Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: I may be wrong, but haven't you argued that the economy lags policies by a few years? I know a number of conservatives around here have argued that the Clinton boom was a result of Bush policies taking effect. If that's the case for Clinton, wouldn't the Reagan boom be a result of Carter's policies?

Further, to whom would we credit a recession that begins during the last year of a 2-term President?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: I may be wrong, but haven't you argued that the economy lags policies by a few years?

Nothing occurs in a vaccum. The policies from 1980 to 1987 drastically changed the US economy from an investment/tax policy standpoint. in 1980, the top marginal tax rates were 70%, there were a ton of tax shelter methods out there for the rich, there was very little incentive to invest in businesses, the IRA/401K was nonexistent and it was an extremely difficult economy to grow from the private sector. I also want to state I agree with much of what ISiddiqui stated in terms of Carter not having the staff/backing to pull off much of what Reagan did and Reagan's genius also involvled knowing when to pull back the reigns on some of his policies. The problem for Reagan, though, was while he held up his end of the bargain to roll back parts of some of the tax cuts, congress never held up their end of the bargain on spending and that's why we had the huge deficit.

If you look strictly at revenue coming into the treasury, they increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990. The problem is spending went up even more (hence the large deficit).

So, back to your point, the situation in 1980 was a crisis of confidence and overall economic policies. The changes that Reagan made between 80 and 82 improved confience and the ones made between 82 and 86 significantly changed the policies. From 1988 to 2007, we have had very few significant changes to our tax/economic structure that would even be in the same universe as the ones made from 1980 to 1986 (40% cut in marginal rates at the top, significant closers of tax shelters - ie, the tax hike and significant increases in incentives for investing in businesses).

I know a number of conservatives around here have argued that the Clinton boom was a result of Bush policies taking effect. If that's the case for Clinton, wouldn't the Reagan boom be a result of Carter's policies?

I don't buy this logic. It's the same as blaming Clinton for the negative growth in late 2000 and 2001 (before W was even sworn in) or the next president for any slowdown we hit in late 2008 or early 2009. I also don't think you can give Clinton a ton of credit for the 94-99 boom.

Honestly, I don't think any booms or busts can be blamed or credited to adminstrations from 1988 to 2008. We just haven't had any type of economic changes that are all that significant. The most "positive moves" since 1988 were probably the balancing of the budget by Clinton/Gingrich in the mid-90s and the marginal rate cuts W put through right after 9-11. I think both those moves helped the economic ebb and flow lean towards the positive. Still, I don't know that either of those would rival the changes made in the 80s.

[Vegas Vic]

Well, now that Rudy is out, here's a challenge to play the McCain drinking game:

You must take a shot every time McCain says "my friends" or "radical Islamic extremism". How long will you last before your pass out or before alcohol poisoning sets in?

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Well, now that Rudy is out, here's a challenge to play the McCain drinking game:

You must take a shot every time McCain says "my friends" or "radical Islamic extremism". How long will you last before your pass out or before alcohol poisoning sets in?

Those are good ones, but I believe that the current buzzword is "timetable."

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Well, now that Rudy is out, here's a challenge to play the McCain drinking game:

You must take a shot every time McCain says "my friends" or "radical Islamic extremism". How long will you last before your pass out or before alcohol poisoning sets in?

Or everytime McCain uses the word "Global', which he did numerous times and shows just what he is. A Globalist. Hillary vs. McCain is CFR heaven.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

There is a lot of short term success with that strategy, but the responsibility of paying down that massive debt gets passed on down the line.

Sorry, Vic. I guess I got too clever for my own good. I was trying to use humor to make a couple of point you just did.

I was poking at Arles for spouting the standard trickle-down rhetoric. Reaganites all argue that those tax cuts made all the difference when there is plenty of evidence that opening the floodgates on spending, which both Reagan and Bush II did, were every bit as responsible, if not more so, for whatever economic success was experienced during their respective Administrations.

I was also trying to allude to your main point -- that short term economic improvement that comes from borrowing money puts a long-term drag on the economy. Last year's interest payment of the nation debt was $430 billion. As a comparison, the discretionary budget for the entire federal government -- minus the Department of Defense -- is $474 billion.

We could have a second government with what we are paying the Chinese, Japanese and others who hold our debt. Or, at least, highway bridges that don't collapse.

Apologies for my part in hijacking the thread.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Further, to whom would we credit a recession that begins during the last year of a 2-term President?

HAI TO U ARLES!!!

[molson]

The Fox News National Polls are definitely showing Rudy's exit as a HUGE plus for McCain.

October
Giuliani 29%
Thompson 16%
McCain 12%
Romney 11%
Huckabee 5%

November
Giuliani 31%
Thompson 17%
McCain 12%
Romney 8%
Huckabee 8%

December
Giuliani 20%
Huckabee 19%
McCain 19%
Romney 11%
Thompson 10%

Late January
McCain 48%
Romney 20%
Huckabee 19%
Paul 5%

[Jas_lov]

McCain definitely got the Giuliani bump in New York and New Jersey. He's still way ahead in Connecticut, Illinois, and probably Arizona.

Also, John McCain has already been declared the winner of the Louisiana caucuses according to Fox News.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/...iana-caucuses/

Mitt Romney is leading the Maine caucuses by 40% which I guess have already started. Paul and McCain are currently battling for 2nd.

http://www.wmtw.com/politics/1520213....html?taf=port

It'll be interesting to see if this race goes beyond Super Tuesday. Romney can win Maine, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Massachussets. Huckabee is very strong in the south east in states like Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia. Missouri is basically a 3 way tie. Romney needs to pull some upsets to make it happen though. The latest California poll had him within the MOE, but that still included Giuliani.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd say it's now waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely that the Republican nomination goes to convention than the Democratic one. Huckabee has just enough support to keep McCain or Romney from getting enough delegates, and neither McCain nor Romney have been able to put each other away yet.

It'll be very interesting if Huckabee ends up being the kingmaker at the convention. If it happens, I wonder what concessions he'll get out of the guy who wins?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd say it's now waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely that the Republican nomination goes to convention than the Democratic one. Huckabee has just enough support to keep McCain or Romney from getting enough delegates, and neither McCain nor Romney have been able to put each other away yet.

It'll be very interesting if Huckabee ends up being the kingmaker at the convention. If it happens, I wonder what concessions he'll get out of the guy who wins?

Huckbee will lose air faster than he lost weight as this race progresses. The Dem race might flatten out before too long, but McCain has this thing sewed up. The only reason Romney might make headway is if Huckabee finally runs out of money (he's on fumes as it is) and the Christian conservatives finally decide that they'd rather have the Mormon than let McCain have the nomination.

If Rush Limbaugh decides to start stumping on the air for Romney, then he's got a shot, though it might be too late. But given how loaded he is...he'll go to the convention because he can.

It's not over yet, but make no mistake..it's a two-man race. Huckabee is just prolonging the inevitable.

[Arles]

Yep, McCain should have it all but wrapped up on Wednesday because of all the "winner take all" republican primaries. On the dem side, most are split delegates which means that could drag out for a while.

[Jas_lov]

"California has 170 delegates at stake Tuesday, but it will award 159 of them three at a time to the winner in each of the state's 53 congressional districts." This ABC news article says that Romney is just looking for a split there. He is personally campaigning in Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, and Georgia. These are all proportionate delegate states.

Utah, Missouri, WV, Arizona, and Delaware are ALL winner take all states. North Dakota is only if a candidate gets a 2/3rds majority.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireS...4231596&page=2

And I think Romney has pretty much won Maine caucus. He's conceding the NE to McCain, but hopes he can still win Massachusetts.

[mrsimperless]

I have been essentially ignoring this thread in favor of the one on the other side of the aisle, but this recent Ron Paul surge has me excited. It is nothing less than criminal how the media has been treating him.

Obama has inspired me by his oration and he says things that resonate with how I FEEL.
Paul has inspired me by his pure logic and reasoning and he says things that resonate with how I THINK.

Having never previously been interested in politics there are now two politicians who I actually want to sit down and listen to.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yep, McCain should have it all but wrapped up on Wednesday because of all the "winner take all" republican primaries. On the dem side, most are split delegates which means that could drag out for a while.

Has anyone found any kind of online resource that quickly shows with primaries are winner-take-all and which are proportionate, and which are "open" v. registered party members only?

[JPhillips]

What Ron Paul surge? The media could turn to 24 hour Ron Paul coverage and he still wouldn't come close to winning the nomination.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What Ron Paul surge? The media could turn to 24 hour Ron Paul coverage and he still wouldn't come close to winning the nomination.

Until Florida Paul had consistently outpolled Guiliani and yet you didn't hear about Paul as much as Guiliani not to mention Paul had more money in the bank.

Yeah that's the best I got.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Until Florida Paul had consistently outpolled Guiliani and yet you didn't hear about Paul as much as Guiliani not to mention Paul had more money in the bank.

Yeah that's the best I got.

There was a Ron Paul surge, but it was in November. He was getting a decent amount of press then, and he stole the show in the Republican debates. Here in Boise, I'd see Ron Paul rallies right off the street in random parts of town 2-3 times a week.

But once the primaries started, he became irrelevant again.

[Jas_lov]

Paul finished 2nd in Nevada and battled McCain for 2nd in Maine. I think he did fairly well in Lousiana too, but I'm not completely sure about that one so maybe this is the surge he's talking about. Otherwise, I don't see it.

I think Paul has done a lot better than anybody expected. When he started, I doubt many here knew his name. He led the GOP in fundraising in the 4th quarter and was able to get up to 8-14% in the primaries. Many probably thought he'd go the way of Brownback, Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson. But he did about as well as he was going to do. He'll probably finish 4th in all, or nearly all of the Super Tuesday states. His main goal at the beginning of this process was probably just to spread his message to a lot of new people, and I think he's accomplished that.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by molson

Has anyone found any kind of online resource that quickly shows with primaries are winner-take-all and which are proportionate, and which are "open" v. registered party members only?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...upcomingstates

RCP has a W by all of the winner take all states on Tuesday. I would assume that the rest are proportionate. It also has a C by the ones that are closed and I guess the others are open.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...upcomingstates

RCP has a W by all of the winner take all states on Tuesday. I would assume that the rest are proportionate. It also has a C by the ones that are closed and I guess the others are open.

Thanks - just what I was looking for.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Paul finished 2nd in Nevada and battled McCain for 2nd in Maine. I think he did fairly well in Lousiana too, but I'm not completely sure about that one so maybe this is the surge he's talking about. Otherwise, I don't see it.

I think Paul has done a lot better than anybody expected. When he started, I doubt many here knew his name. He led the GOP in fundraising in the 4th quarter and was able to get up to 8-14% in the primaries. Many probably thought he'd go the way of Brownback, Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson. But he did about as well as he was going to do. He'll probably finish 4th in all, or nearly all of the Super Tuesday states. His main goal at the beginning of this process was probably just to spread his message to a lot of new people, and I think he's accomplished that.

He appeals to a constituency of people on the right who are tired of the status quo, who want action and want more done than blowing smoke and employing a government that sells its people out under the guise of bipartisanship at every turn.

It's not so much him, as much as his reputation as the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1988 and the dearth of true reform candidates on the Republican side that have made him viable.

[Jas_lov]

Is it all over Tuesday? Not so fast, my friends...

Georgia Insider Advantage Poll- Romney 30, McCain 29, Huckabee 28, Paul 2

California Rasmussen's Poll- McCain 38, Romney 38, Huckabee 10, Paul 6

California Zogby Poll- Romney 37, McCain 34, Huckabee 12, Paul 5

Tennessee Insider Advantage Poll- McCain 32, Huckabee 28, Romney 22, Paul 6

Romney pulling an upset in California would be huge. It's a proportionate delegate state, but it would be big for momentum. The problem is that McCain is going to take big winner take all states like N.Y., N.J., Missouri, Connecticut, and Arizona. The only winner take all states Romney will win are Utah and Montana. He needs to win a lot of the states that haven't been polled yet like W.V., North Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado, etc. to keep it close.

[larrymcg421]

As a Democrat, I could not be more excited about the prospects of a Romney upset on Tuesday.

Shit, the Democrats could run Kerry again and beat Mitt.

[Buccaneer]

To the GOPers, how would a McCain/Huckabee ticket play nationally?

[st.cronin]

I don't think Huckabee would even try to work nationally. He would work the South.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think Huckabee would even try to work nationally. He would work the South.

+1

[Buccaneer]

Another surprising finding in the national exit polls: John McCain — who has made the war in Iraq and the need for continued U.S. involvement there a centerpiece of his campaign — is actually winning among Republicans who are against the war. Among those Republicans who disapprove of the war, nearly half voted for McCain, while only a quarter voted for Mitt Romney — even though McCain spent the past few weeks trying to portray Romney as more liberal on the war.

Moderates — those most likely to disapprove of Iraq – seem to simply prefer McCain, even when they don't square on the issues.

You know why? McCain had the guts to say that the way the post-Baghdad war went under that fucktard Rumsfeld was a disaster.

[GrantDawg]

Huckabee takes Georgia. Wow. And Romney coming in third in way more primaries than expected.

[Jas_lov]

Who called Georgia? I don't see it anywhere.

[JPhillips]

So Huckabee's going to sweep the South and Romney's going to win most of the West. McCain's wins are almost exclusively in states that will be won by Democrats in the general. Is this a weakness for him or a strength?

[Swaggs]

If McCain does not win California, is he in trouble?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So Huckabee's going to sweep the South and Romney's going to win most of the West. McCain's wins are almost exclusively in states that will be won by Democrats in the general. Is this a weakness for him or a strength?

Neither. 90% of the red states from 2004 will still be red, likewise the blue states (the South and West are still predominately red). There could be a swing or two, depending how close it was in 2004. As I said before, California should come in play.

[Buccaneer]

I would not discount the Mormon Factor in the mountain West. That would mean UT, NV, ID, WY, western CO and AZ (if it wasn't McCain's home state). It also mean a chunk of Rep voters in CA, but not bigger than the military/retirees votes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If McCain does not win California, is he in trouble?

Definitely IMO.

I believe he will, and would be pretty darned surprised if he didn't, but that signal a highly brokered convention in my mind.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Neither. 90% of the red states from 2004 will still be red, likewise the blue states (the South and West are still predominately red). There could be a swing or two, depending how close it was in 2004. As I said before, California should come in play.

Naturally (I guess) I have a totally different read on it.

I'd say at this point the southern reds all go to:
all go to Huckabee over either Dem
split if Romney, losing at least 2 and as many as 4 with Romney vs Clinton
split if Romney, losing at least 1-2 to Obama
split if McCain, losing over half, possibly all but a couple to Clinton
split if McCain, losing at least 1-2 to Obama

[Buccaneer]

I believe the red states will eagerly despose of any associations with the neo-cons while not go as far as being opposite. McCain brings foreign and security, which still resonates with many voters. Something different but still within the comfort zone.

Jon may be in denial (or he could be right, you never know) but one cannot underestimate the backlash against the neo-cons in this election, from many sectors, including the powerful independents (including libertarians and moderates).

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I would not discount the Mormon Factor in the mountain West. That would mean UT, NV, ID, WY, western CO and AZ (if it wasn't McCain's home state). It also mean a chunk of Rep voters in CA, but not bigger than the military/retirees votes.

The Mormon factor and the whole "he's the only real conservative left" deal. The Wyomingites I've talked to all like him for that reason and hate McCain. I think he'll do well here for that and the whole Mormon bloc, too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I believe the red states will eagerly despose of any associations with the neo-cons while not go as far as being opposite. McCain brings foreign and security, which still resonates with many voters. Something different but still within the comfort zone.

"Moderates" with GOP leanings don't exist in enough numbers to beat Clinton, and those "neocons" which you decry won't bother to show up in enough additional numbers for McCain to beat Clinton. The simple truth is, like it or not, without them there isn't a single red state in the South and I'm not sure there are 10 red states in the nation total. Think about the history of the South and it's voting habits, the vast majority of Republican voters are one generation or less away from having been Democrats.

And most so-called/self-described "independents" are about as independent as I am. That's the biggest bullshit lie in all of politics as far as actual voters are concerned. And remember, technically speaking I'm an Independent since I do not & would not claim Repbulican party membership (due to my direct opposition to the party line on abortion).

[molson]

So this shit's over now, right?

Really a stunning comeback.

[Jas_lov]

It's over. RCP has McCain up by about 300 delegates and that still hasn't included California and Illinois, both of which he won. The Romney campaign says his schedule past Thursday is "up in the air." Huckabee won't be able to beat McCain in more than a couple of the remaining states.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If McCain does not win California, is he in trouble?

They just put up the current California map on CNN, and McCain is winning in every county and congressional district. This is almost unheard of.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I'll eat my hat.

Someone pass the ketchup.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think Huckabee would even try to work nationally. He would work the South.

+2 Huckabee's #1 job (or #1 role, depending how you look at it) as McCain's VP candidate would be to convince all the conservatives who said they'd never vote for McCain to vote for him anyway.

A McCain/Huckabee ticket strikes me as very much a compromise ticket for the GOP, but then again I wouldn't mind hearing what real GOPers have to say (obviously I'm not one).

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Jon may be in denial (or he could be right, you never know) but one cannot underestimate the backlash against the neo-cons in this election, from many sectors, including the powerful independents (including libertarians and moderates).

While I still think McCain is the GOP's strongest GE candidate, I really have to think that he's going to have to "heal the divisions" within the GOP pretty damn quick if he's to have a chance against Obama, certainly and, to a lesser extent, Clinton.

What we've been talking about here is people holding their nose to vote for McCain in the GE (if they're not just outright hostile to him). Obama, on the other hand, has people coming out in droves for him. How many "nose holders" will just stay home? I don't have any answers - this is just speculation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

+2 Huckabee's #1 job (or #1 role, depending how you look at it) as McCain's VP candidate would be to convince all the conservatives who said they'd never vote for McCain to vote for him anyway.

His weak position on immigration is too close to McCain's & prevents him from being able to accomplish that mission in full, so taking him as the #2 for anything other than getting the delegates to go over the top would make his selection ineffective in the end.

Remember, immigration has passed Iraq for GOP voters and trails only the economy as the #1 issue. It's also the biggest disappointment of the entire Bush presidency for many & not one you can get wrong and still motivate people to go the polls for you in the end.

[JPhillips]

Jon: But only 24% cited immigration as their top issue, and while they may sit at home or vote for a third party none of them will vote for the Democratic candidate. On the other hand McCain and Huckabee could be a powerful team in attracting Latino voters turned off by a GOP that has spent the past two years attacking them. For every vote McCain may lose on immigration I think he takes one vote from the Dem, especially if that Dem is a black man.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jon: But only 24% cited immigration as their top issue, and while they may sit at home or vote for a third party none of them will vote for the Democratic candidate. On the other hand McCain and Huckabee could be a powerful team in attracting Latino voters turned off by a GOP that has spent the past two years attacking them. For every vote McCain may lose on immigration I think he takes one vote from the Dem, especially if that Dem is a black man.

I am tending to believe that.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that's one thing a lot of people are ignoring and not understanding. Latinos aren't really in the Obama camp. Clinton is winning them in droves (2/3rds in California). McCain is popular with Latinos, and if he goes up against Obama, I'd have to think that'd he'd have a great chance to win states like California and Florida (as well as the rest of the Southwest).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

I have been essentially ignoring this thread in favor of the one on the other side of the aisle, but this recent Ron Paul surge has me excited. It is nothing less than criminal how the media has been treating him.

[Greyroofoo]

CNN is saying that Mitt Romney will suspend his campaign