Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

[Coffee and TV]

I know the left would love to have Romney to run against, but I doubt it will happen.

No, the left doesn't want Romney. He would have the best chance at beating Obama than any other candidate. The left would love to run against a more conservative candidate that would be too far right for the middle. Cain wouldn't stand a chance in the general.

[UNT90]

No, the left doesn't want Romney. He would have the best chance at beating Obama than any other candidate. The left would love to run against a more conservative candidate that would be too far right for the middle. Cain wouldn't stand a chance in the general.

Ya, McCain was a real strong candidate. If the Republicans run Romney, they stand a very good chance of having conservative voters stay at home on election day.

Polls one year away from the election date (for President) mean absolutely nothing. If the economy is in the same shape a year from now, Pres. Obama losses by 10% to whoever runs against him, unless it's Romney.

Republicans need to take a lesson from the Democrats. When the economy is in the crapper, run a candidate that represents your core beliefs, because the incumbant doesn't have a shot at re-election, unless you run a candidate that reminds your base of the guy he is running against.

Edited November 13, 2011 by UNT90

[UNTflyer]

Ya, McCain was a real strong candidate. If the Republicans run Romney, they stand a very good chance of having conservative voters stay at home on election day.

I hate one-issue voters. Instead of voting FOR a guy that agrees with them on 98% of the issues, they'd rather sit at home and pout while a guy who agrees with them on 10% of the issues walks in without a fight.

Stupid.

[Coffee and TV]

Ya, McCain was a real strong candidate.

Nobody was a strong candidate for Republicans in 2008. They had everything working against them, and Obama actually made McCain look even stronger. I'm convinced Clinton would have wiped the floor with McCain. It just wasn't happening for the R's in 08, the cards were stacked agsint them.

If the Republicans run Romney, they stand a very good chance of having conservative voters stay at home on election day.

And if anyone else is nominated then moderates will flock to Obama.

Polls one year away from the election date (for President) mean absolutely nothing.

They mean a little, but its less about what they show now and more about what they'll show in September after the conventions. Take all the states Obama won in 2008 and put whatever candidate you want against him. You're not going to see Romney flip a lot of them. You're going to see Perry, Cain, ect flip even less.

If the economy is in the same shape a year from now, Pres. Obama losses by 10% to whoever runs against him, unless it's Romney.

But the economy is pretty stagnant right now, and every R still doesn't beat Obama. If the economy has a normal growth rate (say 4%), Obama will cruise.

Republicans need to take a lesson from the Democrats. When the economy is in the crapper, run a candidate that represents your core beliefs, because the incumbant doesn't have a shot at re-election, unless you run a candidate that reminds your base of the guy he is running against.

What election are you gauging this statement on? The last one I can think of is 1992 when Dems ran Clinton. He was far from a core Democrat, he was very blue dog.

[CaribbeanGreen]

A) Conventional wisdom says candidates in the general election almost ALWAYS move to the center... at least the successful ones do. Romney is the closest to being already there.

B ) Agreeing with Flyer, If the R base STAYS HOME rather than voting for Romney against Obama, who has been their great boogeyman for the last three years, then we should all be thankful that juvenile partisan schlock is not participating in deciding on the leader of the free world.

C) What are we defining as "mountain states"? I can't see Romney struggling in that region.

D) There's still a long way to go, but slow and steady wins the race.

Edited November 13, 2011 by CaribbeanGreen

[UNT90]

Nobody was a strong candidate for Republicans in 2008. They had everything working against them, and Obama actually made McCain look even stronger. I'm convinced Clinton would have wiped the floor with McCain. It just wasn't happening for the R's in 08, the cards were stacked agsint them.

And if anyone else is nominated then moderates will flock to Obama.

They mean a little, but its less about what they show now and more about what they'll show in September after the conventions. Take all the states Obama won in 2008 and put whatever candidate you want against him. You're not going to see Romney flip a lot of them. You're going to see Perry, Cain, ect flip even less.

But the economy is pretty stagnant right now, and every R still doesn't beat Obama. If the economy has a normal growth rate (say 4%), Obama will cruise.

What election are you gauging this statement on? The last one I can think of is 1992 when Dems ran Clinton. He was far from a core Democrat, he was very blue dog.

Pres. Obama was a far let democrat, and he wiped the floor with McCain. Clinton's numbers would have been similiar. To quote her husband (or someone in his campaign): It's the economy, stupid.

Moderates didn't flock to a moderate McCain in 2008. Why? The economy, much like today, sucked. If the economy is the same a year from now, Pres. Obama loses the independant vote 70-30% to 80-20% (as long as Pres. Obama can't point out the similiarities in himself and the other candidate). Moderates and independants won't flock to Pres. Obama unless there is a big improvement in the economy.

Again, polls mean nothing right now. Ohio, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and Florida flip to red next election if the economy doesn't improve dramatically. A lot of these states are historically red states, and will return with a bad economy.

Yet again, you are relying on polls a year out from the election. Growth doesn't matter to Americans, jobs do. If the unemployment rate isn't below 7.5%, Pres. Obama is a one term president.

Your last question can't be serious. Look at 2008. It tells you everything you need to know. A far left candidate that didn't have the experience to be President is elected in a landslide. Again, it's about the economy, stupid.

Edited November 14, 2011 by UNT90

[Coffee and TV]

Oh right, Obama's "far left". Well yeah, to someone maybe to the right of Pat Buchanan.

Obama's legislative accomplishments look more like Nixon than they do Carter. I know that's awful to hear, but its true.

EDIT: Bad example of someone on the far right.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Coffee and TV

[UNT90]

Oh right, Obama's "far left". Well yeah, to someone maybe to the right of Pat Buchanan.

Pres. Obama had the most liberal record of any US Senator when elected President. We aren't talking about what he has done in office (although I complete disagree with you on that matter, also), we are talking about what he was when he was elected, and he was the most liberal democratic Senator in the Senate. Voting records don't lie.

Yet he still got elected because the economy was in the crapper. Unfortunately for the nation and Pres. Obama's re-election chances, he has not been able to turn that around, and nominating someone who Pres. Obama's biggest legislative victory was modeled after isn't the way to regain the White House.

Yes, I'm conservative. Yes, your liberal. What's your point?

Edit: Pres. Obama's health care plan will cost him Florida. Seniors are already paying more under his plan and they see it it every day.

[Coffee and TV]

Pres. Obama had the most liberal record of any US Senator when elected President. We aren't talking about what he has done in office (although I complete disagree with you on that matter, also), we are talking about what he was when he was elected, and he was the most liberal democratic Senator in the Senate. Voting records don't lie.

Based on what? What The National Review had to say? Cato?

Funny how in 2004 John Kerry also magically had the "most liberal" voting record. Its hogwash. This president had a moderately liberal Senate career and has been very center since being president. The public option proposed that was so socialist during the health care debate? Originally conceived by Orrin Hatch as a compromise to Hillary Care in the early 90's. Spare me the uber-liberal nonsense.

[UNT90]

Based on what? What The National Review had to say? Cato?

Funny how in 2004 John Kerry also magically had the "most liberal" voting record. Its hogwash. This president had a moderately liberal Senate career and has been very center since being president. The public option proposed that was so socialist during the health care debate? Originally conceived by Orrin Hatch as a compromise to Hillary Care in the early 90's. Spare me the uber-liberal nonsense.

No, the National Journal, a Washington based non-partisan publication that specializes in politics and ranks both most liberal and most conservative members of the Senate. Don't try to right wing conspiracy the facts.

I think you lose a bunch of credibility saying that Pres. Obama is a moderate. That would be like me saying the same thing about Pres. Reagan. He wasn't.

[Coffee and TV]

I think you lose a bunch of credibility saying that Pres. Obama is a moderate. That would be like me saying the same thing about Pres. Reagan. He wasn't.

lol. Funny thing about that statement is that you're partially right. Reagan was much more moderate in practice than the right likes to believe. Reagan the politician was much further to the right than Reagan the President. I doubt Reagan could even get the nomination in the modern Republican Party.

BTW, if I have all this lost credibility then you should stop wasting your time debating me. I'm sure if you just worked a little harder instead, you'd be a lot wealthier.

[mattmartin817]

What has president Obama done that is so uber liberal that the American people haven't been in favor of? I know you'll say the healthcare bill, maybe making people have healthcare is a very liberal ideal, but making them pay into private insurance companies isn't. What else, don't ask don't tell repeal? A large majority of Americans wanted that. Bailing out the auto industries? Which saved thousands of people from being out of work? Bailing out the banks (which would have happened under any president in that situation)? That averted an even more catastrophic economic collapse. I don't think these are exactly far left things, they are things that had to be done. I don't get the whole he's an uber liberal thing, I don't agree with everything he's done, but I find it hard to take an argument that he's governed far left to seriously.

[UNT90]

lol. Funny thing about that statement is that you're partially right. Reagan was much more moderate in practice than the right likes to believe. Reagan the politician was much further to the right than Reagan the President. I doubt Reagan could even get the nomination in the modern Republican Party.

BTW, if I have all this lost credibility then you should stop wasting your time debating me. I'm sure if you just worked a little harder instead, you'd be a lot wealthier.

You are right, I would be.

[UNT90]

What has president Obama done that is so uber liberal that the American people haven't been in favor of? I know you'll say the healthcare bill, maybe making people have healthcare is a very liberal ideal, but making them pay into private insurance companies isn't. What else, don't ask don't tell repeal? A large majority of Americans wanted that. Bailing out the auto industries? Which saved thousands of people from being out of work? Bailing out the banks (which would have happened under any president in that situation)? That averted an even more catastrophic economic collapse. I don't think these are exactly far left things, they are things that had to be done. I don't get the whole he's an uber liberal thing, I don't agree with everything he's done, but I find it hard to take an argument that he's governed far left to seriously.

Well, the original argument was that no far right politician could beat Pres. Obama. I was pointing out that he was the most liberal member of the Senate. Look at his voting record and decide for yourself.

As for his presidency, what you don't see as liberal policies (national health care, the bank bail out, the stimulus package that wasn't) many do.

The Stimulus package didn't "have to be done" and has done anything but stimulate the economy. It created a lot of temporary local and state government jobs that disappeared when stimulus money ran out. It wasn't built to create private sector jobs and it didn't. The proof is in the unemployment rate.

[Coffee and TV]

TARP was bi-partisan and signed under Bush. Funny that Obama gets the socialist tag for this.

[mattmartin817]

TARP, the stimulus etc were put in place to stop the bleeding. Thats it. It wasn't meant to totally fix the economy, that would be impossible you can't fill a multi trillion dollar problem with a few billion.

[Green Mean]

I don't know man.....

[UNT90]

TARP was bi-partisan and signed under Bush. Funny that Obama gets the socialist tag for this.

Not talking about TARP (which shouldn't have been done), I'm talking about the 8 billion dollar ARRA stimulus act signed into law in February 2009 by Pres. Obama. This had nothing to do with the banking industry, which TARP was passed to save.

[Coffee and TV]

Not talking about TARP (which shouldn't have been done), I'm talking about the 8 billion dollar ARRA stimulus act signed into law in February 2009 by Pres. Obama. This had nothing to do with the banking industry, which TARP was passed to save.

As for his presidency, what you don't see as liberal policies (national health care, the bank bail out, the stimulus package that wasn't) many do.

huh?

[cwb]

Dang straight! The women deserve better support. Come on A.D. Let's see some promotions.

[Censored by Laurie]

Dang straight! The women deserve better support. Come on A.D. Let's see some promotions.

I like the cut of your jib.

[UNT90]

huh?

Was thinking stimulus package and type bank bailout.

Both are terrible legislation, though.

[Coffee and TV]

Cain is done, and was never a serious candidate to begin with. The only thing he's been running for is a job on Fox News. His ground game is non-existant, his fundraising is lackluster, and his mouth keeps getting him into trouble.

I'm still waiting for Gingrich to collapse. I will admit that I'm pretty shocked by his surge, but ultimately I wonder if he has the dough to stay competitive.

[UNT90]

I'm still waiting for Gingrich to collapse. I will admit that I'm pretty shocked by his surge, but ultimately I wonder if he has the dough to stay competitive.

Don't like him as a candidate. Getting younger at the wife position 3 times in your life says something about ones character and sense of entitlement (yes, convincing yourself that you deserve to have a younger, prettier wife is the ultimate sense of entitlement).

I also question whether he believes the conservatist views thar he expresses, or is just saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected (see: Rick "Rhino" Perry)

[KRAM1]

Don't like him as a candidate. Getting younger at the wife position 3 times in your life says something about ones character and sense of entitlement (yes, convincing yourself that you deserve to have a younger, prettier wife is the ultimate sense of entitlement).

I also question whether he believes the conservatist views thar he expresses, or is just saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected (see: Rick "Rhino" Perry)

Any Republican candidate is better than the guy currently occupying the Oval Office...any of them. Yes, Newt has some baggage, so does Obama...so did LBJ...is it any worse than what Clinton did in the White Hose as a sitting president or what JFK did right under the nose of Jackie in the White House bedrooms?

It will be interesting to see if Newt gets the chance to debate Obama. He should beat the tar out of Obama if it were a real and fair debate. But as all of the "debates" seem to be, the questions will be handed out ahead of time and the candidates won't even answer to question asked 50% of the time. These are not debates, just campaign speeches in a set up format. But, sure would be fun to see a real one with college debate team rules and no pre-studied questions...with questions from truly non-partisan folks.

How fun would that be? No teleprompters...wow! Newt would just beat the stuffing out of Obama in that situation...alas we will never see it. Newt may not even get the nomination. I still think it is Romney's to lose, but you never know. Still time.