Dilbert_X wrote:
Experience isn't everything.
Was kind of my point.Ty wrote:
Experience doesn't negate batshit crazy.
Romney and Huntsman seem the most well-reasoned on the GOP side.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rumsfeld proved that too.Ty wrote:
Experience doesn't negate batshit crazy.
Really, this Bachmann character doesn't seem any worse than any of the other candidates, on either side.
Too far into the lunatic fringe of the right wing,Dilbert_X wrote:
How is [Bachmann] not electable?
A Mormon isn't going to get the popular vote needed to displace Obama.FEOS wrote:
Nothing defective about being Mormon. At least nothing more defective about that than any other religious denomination...
They're better with money than most, from what I've seen...and they believe in being prepared. Both good traits for a CEO.
Blame the closed primary system.rdx-fx wrote:
A Mormon isn't going to get the popular vote needed to displace Obama.FEOS wrote:
Nothing defective about being Mormon. At least nothing more defective about that than any other religious denomination...
They're better with money than most, from what I've seen...and they believe in being prepared. Both good traits for a CEO.
GOP needs to put up someone that will appeal to the fence-sitters in the middle of the political spectrum.
Mormons and Evangelicals do not appeal to the center - they appeal to the far right.
Anyone who isn't Obama, is going to get the far right vote by default.
They don't need to keep putting up candidates who strongly appeal to the far right - they have that vote locked up already.
They need to put up candidates who appeal to the center - the non-religious or moderately religious, secular, working class center.
GOP is being brain-dead, as usual.
Putting up a host of candidates they like, instead of practical candidates that can win against the current opposition.
well, maybe those in charge of GOP simply want another four years of obama?rdx-fx wrote:
GOP is being brain-dead, as usual.
Putting up a host of candidates they like, instead of practical candidates that can win against the current opposition.
Possibly, they wouldn't want to inherit this mess.Shahter wrote:
well, maybe those in charge of GOP simply want another four years of obama?rdx-fx wrote:
GOP is being brain-dead, as usual.
Putting up a host of candidates they like, instead of practical candidates that can win against the current opposition.
nobody cares about the mess anymore, imo. but they might want a share of obama's pie just like everybody else.Dilbert_X wrote:
Possibly, they wouldn't want to inherit this mess.Shahter wrote:
well, maybe those in charge of GOP simply want another four years of obama?rdx-fx wrote:
GOP is being brain-dead, as usual.
Putting up a host of candidates they like, instead of practical candidates that can win against the current opposition.
Why do you think they put up McCain/Palin the last time?
Candidates always run for the base of the party in the primaries and for the general population in the general. So the run left/right, then center. It's why primary season favors the incumbent, because they can pander to both demographics (their party base and the center) while the other side's candidates are pandering to the base...and looking like comparative nutjobs in the process.rdx-fx wrote:
A Mormon isn't going to get the popular vote needed to displace Obama.FEOS wrote:
Nothing defective about being Mormon. At least nothing more defective about that than any other religious denomination...
They're better with money than most, from what I've seen...and they believe in being prepared. Both good traits for a CEO.
GOP needs to put up someone that will appeal to the fence-sitters in the middle of the political spectrum.
Mormons and Evangelicals do not appeal to the center - they appeal to the far right.
Anyone who isn't Obama, is going to get the far right vote by default.
They don't need to keep putting up candidates who strongly appeal to the far right - they have that vote locked up already.
They need to put up candidates who appeal to the center - the non-religious or moderately religious, secular, working class center.
GOP is being brain-dead, as usual.
Putting up a host of candidates they like, instead of practical candidates that can win against the current opposition.
Seems like it'll work the other way around this season;FEOS wrote:
Candidates always run for the base of the party in the primaries and for the general population in the general. So the run left/right, then center. It's why primary season favors the incumbent, because they can pander to both demographics (their party base and the center) while the other side's candidates are pandering to the base...and looking like comparative nutjobs in the process.
However, the fact that the right of the GOP is going to vote for whoever isn't Obama by default is an excellent point. Perhaps the GOP candidates are concerned about locking up tea party loyalty, in order to prevent a Ross Perot situation in the general?
The problem with that thinking is that it ignores the reality that Democrats are much less likely to bolt their party and vote for an independent than Republicans are. If an independent ran it would just split the Republicans and lead to a default victory for Obama.rdx-fx wrote:
Seems like it'll work the other way around this season;FEOS wrote:
Candidates always run for the base of the party in the primaries and for the general population in the general. So the run left/right, then center. It's why primary season favors the incumbent, because they can pander to both demographics (their party base and the center) while the other side's candidates are pandering to the base...and looking like comparative nutjobs in the process.
However, the fact that the right of the GOP is going to vote for whoever isn't Obama by default is an excellent point. Perhaps the GOP candidates are concerned about locking up tea party loyalty, in order to prevent a Ross Perot situation in the general?
GOP is pandering to the far side of the religious right.
Democrats are stuck with Obama.
So, once the GOP sorts out which religious right golden boy they want to run, and the Dems default to Obama, then there's going to be an obvious (and very wide) hole in the middle for an independent candidate to run.
And an independent doesn't have to pander to a party pre-selection. Just has to announce after the two main parties have selected their candidates.
As nasty as the Republican/Tea Party/Democratic politics have been lately, I think a centrist candidate could capture the middle and win enough votes from both sides disaffected/betrayed voters to actually win this time.
There is a gap between the Republican "pander to the religious extremes and super-rich" and the Obama democrats "appeal to the US far left, and blacks".
I'd call this gap the "secular middle class".
I'm hoping someone or some group steps up to represent the secular middle class - as the Democrats and Republicans haven't represented us in quite some time.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/30/repub … uicker-thaA new Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll shows that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to defect to a third-party presidential candidate. All of the talk recently (here, here, here, and here) of a third-party candidate entering the race should be welcome news to President Obama's campaign staff.
Independents will play an important role if a third-party candidate decides to enter the race. Among Independent voters, Ron Paul stands out at 38 percent, the highest favorability rating among potential third-party candidates. Moreover, in a three-way match-up with President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, Ron Paul garners 20 percent of Independent votes, the most of any potential third-party candidate.
It's also what made Bill Clinton president.Cybargs wrote:
^
It's what killed the dems during the 50s when they had dixiecrats
I miss the R controlled congress of that era. I will concede though, Bill was much better than the current.UnkleRukus wrote:
I miss Bill.
Better than the last one too.13rin wrote:
I miss the R controlled congress of that era. I will concede though, Bill was much better than the current.UnkleRukus wrote:
I miss Bill.
You don't even remember him.UnkleRukus wrote:
I miss Bill.
The power split during the Clinton years is what was better and what I miss. Congress controlled by one party, the Executive branch controlled by the other.Jay wrote:
Better than the last one too.13rin wrote:
I miss the R controlled congress of that era. I will concede though, Bill was much better than the current.UnkleRukus wrote:
I miss Bill.
Clinton was the closest thing to a libertarian we've had in my lifetime. His focus on free trade, smart deregulation, and keeping us out of wars did a lot of good for this country. The same can't be said for the others.FEOS wrote:
The power split during the Clinton years is what was better and what I miss. Congress controlled by one party, the Executive branch controlled by the other.Jay wrote:
Better than the last one too.13rin wrote:
I miss the R controlled congress of that era. I will concede though, Bill was much better than the current.
Last edited by Jay (2011-09-01 18:45:14)
the party has run to the rail, co-opted by religious fanatics and the lunatic fringe.Jay wrote:
I never understood why he made the Republicans so batshit insane.
I'd still pick them over Obama.13urnzz wrote:
the party has run to the rail, co-opted by religious fanatics and the lunatic fringe.Jay wrote:
I never understood why he made the Republicans so batshit insane.
