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

I read more Conservative blogs and media than you do, Finn. I know very well how they feel about Mitt: the vast majority of posters in the right-wing Blogosphere can't stand the man and are convinced that he'll lose to Obama.

I don't need your opinion on how the Conservative base feels; I go right to the source and the source tells me that the guy will not be strongly supported by the Conservative base. I can't put it any clearer than that.



Ryan is a fool who understands very little about math or economics. His 'plans' literally do not add up. They do not bring about the outcomes he claims they will - analysis of his plans by many different groups has shown this to be true. Nevertheless, the credulous claques who make up your voting base, who don't understand the math or economics of his plans either - such as yourself - keep calling him 'bright.' This says a lot more about you than it does him.

Cycloptichorn

http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/12528019120/2012-election-polls-latino-results

If Obama continues to double up with Latino voters against the eventual nominee, the GOP won't have a shot in hell of winning next year.

Cycloptichorn

So what about the wager?

Since you know more about Republicans than I do, surely the bet is a sure thing for you.

There is no plan Cyclo. They are all flying by the seat of their pants. They are mesmerised. Is that not obvious. How long did the Berlusconi Bounce last?

Help me understand how this linked article proves your point.



A generic Democrat was beating McCain, but so were Obama and Clinton.

The generic Dem was simply beating him more soundly.

In the end, the Democrat won the race.

The article suggested that if McCain was identified as a Bush Republican he had no chance of winning. Clearly a further sign that the populace wanted a change.

Here's the thing though, Cy. The majority of the population isn't as involved in politics as these bloggers and yourself and us here on able2know. If everyone was then I'd be much more inclined to believe that your predictions would hail true. But how many of the people that voted for Obama were excited about his "change/hope" actually knew what the hell they were talking about? And how many of these people do you think are willing to swing to the other side because of the lack of change in the past 3 years?

My best guess for the answer to both these questions would be a whole lot.

That's just my two cents though.

Yes, but those who are likely to work, donate, and volunteer in order to get someone elected ARE more involved. They are more likely to keep up with events and speak about them with other activists. And when I see activists expressing strong disappointment with a candidate, it's not a good sign for that candidate's future.

Regarding Obama, I'm quite sure that he'll have a hard time with the independents who have abandoned him over the last several years. Fortunately, he can afford to lose quite a few of those voters, as he won overwhelmingly in the last election. What more, he has a whole year (and hasn't even really begun) to define the other candidate as someone these people wouldn't dream of voting for. And with Mitt Romney or Perry, that's not going to be too difficult.

Cycloptichorn

mmm, I'm going to hold off for a little while longer before committing to this. Wouldn't want to jinx things.

Cycloptichorn

I don't think the same dynamics are at work for the next election that got Obama in the white house in 2008. College students aren't going to come out in the same numbers, and he will lose many independents that voted for him in 2008.

Fair points.

Additionally, while Cy may, indeed, be a daily consumer of conservative blogs his comments concerning the bloggers opinion of Romney prove he has no taste buds for what he's consuming. He's completely missed the flavor of these blogs because he tends to see only what he wants to see and hear only what he wants to hear.

By and large, but by no means in its entirety, the right-wing blogosphere has little use for Mitt Romney. I'm sure it is accurate to say that some bloggers and their followers "can't stand the man and are convinced he'll lose to Obama," but what Cy has clearly missed is that these same individuals hate Obama far more than they could ever dislike Romney. In fact, the more they dislike Romney, the more they hate Obama.

Cy seems to think that this dislike for Romney will translate into a refusal to support him if he's the Republican nominee, that the segment of the base that "can't stand" Mitt would rather stay home than vote for him. If someone else was currently in the White House, that might be the case, but it's Obama who is in the White House and not someone else, and most of this segment think Obama will effectively destroy America with a second term.

Take a look at a book called Flashback by Dan Simmons. The American dystopia that Simmons portrays is a direct result of Obama being re-elected, and, by and large, this segment of the base believes such a turn of events can and will happen if Obama is re-elected.

There is some talk among a very small segment of the blogosphere that perhaps the best thing for America is to let it suffer another four years under Obama, so that in 2016 the electorate will be begging for sweeping changes that will usher in a totally transformed American society.

A lot of people, though, think that after another four years of Obama, no one will be able to pull the nation out of the hole he'll be leaving it in.

Certainly some Republican voters will sit home rather than vote for Romney, but this can be effectively checked by pairing Mitt with a young Tea Party icon like Marco Rubio or (to a lesser extent) Paul Ryan in the VP slot.

Again, since Cycloptichorn can view the world only through his single lens, he concludes that his personal opinion of either Ryan or Rubio will decide how they play before the American people. He thinks Ryan is a fool, and so too, therefore, will all of America. After initially conceding the strength of Rubio he's now found the reason why he too will fail and so therefore, since Cy is always right, Rubio will fail.

I think it's always preferable to have a race wherein the electorate is voting for rather than against someone, and it's true that no matter what, Romney is not going to fire up all the components of the Republican constituency, but I do think that Sarah Palin proved that the right running mate can ignite passion in the base. There are people who will tell you that they would have voted for McCain if he hadn't picked Palin as his running mate, but I tend not to believe them. In any case, I'm convinced he picked up more votes than he lost when he named her as his running mate, and neither Rubio nor Ryan will be as polarizing a candidate (Despite the MSM's best efforts to paint them as extremists).

Fortunately for the Republicans, the thrill generated in 2008 by Doctor Anointed's Hope & Change Medicine Show will not be in play in 2012. Obama still has his hard core of supporters, but there are not enough of them to re-elect him. He has to bring back the Independents he was able to attract in 2008, and the current polls indicate that will be a tough row to hoe.

Indeed

You have no clue what you are referring to. I'm lest interested in blog POSTS than I am the extremely negative comments sections that follow them. 9/10 comments about Mitt Romney, on Conservative blogs, are negative ones.



He won't be able to defend his plans and proposals when confronted with the fact the numbers don't add up. Neither will you be able to defend them. His proposals make every single problem we currently have worse - all in the name of lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations. He's a fool if he thinks such a plan will ever pass, and if you think such a plan will pass, you're a fool too, Finn.

I'll remind you that in 'current polls' Obama is winning the independent vote (for the most part) and when asked about his plans and policies, independents agree with Obama far more so than the do the GOP.

In 2004, the Dems ran an 'anyone but Bush' platform against an unpopular president. How did that work out for them? You're now proposing that the GOP run an 'anyone but Obama' program, against a president who is as popular as Bush was then. How do you think that's going to work out?

Cycloptichorn

Reporting From Virginia...
Repubs in my state seem to have had, at first blush, a good day at the polls yesterday. They are on track to pick up two state Senate seats which would lead to a 20-20 split. Any ties would be broken by the Lt Gov, who is a Repub.
The Dem incumbent in my district was defeated after 28 years by 80 votes out of 50K votes cast. There will be a recount but I see no change.
The state House will also be Repub. This marks only the 2nd time since the Civil War that the Repubs have control of both chambers.
A lot of the campaigning focused on jobs and the economy. But when I trolled around races I found things like this:
-abortion; -environmental rules; -drug screening for welfare recipients; -gun carrying in parks and on college campuses; -allowing employers to fire people who don't talk to each other in English.
So the Repubs had a good day yesterday, but moderate Repubs in the leadership are already hearing that they will be targeted by social conservatives.

There will be another debate tonight in Michigan amongst 8 of the Repubs.
It is not clear whether the Cain thing will come up in a discussion of "jobs."

On party controlling the executive branch and both houses of the legislative branch is always a good think going into a presidential race.

Virginia is an important state.

You know how I think it's going to work out or I wouldn't have already offered the wager.

Foolish question Cy.

So, why is the strategy going to work this time, when it failed last time? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

Watching the debate:

CNBC provides a panel not of moderators, but of sh*t stirrers. Appears candidates may have gotten together and agreed not to let the moderators suck them into sniping at one another. Finally!

We'll see if it holds.

They all are certainly sticking to the same tactic: refuse to actually answer the question, and instead attack Obama. It's a classic.

Their answer on Italy was terrible, none of them could form a coherent picture of what was going on at all.

But Cain's line, about the thousands of women who didn't harass him... beautiful.

Cycloptichorn

Santorum is sounding more and more desperate.