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

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I believe I recently read that Ms Bialek was seeking the job she approached Cain about because she had been fired from her previous position for falsifying a sexual harrassment charge.

The Cain team has accused her of several things, but that doesn't seem to be one of them.

Well this what theLeapist posted on the thread specifically dedicated to Cain.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2011/11/08/sharon-baileks-credibility-begins-to-unravel/
I also heard she lives in the same building as David Axelrod.

Interesting.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

One of the 1st two women accusing Cain of sexual advances made her name public today. She is a 55 year old who works now for the Treasury Department and is a self-described Republican. She reportedly is the one who got the $45K settlement from the NRA around 2000.
Cain had a press conference today. I haven't watched it yet.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

He flatly denied all accusations and claimed he didn't recall ever meeting Bialek.

He also said he would take a lie detector test, but equivocated a bit:

Quote:

"Yes. I absolutely would (take a lie detector test) but I'm not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that. Of course I would be willing to do a lie detector test."

I don't know what he would consider to be "a good reason," but it seems like now that he has said he would take the test, he may have to do so or risk screwing up what was otherwise a clear and forceful denial of all charges.

I know that polygraphs aren't thought to be reliable enough to stand as proof that someone is telling the truth or telling a lie, but I don't know which is more common: a liar beating the test, or someone telling the truth being "detected" as a liar.

What could be worse than having everything on the line and then failing a polygraph test simply because you were nervous despite also being truthful?

Assuming he's telling the truth, if I were Cain I'd give it two dozen or so tries in private...with several in the presence of my wife. If there were no "false positives" I do it for the public.

If he takes a polygraph test and passes, not only does the scandal disappear but he gets a big boost with the voters.

Again, assuming he is telling the truth...

The downside is enormous. If he fails the test, he's out of the race, but if he can be relatively certain that there won't be a false positive it would be worth the risk.

If he doesn't take the test (especially now that he's opened his mouth about it) he runs the risk of looking guiltier, and the scandal will live on and on and on. It's already hurt him in the polling and I don't see him pulling out of it without resolution of some sort: e.g. passing the test, one of the women recanting, one or more credible witnesses come forward and convincingly contend they know one or more of the women to be frauds.

1 Reply

What's interesting to me here is that I don't even think Cain is genuinely running for president. I've heard he has virtually no ground troops in Iowa or New Hampshire. I think he's trying to stay on the stage for as long as he thinks it can increase his earning potential.

0 Replies

I kept waiting for somebody else to step in at the last second, to rescue the GOP's chances. Doesn't look likely, these days.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Ohio voters said "no." The vote appears to have been not very close. A defeat for Kasich (R) and his anti-union campaign against public work force employees.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think Cain also said that other women might still come forward, but, if they did, those accusations would also be false and baseless. Rolling Eyes

The more he tries to deny these accusations, the more likely it is that more women will come forward, simply to support each other, but also because, if they were sexually harassed by him, they must be feeling very angry about his denials. And, if he had a pattern of inappropriate behavior, there are more than four women out there who were on the receiving end of such behavior.

There is already enough smoke to suggest a fire. And what Cain is doing may turn it into a real conflagration.

I think sexual harassment is bad, but I also think that someone can see the error of their ways and change. But, if any of these allegations are true, Cain doesn't seem to appreciate that what he did was wrong, and he doesn't seem to feel he owes anyone an explanation or an apology. And, if his denials are lies, that's going to sink him faster than any of the allegations, because then he'll be seen as dishonest and untrustworthy.

He had to know that the fact that two settlements were paid to women at the NRA, who complained of sexual harassment by him, was going to surface at some time during this campaign, yet he seems to have been unprepared to deal with the whole issue. And I think the way he's been handling it is just making matters worse for him.

Oh, he's never going to take a lie detector test. Smile

That was just another ill-considered statement on his part.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Ohio voters said "no." The vote appears to have been not very close. A defeat for Kasich (R) and his anti-union campaign against public work force employees.

Indeed, but they also voted to amend the State constitution to allow Ohioans to opt out of Obamacare. Admittedly the rejection of SB5 was the more significant result but for the sake of fairness and balance I thought the other result (a Republican backed initiative) should be mentioned as well. Cool

Kasich made a tactical mistake in including police and fireman in SB5. I think the results would have gone the other way if he hadn't.

Look for him to reintroduce parts of SB5, like the requirement that public union employees contribute to their health benefits and retirement plan.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I think Cain also said that other women might still come forward, but, if they did, those accusations would also be false and baseless.

The more he tries to deny these accusations, the more likely it is that more women will come forward, simply to support each other, but also because, if they were sexually harassed by him, they must be feeling very angry about his denials. And, if he had a pattern of inappropriate behavior, there are more than four women out there who were on the receiving end of such behavior.

There is already enough smoke to suggest a fire. And what Cain is doing may turn it into a real conflagration.

I think sexual harassment is bad, but I also think that someone can see the error of their ways and change. But, if any of these allegations are true, Cain doesn't seem to appreciate that what he did was wrong, and he doesn't seem to feel he owes anyone an explanation or an apology. And, if his denials are lies, that's going to sink him faster than any of the allegations, because then he'll be seen as dishonest and untrustworthy.

He had to know that the fact that two settlements were paid to women at the NRA, who complained of sexual harassment by him, was going to surface at some time during this campaign, yet he seems to have been unprepared to deal with the whole issue. And I think the way he's been handling it is just making matters worse for him.

Oh, he's never going to take a lie detector test. That was just another ill-considered statement on his part.

I didn't realize that the presence of smoke could convict anyone of arson.

His handling of the matter has been less than stellar, but that too doesn't prove him guilty of any of the accusations.

If he refuses to make good on his declared willingness to take a lie detector test, will that convict him of any crimes?

I certainly won't be surprised if he refuses to take a test, but if he does, it will finish him once and for all.

Since you appear to believe there is fire where there is smoke, let me ask you, if he takes the test and the results are that he is not lying about the accusations being false and baseless, will you believe he's innocent of the charges?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I think they should have Geraldo administer the test.

they can do it at Al Capone's vault...

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Ohio voters said "no." The vote appears to have been not very close. A defeat for Kasich (R) and his anti-union campaign against public work force employees.

Indeed, but they also voted to amend the State constitution to allow Ohioans to opt out of Obamacare. Admittedly the rejection of SB5 was the more significant result but for the sake of fairness and balance I thought the other result (a Republican backed initiative) should be mentioned as well.

You're right, they're really not the same. Issue 3 is just symbolic:

Quote:

Despite campaign rhetoric from some supporters, it won’t exempt Ohio from the most-controversial requirement of the president’s signature legislative achievement because federal law trumps state law.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/11/09/voters-say-no-to-health-care-intrusion-and-older-judges.html

(Emphasis mine.)

While SB 5 is a big deal in a lot of ways. (Details later.)

Quote:

Kasich made a tactical mistake in including police and fireman in SB5. I think the results would have gone the other way if he hadn't.

Look for him to reintroduce parts of SB5, like the requirement that public union employees contribute to their health benefits and retirement plan.

The guy made his first push in the full bloom of his (very narrow) election victory. He's now on very shaky ground, and I don't think he'll try for very much.

Also SB 5 has been pretty thoroughly defined as "bad," which means anything that can be cast as "Kasich's trying to do another SB 5" will have an uphill battle.

Which reminds me of one more thing -- there has been a TON of local focus on SB 5/ Issue 2, but very little on Issue 3 (the health care part). I had to research it yesterday to figure out my own vote. I'm not sure how many people were making principled stands on that (I know I voted for some judges for random reasons, didn't do all my research, my fault).

The biggest things about the decisive (latest numbers I've seen were 61-39) defeat of Issue 2/ SB 5 are:

- Identification and energization of the local Democratic base, who can then be active in the 2012 election.

- Further weakening of Kasich. From Obama's perspective, it's best if a battleground state has a Democratic governor (like Strickland in 2008), but lacking that, a weak Republican governor is better than a strong one. And Kasich's not just weak -- people really don't like him.

- A general referendum on how these protest wave/ Tea Party wave people are actually governing. A vote against is also a vote for (that is, if you vote against the Democratic incumbent -- Strickland -- you're doing so by voting for the Tea Party new guy) and Kasich's not a very convincing argument that it's worth voting in the Tea Party types. That can become part of a larger narrative of the Tea Party being more bluster than substance. (I'm referring here to the people who did buy in to the Tea Party stuff at some point, and now are having second thoughts. Polls indicate that if the Kasich-Strickland election were held again now, Kasich would lose resoundingly.)

0 Replies

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan. Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation.

Well at least someone does.

0 Replies

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321187/cain-accuser-filed-complaint-at-next-job/

Quote:

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

Credit where credit is due: AP is working the story and not just parroting complaints

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

Shades of Orwell's "stick rattling in a bucket" jest. The mind's eye goes to the chicks in the nest when the mother bird returns with a worm.

0 Replies

Quote:

Democrats in Ohio have been talking about a resurgence of activism and enthusiasm in the wake of a vote on SB 5, the anti-union measure that was repealed Tuesday night by a wide margin in a statewide referendum. And it looks like the push from that effort is showing on the presidential level as well: President Barack Obama leads all GOP challengers there outside the margin of error in a poll taken just before the SB 5 vote.

The Public Policy Polling (D) survey shows Obama out in front of former Mass Gov. Mitt Romney 50 - 41, businessman Herman Cain 51 - 39 and Texas Gov. Rick Perry 53 - 36. While the President’s job approval rating is well underwater at 41 percent approval versus 49 percent disapproval, the GOP candidates are so far down on favorability that Obama easily pushes past them. Romney, who has shown strength against Obama in previous state polling, is only viewed favorably by 28 percent of Ohio voters, against 48 percent who see him in a negative light.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/ppp-obama-jumps-ahead-of-the-gop-field-in-ohio.php?ref=fpa

Obama has invested a good deal of money to reach out to the same activists and groups who fought against SB5 in Ohio, and will lever this group - and the unpopularity of the GOP there right now - into a victory there next fall. It is difficult to see the GOP winning the next election without winning Ohio.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And yet the generic Republican candidate is ahead of him 44.5% to 42%

This can't be a happy result for his campaign.

Primary candidates don't have the full force of their party's campaign machine behind them and they're all constantly sniping at each other. I think its a mistake to judge any of the Republican candidates chances against Obama at this early stage.

We'll have a much clearer picture when one of the folks is actually the GOP nominee and goes head to head with Obama.

The more I consider yesterday's results the more I think the ticket needs to and will be Romney/Rubio or Romney/Ryan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And yet the generic Republican candidate is ahead of him 44.5% to 42%

This can't be a happy result for his campaign.

I'm sure they don't care too much; there's no such thing as a 'generic republican.' Obama's not facing Reagan's ghost in this election.

Quote:

Primary candidates don't have the full force of their party's campaign machine behind them and they're all constantly sniping at each other. I think its a mistake to judge any of the Republican candidates chances against Obama at this early stage.

Only because he's beating them. Otherwise, you wouldn't think it was such a mistake.

And, let's be honest. Mitt Romney (the by far most likely nominee for your party) isn't going to exactly excite your party machine OR your base. I don't foresee some huge jump in his popularity or numbers once he wins - at most it will be a begrudging acceptance. Obama will beat that the same way he did McCain.

Quote:

We'll have a much clearer picture when one of the folks is actually the GOP nominee and goes head to head with Obama.

Obama and the Dems are going to run a negative campaign against Romney, and they haven't even begun yet. Haven't even scratched the surface. Just wait - they guy is a complete sham and everyone knows it. You don't think Obama will be able to run an effective campaign against him? C'mon.

Quote:

The more I consider yesterday's results the more I think the ticket needs to and will be Romney/Rubio or Romney/Ryan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Those generic ballot numbers are heavily weighted by the massive amount of Rasmussen polling done on this issue, which consistently favors Republicans due to their methodology.

Ryan is a fool and his financial 'plans' are immensely unpopular with the electorate; Rubio is the only chance your party has of winning, at all. And he's something of a serial liar about his history, and has problematic statements on record of wanting to end Social Security.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cy, your objective and unbiased presumptions and predictions are such a breath of fresh air in this environment of partisan preference. Cool

Obama is not facing a generic Republican candidate but the fact that the polls show him losing to one strongly suggests that people want a change. If you don't think this result scares the Obama campaign, fine. You're wrong, but you're entitled to keep whistling past the graveyard.

When there were polls that showed Romney or Perry ahead of Obama, I didn't declare the race over. It was a mistake to judge their chances based on those polls then and it is a mistake to judge their chances on these polls now.

You’re making another mistake in thinking that the base will react to Romney as it did to McCain. That base may think of Romney as a RINO, just as they thought of McCain, but this time around they are not thinking about voting for someone as much as they are thinking about voting against Obama.

I would prefer that the GOP fielded a candidate that could excite the base more than Romney will, but based on some of yesterday's results I think the Republicans may need to nominate someone who isn't a fire breather and can tack to the center during the general election. This would be Romney more than any other current candidate.

The Republican base will hold their noses while pulling the lever for Mitt, but they will be motivated to turn out to defeat Obama. If Romney can get Rubio as his running mate it will go a long way towards energizing the base and he will attract Hispanic voters. Despite what you may think of him, Ryan is a very bright and articulate guy and a favorite of the Tea Party. He won't be as helpful to the ticket as Rubio, but he will give the base something to vote for.

Your confidence in a Republican defeat more so than a Democratic win is noted. Perhaps you would like to place our third political wager at this time?

You have Obama and I have anyone but Obama. Same stakes as before.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obama is not facing a generic Republican candidate but the fact that the polls show him losing to one strongly suggests that people want a change.

Not necessarily. Generic is going to do better than specific.

I'd guess that a generic Democrat would do better than Obama, too, if it didn't mean that people were saying that they wanted Obama out of office.*

People can define "Democrat" and "Republican" however they want, while an actual candidate has to either take stands that will alienate some people, or refuse to take stands (which will alienate some people), or take contradictory stands (which will alienate some people).

Obviously, in terms of winning elections, the actual candidate match-ups are most significant.

*I figured out how to test this, found this from 2008:

Quote:

Republicans are competitive only because Obama and Clinton both do worse in the polls than a generic Democrat

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1807899,00.html

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know