68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 07:27 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

I suspect that Repubs are growing quite weary of Christie and Palin being coy.

I don't think that's the case, especially not for the ones who want one or both of them to enter.

With a schedule like I have suggested, either of them will have to file to be on the ballot in NH within 2 weeks. I doubt that either of them will get in.

At this point, neither do I, but I'd say the chances of Christie getting in are better than Palin.

The affected early states are pretty pissed off at FL, and the RNC appears toothless in enforcing rules. My guess is that, after the super-primary date (around March 6th?), we will know who the Republican nominee will be. And then...

It's the road to victory in November!
parados
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 07:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The problem Christie has is the question that will always be asked about him after saying it repeatedly.

Does Christie really have the fire to want to be President?

I think many will say "No" because Christie himself has said it.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 10:27 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The problem Christie has is the question that will always be asked about him after saying it repeatedly.

Does Christie really have the fire to want to be President?

I think many will say "No" because Christie himself has said it
Looking around the web today it appears that the bigger questions being asked are

1) does he have a shot in hell trying to run this late

and

2) is he too fat to get elected.


The answers are no and yes respectively.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2011 12:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

My guess is that, after the super-primary date (March 6th), we will know who the Republican nominee will be. And then...

It's the road to victory in November!



Early Momentum Vs Scramble For Delegates
An article in the St Petersburg (FL) Times had an interesting perspective on the move of that state's primary to January 31st. They note, of course, that the move violates the early primary rules and could cost FL 1/2 of its delegate seats at the convention. NH, SC and NV could suffer the same fate is they jump ahead of FL as expected.
The FL officials seem to think that the cost is worth it (if enforced) in order to get the candidates to devote a lot of attention to FL in order to gain Momentum. The thinking is that Momentum will be big in 2012 for the Republican candidates. The officials could be wrong for several reasons, which combined might make FL relatively insignificant:
- The RNC rules require any state holding a primary before April to award most delegate seats proportionally rather then on a "winner take all" basis. It is not, however, on a statewide tally of votes, but rather on which candidate wins in the state's congressional districts. It could be that candidates will decide that FL is too expensive to spend a boatload of money on if the result is a gain or loss of a few delegates.
- Several populous states (eg CA and NY) with lots of delegates at stake have decided to postpone their primaries until April or June, believing that the Momentum thing will prove to be less important than the collecting of Delegates. The article claims "10 times fewer" delegates (which is a way of stating things that drives me nuts) will be awarded prior to April.
- The Super Pacs have a ton of money ready to commit. They can't legally support Romney or Perry directly but they can certainly influence the nomination later in the summer.

So, all in all, I guess I will retract my comment about the race being over after March 6th (Super Primary Day). It could well turn out to being like the Dem race in 2008 where Clinton and Obama fought it out up to the convention.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2011 07:48 pm
Glenn Beck persuades Donald Duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0&list=FLv4Lr24LBJzFhzxpP6QXZuQ&index=45
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 08:44 am
@plainoldme,
Why not, apparently Charles Manson is acceptable to republican voters over Obama.


Quote:
Recent events have drawn low turnouts. And she continues to make gaffes. On the radio show, a caller told her he would vote for serial killer Charles Manson over President Obama. "Hey, thank you for saying that," she replied.


source

I mean who are these people? So far they cheered for people being executed, said to let someone die who didn't have health insurance, booed a man in uniform who served in Iraq because he was gay and now Perry apparently has a rock with the with word "niggerhead" lightly painted over it at his hunting lodge. It's all of piece in my opinion and its depressing.



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 08:48 am
@revelette,
It's no good being depressed revel. Get out campaigning against it.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 09:19 am
The Caucus says Christie's out:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/christie-wont-run-for-president-advisers-say/
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:31 am
@revelette,
Have you considered you may be going a tad overboard? I know when I despair of all the Liberals actually making important decisions on a daily basis, I check myself and realize it’s not all that bad... most of them don't have consequential jobs. After all what sort of decisions can be made by a Borders floor manager, a DMV clerk, or a HS World Economic teacher that might seriously impact the world?

One person on a radio talk show makes a stupid joke about preferring Charlie Manson to Obama and you see it as a serial killer being acceptable to republican voters over Obama.

Who are these people? is an excellent question.

Who do you think they are?

It seems you believe that a group who, in their entirety, could not have numbered more than 150 people is a major force in American politics and one you need to fear and be depressed about.

What the logical connection between these people and the Perry hunting lodge rock story may be, must depend on the numerous broad assumptions you've made and your incomplete understanding of the story.

If President Obama was a successful leader who had secured the trust and optimism of the American people, you wouldn't have to even think about the GOP contenders, let alone concoct outlandish warnings about the danger they represent.

I've no thought that you might be a political strategist for the Democrats, but by your reflexive responses in this forum, it's easy to see what the Democrats strategy is going to be:

Paint the GOP candidates as dangerous nuts who have sold their souls to the even more dangerous bunch of nuts, The Tea Party.

In this light, 2012 is no longer a referendum on the failed policies of Obama and the Democrats, it's no longer the opportunity to choose between two entirely different schools of thought on how the government best serves the people, and it's no longer the chance to find a leader who will actually lead us back to prosperity.

No, it's yet another of the final battles between Good and Evil. The Democrats message seems to be steadily building to:

It doesn't matter if Obama has made the economic mess worse.
It doesn't matter if all of his solutions have proven to be failures.
It doesn't matter if he reneged on all of the lofty promises he made for a changed Washington.
It doesn't matter that despite his assurances, the US doesn't enjoy a more respected status in the world, it just appears weak and feckless.
It doesn't matter that you are worse off now than when he came to office. (A point with which he agrees BTW)

We are once again fighting for the soul of our nation, a soul that despite the presence of so many stout hearted Liberals is precariously dangling over the edge of the abyss. All it will take is one of these Tea Party nuts to get in power and we can count on:

Mass starvation in our inner cities and rural communities.
The return of Jim Crow
The forcing of gay and lesbians back into their closets of denial for fear of discrimination and even violence.
Widespread food contamination scandals and untested drug disasters
The ecological destruction of our coasts and wild lands
More numerous and deadly military adventures that will only serve to ensure that the whole world despises us.

These are the stakes people!

To be fair, the Republicans also have no problem in portraying our problems in the bleakest of terms when they want to stress the connection between the problems and Democrats, but they have the advantage of being the ones calling for change who can paint that change in the rosiest of colors.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan may be a bunch of nonsense, but it’s not been proven to be the nonsense of Obama's Stimulus and Son of Stimulus. It's different and its new, and for people who may be desperate to see a change in our economic conditions, it may even be attractive.

What do the Democrats have to offer except more Obama?

They have salvation. They can save America and the world from The Tea Party and Michelle Bachman. You may not like the world you'll have to live in during Obama's second term, but at least it will be livable.

You won't have to worry about your daughter dying in some back alley because she was forced to go to an illegal abortionist. You won't have to make a decision between food for your kids and medical care for your mother. You won't have to watch as the government rounds up 12 million undocumented workers and deports them back into the middle of America induced drug wars.

Sure continued unemployment of more than 9% will suck, as will the inevitable destructive wave of inflation, but you won't have to listen to another Texas drawl in the White House or listen to a crazy lady from the Tea Party telling you what religion you have to believe.

The list goes on and on and will as the months until November 2012 dwindle.

I know Obama promised us he was going to be above these sorts of divisive tactics, but that was before he realized how big the stakes are and how evil Republicans are. Grow up and cut him some slack.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:31 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

It's no good being depressed revel. Get out campaigning against it.


Yes, spendius is counting on your to protect him from the nutters.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Great post, finn.

This is especially true
Quote:
If President Obama was a successful leader who had secured the trust and optimism of the American people, you wouldn't have to even think about the GOP contenders...
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:37 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
you will certainly have a defense for Hank Williams, then...


"the "Hitler” signs that popped up at some early tea party rallies had an echo on Monday, when country singer Hank Williams Jr. likened President Obama to the late Nazi dictator."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Tea-Party-Tally/2011/1004/Hank-Williams-Jr.-cites-tea-party-in-defense-of-Hitler-comments
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 10:58 am
@Rockhead,
I know that for some reason this is difficult for you to believe but I don't feel the need to either defend or apologize for Hank Williams Jr.

He's right that there is an incredible double standard concerning offensive comments made by liberals vs the same made by conservatives, but that's the way it is, and its not going to change anytime soon.

Comparing Obama to Hitler is, at best, silly, but I got some news for you, Rocky, Hank Williams Jr doesn't speak for the Tea Party and isn't running for president.

I hope he's not complaining about losing his deal with ABC. He makes his money based on his public image, not because he has a talent without which crops wouldn't grow in the field. You shouldn't be able to use your popularity with the public to manufacture a platform for your political opinions and then complain if your popularity is affected by voicing those opinions
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
One person on a radio talk show makes a stupid joke about preferring Charlie Manson to Obama and you see it as a serial killer being acceptable to republican voters over Obama.


Michelle Bachmann thanked the caller for his words.

Quote:
“I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy,” the caller said. “But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way, go Michele!”

Bachmann replied, “Thank you for saying that.”




source

You said previously Christie is no more crazy than Bachmann, so I assuming you don't think Bachmann is on the fringe of the republican party.



post source

If this kind of thing was isolated, it could be excused, but I mean come on, this stuff just keeps on coming with no help from the democrats.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
but he kinda did speak for the "tea party"...

that's the problem with having an "unofficial" party.

no one really knows who or what the tea party is.

I think it's ugly.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:08 am
Christie's made it official. (Out.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:08 am
@sozobe,
As usual, I'm most taken by wording like this

Quote:
Mr. Romney, meanwhile, continues to have difficulty earning the support of Tea Party advocates and other conservatives in the Republican Party.



I've been following the language divide between conservatives and Republicans for about three years now. Fascinating stuff.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:11 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yep--and not only warblers of ditties. Actors, authors, scientists, clergymen and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.

It's a job for professional politicians.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:11 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
He's right that there is an incredible double standard concerning offensive comments made by liberals vs the same made by conservatives, but that's the way it is, and its not going to change anytime soon.



Oh please, how quickly you guys forget, remember the Dixie chicks? All she said was for people not to think everybody in Texas is like George Bush and she got vilified out the wazzoo.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2011 11:17 am
@revelette,
Being vilified is no sweat revel.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 07:44:01