolina (CNN) - Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid Thursday for the Republican presidential nomination, two sources familiar with his plans told CNN.

The Texas governor will make the announcement before the CNN debate in South Carolina, the sources said.

The South Carolina primary takes place Saturday.

It was not known immediately whether Perry will endorse another candidate.

Perry placed fifth in Iowa and last in New Hampshire - a state in which he did not actively compete - and had said he would launch a bid to win in South Carolina.

"South Carolinians are looking for a conservative candidate that will get this country back working again and I am it," Perry told CNN last week.

On Wednesday, CNN asked Perry about a poll that showed him with only 6% support among likely voters in the South Carolina primary.

He insisted he was continuing with the effort to have a strong showing in the state.

"We're convinced that that's our goal, so the idea that we're going to do anything else, other than try to impact this election is - that's why we got in it. We didn't get in it because it was our purpose in life to be the president of the United States. We did it because it was our purpose to serve this country, and that's what we've been called for, and that's what we're going to continue doing."

When Perry entered the race in August, he immediately did well in the polls. But a series of gaffes, particularly at debates against his rivals, sent his support plummeting.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/breaking-perry-to-drop-out-thursday/?hpt=hp_t1

What took so long?

I'm interested to see if Newt has any staying power.

Well, that means all three candidates that were told by God to run for president have dropped out. Man, God is such a troll.


Edit - Or, "Perry swamped by rising Santorum"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:What took so long?

I'm interested to see if Newt has any staying power.

I posted this in another thread as well, but:



He has the Schrute vote.