The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Even Palin diehards aren't sure what she's doing in 2012.

OH PLEASE!! You think they are giving her money just to tell the world "the truth"?! They are giving her cash because they are counting on her to run for President in 2012.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The danger wasn't that they were going to vote for Obama. The danger was that they'd simply sit at home and do nothing.

I don't get to do this with you very often (heck, might be the first time) but ...

+1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Again, like I said, not probably. But, certainly possible in the right situation.

Would that right situation be the second coming of Christ and a personal endorsement of Palin as he descends from the skies? If so, then I agree.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The danger wasn't that they were going to vote for Obama. The danger was that they'd simply sit at home and do nothing.

We'll never know. With the Palin selection, he alienated more people than he ever delivered on the religious right.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

That should've said _some_ Palin diehards. My mistake. Of course to a large part those who are donating thinks she's going to run. But, some Palin fans are waiting for the official announcement I would guess.

They ALL think she's going to run. She's probably been less noncommital than Romney has been.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We'll never know. With the Palin selection, he alienated more people than he ever delivered on the religious right.

Mods: Someone is posting as MBBF. This can't possibly be the same person that spent weeks saying Palin was a great choice.

[JPhillips]

I think Palin gets exposed in the primary debates, but I don't think Romney can get past his Mormonism. Regardless of who wins, that primary should be chock full of crazy.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We'll never know. With the Palin selection, he alienated more people than he ever delivered on the religious right.

Welcome to the club! We started it in August 2008.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I haven't seen any shirts that have the duo is reverse order


fivethirtyeight.com, which seems to have a decent to good reputation thus far, seem to be very much on the same line of thought that Steve has. That if she wins Iowa (which is quite possible) then she's just an upset in New Hampshire away from becoming the clear front-runner. The article notes a recent (June) Pew poll that shows Palin with the highest net approval rating among GOP members (+56), well ahead of an improving Romney (+39) and Gingrich (+33).

[larrymcg421]

In the scenario where the economy has recovered, I don't see how Romney has a shot in hell. He won't have a campaign to run. I think Palin easily beats him in that scenario.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Henceforth known as the economic Mount Rushmore.

I gotta give it up for that one. It was funny

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Buy controlling interests in the bank and then sell them back to private industry in a year or so for even a bigger profit?

I was in favor of this and then some. I wanted them bought up and then smashed to smaller, non ologopolistic bits using the anti-trust stick before being spun back off. But no one has the political will to step up against large businesses these days.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think Palin gets exposed in the primary debates, but I don't think Romney can get past his Mormonism. Regardless of who wins, that primary should be chock full of crazy.

serious question here for those more familiar with internal-GOP politics - how does Romney's Mormonism play within the religious right of the party? I just don't see how they can ever seriously back him...

[larrymcg421]

I always thought it was odd that Romney's Mormonism was an issue for the religious right. Mormons are very socially conservative, moreso than the average member of most Christian denominations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

serious question here for those more familiar with internal-GOP politics - how does Romney's Mormonism play within the religious right of the party? I just don't see how they can ever seriously back him...

I'd have to say the fact that he's seriously in the mix in spite of it says something about the desperation to find the right candidate. I did not/have not gotten any feeling that the evangelicals have totally ruled him out but I do think they're hoping something (anything) better comes along. It really feels like the 500 pound elephant in the refrigerator, hardly anybody seems to want to talk about it for fear of having to make a decision that might be avoided altogether (or saying something that'd be regretted later) if the right candidate comes along.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

Let's see the worst economic downturn since the great depression yet prices of goods stayed either the same or in some cases rose. Shouldn't prices go down during a recession? If you guys don't think inflation is already here and only going to get worse than keep drinking the kool aid. Name one company that runs it's books like the US government. Their accountants would be fired and probably put in prison.

Actually, they just hire lobbyists and get government money either in a bailout or subsidy.

Seriously, tho, I'm pretty sure we're going to get some inflation soon that's going to hit us like a truck. In 2008, commodities were already starting to go up quite a bit and the only thing that slowed it down was the recession. If we don't get energy costs under control soon, it's going to make the 80s look like a picnic.

That said, if you can't spend a little extra money on a "rainy day" (i.e. recession) then when can you do it? Sure, we're playing with crazy numbers, but spending went from 3.1 (2009) to 3.6T (2010 projected) for a budget. $500B is a ton of money but percentage-wise, it's not crazy considering the economic situation. You cut back your government spending in good times and pay off debt while increasing it during the bad.

But, at the end of the day, none of us will have all that much to worry about. Because we didn't spend prudently and wasted a lot of our investing dollars, it won't help stave off the massive inflation that's coming. However, a $15T national debt isn't nearly so bad when it takes $2 to buy what $1 did 10 years ago, so that's like cutting the debt in half, right?


SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I always thought it was odd that Romney's Mormonism was an issue for the religious right. Mormons are very socially conservative, moreso than the average member of most Christian denominations.

It's all about doctrine. When I lived in MS many of my more religious conservative friends thought of Mormonism as a dangerous cult. I think that's tempering a little as there are a lot of issues where the religious right and Mormons can work together, but Mormons have very different beliefs about salvation and the afterlife that are hard to stomach for evangelicals.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think Palin gets exposed in the primary debates, but I don't think Romney can get past his Mormonism. Regardless of who wins, that primary should be chock full of crazy.

To be fair, that's true of almost every primary that doesn't have an obvious front-runner.

SI

[larrymcg421]

I don't think she gets exposed in the debates. What is there to expose? She will have the lowest expectations of any candidate. Her "gee-golly-shucks I don't have to answer that because it's a trick question, I just want to talk to the people" debate style will certainly suffice for a primary debate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The problem is that to a lot of religious conservatives, Mormon's aren't any more Christian than a Muslim or an athiest.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd have to say the fact that he's seriously in the mix in spite of it says something about the desperation to find the right candidate. I did not/have not gotten any feeling that the evangelicals have totally ruled him out but I do think they're hoping something (anything) better comes along. It really feels like the 500 pound elephant in the refrigerator, hardly anybody seems to want to talk about it for fear of having to make a decision that might be avoided altogether (or saying something that'd be regretted later) if the right candidate comes along.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's all about doctrine. When I lived in MS many of my more religious conservative friends thought of Mormonism as a dangerous cult. I think that's tempering a little as there are a lot of issues where the religious right and Mormons can work together, but Mormons have very different beliefs about salvation and the afterlife that are hard to stomach for evangelicals.

These have sort of been my impressions of it, and I'm just wondering how he can seriously be considered to be the nominee. Because you know at some point during the primary season if he starts to pull ahead and separate from the pack that it's going to get put out there, even if it's out of desperation, by one of the other candidates.

For that matter Palin's wacky "speaking in tongues" Pentacostalism probably would be too. Although I guess that somehow that'd be less of a problem.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

serious question here for those more familiar with internal-GOP politics - how does Romney's Mormonism play within the religious right of the party? I just don't see how they can ever seriously back him...

One also could have made the bolded sentence arguement for McCain in 2007, right?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

For that matter Palin's wacky "speaking in tongues" Pentacostalism probably would be too. Although I guess that somehow that'd be less of a problem.

Not too big an issue in the South really. It's not mainstream by any stretch but as long as she doesn't start handling snakes in public it's not going to be a big deal here at all.

[RainMaker]

I don't even think Palin runs. She'll realize she has no shot. Will instead make millions writing books, giving speeches, and doing other political stuff.

Romney has too many skeletons in his closet from when he was Governor. The guy was more liberal than Obama.

Huckabee is likeable but too fringe to grab the newer and expanding voter blocks.

It's a numbers game. A GOP candidate can't win without cutting into the Dems lead in black and hispanic voters. Those are two growing demographics that go heavily in favor of the Democrats. They are also getting hammered on young voters and women. None of the candidates being mentioned in this thread do particularly well with those voters.

It's going to take a new name and voice to win in 2012. None of the names being floated stand a chance.

[ISiddiqui]

I actually think it'll be either Romney or someone who isn't even in the conversation right now who'll win the nomination in 2012 (and I think far more on the later than the former).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't even think Palin runs. She'll realize she has no shot. Will instead make millions writing books, giving speeches, and doing other political stuff.

Romney has too many skeletons in his closet from when he was Governor. The guy was more liberal than Obama.

Huckabee is likeable but too fringe to grab the newer and expanding voter blocks.

It's a numbers game. A GOP candidate can't win without cutting into the Dems lead in black and hispanic voters. Those are two growing demographics that go heavily in favor of the Democrats. They are also getting hammered on young voters and women. None of the candidates being mentioned in this thread do particularly well with those voters.

It's going to take a new name and voice to win in 2012. None of the names being floated stand a chance.

That's true long-term, but not for 2012. There's a certain logic to Buchanan's white resentment strategy and I expect that's what we'll see.

[larrymcg421]

FWIW, I don't think there's anything wacky about speaking in tongues.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Mods: Someone is posting as MBBF. This can't possibly be the same person that spent weeks saying Palin was a great choice.

I bought in for a few weeks, but I was soured by some of her rhetoric. After the election, she just went off the deep end. I don't think she's handled the spotlight well at all. Quitting her job to do book deals, speaking, etc. was a good move if that was the motivation. If it was done to prep for a presidential run, it was a baffling and horribly inept move. You don't win anything by quitting.

[Flasch186]

:Rolleyes:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a numbers game. A GOP candidate can't win without cutting into the Dems lead in black and hispanic voters.

Not really true.

You just need turnout in those demos to go back down, which I believe is inevitable as Obama fails to put pot in every chicken & build a two-car garage for every free home.

[SteveMax58]

Yeah, I think those that believe Palin has any legitimate shot at the GOP primary for 2012 really don't understand conservatives on the whole. Sort of the same mentality it takes to claim people are "clinging to their guns & religion". It just fundamentally misunderstands a gigantic block of people who are not like yourself.

It would be like saying Dennis Kucinich had any shot in hell of winning the 2004 or 2008 Dem primary. Or trying to figure out how Dems could vote for Hillary when she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

It's also telling that those who do believe that are in no way the types that would ever vote GOP in the 1st place. I guess this is why we have "sides" in this world.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yeah, I think those that believe Palin has any legitimate shot at the GOP primary for 2012 really don't understand conservatives on the whole. Sort of the same mentality it takes to claim people are "clinging to their guns & religion". It just fundamentally misunderstands a gigantic block of people who are not like yourself.

It would be like saying Dennis Kucinich had any shot in hell of winning the 2004 or 2008 Dem primary. Or trying to figure out how Dems could vote for Hillary when she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

It's also telling that those who do believe that are in no way the types that would ever vote GOP in the 1st place. I guess this is why we have "sides" in this world.

Come on, your comparisons are just horrible here. Kucinich doesn't even have close to the same profile as Palin. You reached so far for that one, I'm not even sure Reed Richards could've gotten there. As for Hillary, she wasn't the nominee for one reason: Obama ran. If he stayed out of the race, then she wins in a humongous landslide and Dems are proudly carrying her banner all across the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

It's also telling that those who do believe that are in no way the types that would ever vote GOP in the 1st place.

Ahem.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Come on, your comparisons are just horrible here. Kucinich doesn't even have close to the same profile as Palin. You reached so far for that one, I'm not even sure Reed Richards could've gotten there. As for Hillary, she wasn't the nominee for one reason: Obama ran. If he stayed out of the race, then she wins in a humongous landslide and Dems are proudly carrying her banner all across the country.

You can't find apples-to-apples anywhere in politics that gets everybody in agreement.

Kucinich was widely viewed as a nutbag by conservatives in the 2004 primaries and the poster-child of anti-Iraq (aside from non-political figures)...while liberals felt he was just too far left (these are generalizations). But both Kucinich and Palin have fundamentally flawed ideologies that won't appeal en masse...and non-supporters from their sides know this and wont vote for them. That's the similarity. I think Palin is more unelectable than Kucinich. You disagree?

Regarding Hillary...that was the point. Please re-read.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ahem.

Noted...maybe I should have re-phrased to "votes up for grabs".

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

You can't find apples-to-apples anywhere in politics that gets everybody in agreement.

Kucinich was widely viewed as a nutbag by conservatives in the 2004 primaries and the poster-child of anti-Iraq (aside from non-political figures)...while liberals felt he was just too far left (these are generalizations). But both Kucinich and Palin have fundamentally flawed ideologies that won't appeal en masse...and non-supporters from their sides know this and wont vote for them. That's the similarity. I think Palin is more unelectable than Kucinich. You disagree?

Hell yeah, I disagree. Palin has alot more charisma than Kucinich. Hell, anyone with the slightest bit of charisma has more than Kucinich. Kucinich has run twice and barely made a blip, not even winning a single state and only picking up a handful of delegates. You're crazy if you don't think Palin would do better than that if she ran.

[Flasch186]

marketing. Palin > Kucinich

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Hell yeah, I disagree. Palin has alot more charisma than Kucinich. Hell, anyone with the slightest bit of charisma has more than Kucinich. Kucinich has run twice and barely made a blip, not even winning a single state and only picking up a handful of delegates. You're crazy if you don't think Palin would do better than that if she ran.

Would you vote for her? Would you vote for any GOP candidate that basically didn't scorn the religious right and adopt the Dem platform as his/her campaign? If your honest answer is 'no' to both of these...then I don't think you'd believe that.

Personally...Kucinich is a much more accomplished candidate. I almost used Al Sharpton for the example and thought Kucinich would be giving her too much credit as a politician.

Could she win Alaska? Yeah...probably. But no, she is not nearly the political force you think if you think she will pick off multiple states. Rush Limbaugh would have a difficult time doing that...and he can actually hold a legitimate debate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Could she win Alaska? Yeah...probably. But no, she is not nearly the political force you think if you think she will pick off multiple states.

Are you talking about the primary or the general election? Hell, either way it doesn't matter.

She'd beat Romney head to head in most, if not all, the Southern states if the primary was today.

Her electoral base for the nomination starts with every state Huckabee carried.

edit to add: You are grossly underestimating how popular she is with the base; i.e. voters who will show up for the primaries. Her approval rating is 80% among white evangelicals Reps. & 66% among white non-evangelical Reps. Not only could she be competitive with Romney for the nomination, if nothing changed between today & the primary (i.e. neither candidate had a huge gaffe nor a huge blunder), she might actually end up burying him.
Who's Your Favorite Republican? - Pew Research Center

The key to the nomination might well turn out to be which candidate can seem the least like McCain. And in spite of her running mate status, I'd say she's got a better chance of doing that than Romney does.

[larrymcg421]

No, I wouldn't vote for Palin, but I'm a crazy liberal, so why does it matter what I'd do? We're talking about the primaries, not the general election. I wouldn't vote for Romney, Huckabee, or Jindahl either. As for Kucinich, I had two chances to vote for him and declined both times.

If Huckabee isn't running, then Palin almost certainly wins Iowa. Romney has almost no chance to beat her there. He might not even contest it and instead get an early start on NH. I'm not saying Palin will win, but I think it's absurd to say she doesn't have a shot and just plain crazy to say she doesn't have a better shot than Kucinich.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I doubt Kucinich would ever have sniffed the VP slot for that matter.

[Flasch186]

slot? Isnt his wife hot?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

slot? Isnt his wife hot?

Yes, and she got more face time than he did during the debates.

[albionmoonlight]

I could see Palin really standing out on stage in those early 10 person debates.

I also think that she could maximize her income/power by becoming a media celebrity and kingmaker for the GOP. If she does not run, she probably has the power to decide who gets the nomination.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you talking about the primary or the general election? Hell, either way it doesn't matter.

She'd beat Romney head to head in most, if not all, the Southern states if the primary was today.

Her electoral base for the nomination starts with every state Huckabee carried.

edit to add: You are grossly underestimating how popular she is with the base; i.e. voters who will show up for the primaries. Her approval rating is 80% among white evangelicals Reps. & 66% among white non-evangelical Reps. Not only could she be competitive with Romney for the nomination, if nothing changed between today & the primary (i.e. neither candidate had a huge gaffe nor a huge blunder), she might actually end up burying him.
Who's Your Favorite Republican? - Pew Research Center

The key to the nomination might well turn out to be which candidate can seem the least like McCain. And in spite of her running mate status, I'd say she's got a better chance of doing that than Romney does.

what about non-white republicans? does she win 7 out of the 12 of them?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No, I wouldn't vote for Palin, but I'm a crazy liberal

I think this was my only point.

Seriously though...my point was that Kucinich could (as crazy as he is) stand there and debate the more moderate candidates legitimately. Get loud applause from the more liberal leaning in the crowd...and was still not a legitimate threat to win the primary.

Palin as a VP candidate had a platform to direct her one-liners and not-very-well-formulated opinions against in debates. What is she going to do when a Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or likely an unknown-today candidate takes her to task while being in agreement?

Don't forget...a good portion of the people unaffected by her joining the McCain ticket weren't all voting "for" her as VP...many were voting for McCain or against Obama. She has to stand on her own when it comes to a primary...and she does not have the discipline to become well-researched enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

what about non-white republicans? does she win 7 out of the 12 of them?

Well, the same June poll (in the middle of the Letterman flap) put her at 49% favorable overall (not GOP, just in general), so given the number of non-GOP primary voters in that, I'd say she has to hold up reasonably well with whatever non-white Republicans were surveyed. And maybe more notably, reasonably well versus what Romney is doing with his 40% favorable rating overall.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I think this was my only point.

Seriously though...my point was that Kucinich could (as crazy as he is) stand there and debate the more moderate candidates legitimately. Get loud applause from the more liberal leaning in the crowd...and was still not a legitimate threat to win the primary.

Palin as a VP candidate had a platform to direct her one-liners and not-very-well-formulated opinions against in debates. What is she going to do when a Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, or likely an unknown-today candidate takes her to task while being in agreement?

Don't forget...a good portion of the people unaffected by her joining the McCain ticket weren't all voting "for" her as VP...many were voting for McCain or against Obama. She has to stand on her own when it comes to a primary...and she does not have the discipline to become well-researched enough.

i think Steve's got a point here. there's a difference between her as a "gee shucks" #2 who can play up her outsider-nature and as a #1 candidate who is expected to be able to coherently debate nuances of policies and be pretty much a policy wonk. and i agree, i don't think she has the discipline or study habits to become that person.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, the same June poll (in the middle of the Letterman flap) put her at 49% favorable overall (not GOP, just in general), so given the number of non-GOP primary voters in that, I'd say she has to hold up reasonably well with whatever non-white Republicans were surveyed. And maybe more notably, reasonably well versus what Romney is doing with his 40% favorable rating overall.

lol - you realize i was just poking fun of you because both of the numbers you posted were specifically for white voters (evangelical or not). i wasn't necessarily asking for a serious answer.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you talking about the primary or the general election? Hell, either way it doesn't matter.

She'd beat Romney head to head in most, if not all, the Southern states if the primary was today.

Her electoral base for the nomination starts with every state Huckabee carried.

edit to add: You are grossly underestimating how popular she is with the base; i.e. voters who will show up for the primaries. Her approval rating is 80% among white evangelicals Reps. & 66% among white non-evangelical Reps. Not only could she be competitive with Romney for the nomination, if nothing changed between today & the primary (i.e. neither candidate had a huge gaffe nor a huge blunder), she might actually end up burying him.
Who's Your Favorite Republican? - Pew Research Center

The key to the nomination might well turn out to be which candidate can seem the least like McCain. And in spite of her running mate status, I'd say she's got a better chance of doing that than Romney does.

I understand her popularity among Repubs but don't think popularity trumps electability to many GOP primary voters. How many? Hard to say and we wont know for sure unless (until) she were to run.

It isn't so much her views...and she certainly has charisma...but it's the serious test that I don't think she passes with conservatives at the end of the day. The same test she failed on behalf of McCain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

The same test she failed on behalf of McCain.

Hard to blame someone for not being able to drag that much dead weight.