Bob Vander Plaats, the influential evangelical leader in Iowa, called Michele Bachmann on Saturday and asked her to drop out of the presidential race.
Vander Plaats — who endorsed Rick Santorum on Tuesday — asked her to consider the vice presidential slot instead, according to a source close to the Bachmann campaign.
0 Replies
realjohnboy
4
Reply
Tue 20 Dec, 2011 05:35 pm
Some of you may have become confused about how this thread ended up way off topic for a few days. I can't explain it, particularly when there are numerous other threads about Iraq etc. One would think that posters would choose a thread that is about the topic they want to discuss.
Anyway, back to the Republican race-
> In Iowa, evangelicals are having trouble settling on a candidate. Santorum get a bit of support despite now being in single digits.
> One prominent Repub there is urging Bachmann (also not polling well) to drop out. She won't right away but she may have to soon, as she needs to run to keep her seat in Congress in November.
> I have written before about the possibility of a Repub convention in which there is no clear leader and someone else (Rubio, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Christie etc) emerges. I saw yet another article about that today.
> The liberal leaning polling firm PPP had a new one out today about the impact of a 3rd party/independent candidate.
It started with their recent poll that, nationally, Romney leads Obama by a 47% to 45% margin. You have to ignore margin of error and popular votes vs electoral votes, so it is a spongy start.
PPP claims that if Trump were to run as an independent, he would win 19% of the votes vs 31% for Romney and 45% for Obama. 71% of Trump's votes would come from Romney vs 10% from Obama.
If Paul ran as an indy, PPP says he might get 17% vs 37% for Romney and 42% for Obama. If that is true, Paul peels away voters from both the Repub and Dem, but the Repubs would suffer a bit more.
Oops. Newt is having to spend time Wednesday trying to qualify to get on the primary ballot in Virginia before Thursday. The hurdle seems low: 10,000 signatures. But he needs 400 of those to come from each of the state's 11 Congressional districts. He may not have the organization in VA to do that.
I think he will make it in my state, but he faces the same issue in several others. His organization on the ground is weak.
0 Replies
failures art
1
Reply
Tue 20 Dec, 2011 11:32 pm
Huffington Post wrote:
Adultery Site AshleyMadison.com Endorses Newt Gingrich For President On Billboard
This may be one endorsement Newt Gingrich wishes he didn't receive.
Ashley Madison, a "pro-adultery" website whose slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair," put up a billboard in Bucks County, PA, that "endorses" Newt Gingrich for president. Gingrich has famously admitted to extramarital affairs in the past.
The billboard boasts a large picture of Gingrich, with the text, “Faithful Republican, Unfaithful Husband. Welcome to the AshleyMadison.com Era."
This comes only a few days after Gingrich endorsed a "marriage pledge" that disavows adultery. (Clearly, a "wedding" was not politically urgent enough in the past.)
According to The Morning Call, site founder Noel Biderman explained further in a statement:
Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people.
Gingrich proves that marital fidelity has no bearing on someone's ability to do a job. Rather than judge him, Americans have finally embraced the reality that affairs are commonplace, and perhaps paradoxically, might be an indication of great leadership to come. He is not the first nor last politician who will step outside of their marriage.
The Morning Call also reveals that the company chose the non-politically imminent Pennsylvania to put up the billboard as it's the only state to see traffic fall over the last month.
At first I thought this was a snide underhanded attempt to derail Newt, but given the statement, they might actually mean it. Either way, it's not exactly a great endorsement for Newt.
At first I thought this was a snide underhanded attempt to derail Newt, but given the statement, they might actually mean it. Either way, it's not exactly a great endorsement for Newt.
Really? Are you that naive? It's not a political statement at all. It's a company that figured it would get a lot of free publicity by putting up a billboard that took advantage of a figure currently in the political spotlight. It's not like it's a national ad campaign -- it's one billboard.
True about the free publicity, but they made a statement aside from the single billboard and in it, they went as far as to make some statement about a person's qualifications not being dependent on their marital fidelity. Even if it's a joke, even if it's a clever ploy for publicity, the punchline still lands hard on Newt.
A
R
T
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Wed 21 Dec, 2011 12:34 am
@joefromchicago,
I found it quite comical; even though it's meant for the local denizens.
0 Replies
JPB
1
Reply
Wed 21 Dec, 2011 10:45 am
Gary Johnson makes it official - he's dropping out of the Republican race and will run as a Libertarian.
PPP claims that if Trump were to run as an independent, he would win 19% of the votes vs 31% for Romney and 45% for Obama. 71% of Trump's votes would come from Romney vs 10% from Obama.
If Paul ran as an indy, PPP says he might get 17% vs 37% for Romney and 42% for Obama. If that is true, Paul peels away voters from both the Repub and Dem, but the Repubs would suffer a bit more.
Third-party candidates always run better in pre-election polls than in actual elections. No third-party candidate has drawn more than 5% of the national vote in any recent presidential election aside from Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, and he had the twin advantages of a lot of personal money and a whole lot of crazy behind his mercurial campaigns. The notion that Donald Trump would receive 19% of the national vote is too preposterous to imagine (although he has the crazy to spare, his fortune is tied up in real estate and he doesn't have nearly as much disposable cash as Perot did). Likewise, Paul might draw around 3-5% in an election (call it "the Nader threshold"), but 17% is simply out of his reach. The only person who could combine a vast fortune with a vast reserve of reckless ambition is Michael Bloomberg, and he won't run.
I certainly agree that the PPP claim as to the impact of an indy candidate is "preposterous," perhaps by a magnitude of 3. Part of what pollees told PPP is probably due to the fact that most voters (present company excluded) are not closely following the process yet. But it seems to me that the anger and frustration directed towards politicians is unlike what we have seen before.
I would not be surprised to see the Dems and Repubs lose 8-10% total to one or more independents.
0 Replies
roger
1
Reply
Wed 21 Dec, 2011 03:33 pm
@JPB,
I wonder if he isn't just laying the groundwork for a serious campaign in another four years. I would surely have given him the vote in a primary contest, but this is kind of late in the game, even if we disregard the third party affiliation.
I wonder if he isn't just laying the groundwork for a serious campaign in another four years. I would surely have given him the vote in a primary contest, but this is kind of late in the game, even if we disregard the third party affiliation.
Still waiting for that link to load.
He and Buddy Roemer have both expressed dissatisfaction with getting any recognition during the many debates (Johnson was invited to two, Roemer none). Sorry the link doesn't work. It's not that long so I'll post the whole thing.
Quote:
EXETER, N.H. -- Former two-term New Mexico governor and GOP hopeful Gary Johnson is dropping out of the Republican nomination race to run as a Libertarian candidate, NBC News has confirmed.
Johnson's campaign spokesman Joe Hunter cited Johnson's lack of exposure within the Republican party as a main reason for his decision to seek the Libertarian nomination.
Johnson appeared in only two of more than a dozen nationally televised debates and had trouble getting his shoestring campaign off the ground in early states. He will make an official announcement next Wednesday at a press conference in Santa Fe.
"His exclusion from the debates and lack of acknowledgement from the Republican establishment has been very frustrating," Hunter told NBC News. "His commitment since day one to get his message out."
Johnson's decision has been anticipated since he paused his New Hampshire-centric campaign several weeks ago.
His strategy shift notably began when Johnson nearly missed the registration deadline for New Hampshire's primary in October.
Johnson completed the filing with just hours to spare after a campaign staff mistake and a last-minute red-eye flight from Arizona to Manchester.
Several staff members left the campaign shortly afterward and Johnson quickly stopped canvassing in New Hampshire thereafter.
Johnson is known for his support for legalizing marijuana. He also supports abortion rights.
As New Mexico governor, he often worked with the Libertarian party to advance his agenda so this move is not entirely out of his comfort zone.
"Going back to his governor days, he has been comfortable with the Libertarian label," Hunter said.
The Libertarian party national convention will be held in Las Vegas next spring.
How can he be acceptable if he thinks a nuclear armed Iran is OK??
That is the same as welcoming a future nuclear 9/11,
maybe on 9/11 of some future year for the chuckles of the Moslems.
0 Replies
parados
1
Reply
Wed 21 Dec, 2011 06:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
> One prominent Repub there is urging Bachmann (also not polling well) to drop out. She won't right away but she may have to soon, as she needs to run to keep her seat in Congress in November.
Bachmann doesn't know what her district will look like yet. There are currently 4 different proposals for redistricting in MN. Her district will change no matter what.
I'm not sure if I have more disdain for outspoken bigots who own it or the ones who work the hardest as bigots to be rights restrictive, as they tell you "its nothing personal" thats a toss up.
Quote:
Antigay Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, asked by Fox News host Greta Van Susteren how he’d get gay votes, claimed to have “nothing against gays” but trotted out his shopworn argument about the “definition of marriage.”
Santorum, who Tuesday received the endorsement of two influential Iowa antigay activists as the state prepares for its presidential caucus January 3, told Van Susteren last night he’d welcome the votes of LGBT people who agree with him on economic matters, but objected to those who are trying to “change the laws of this country with respect to what the definition of marriage is.”
Van Susteren pressed on, saying, “Can you understand the heartache that many of them have when they hear you speak on something that’s so near and dear to them, and your policies against them, and then at the same time, you want their votes?”
Santorum replied that his stance against marriage equality is a matter of “public policy” and “not a personal attack.” He added, “I believe what’s best for the country is to give children their birthright, which is the best opportunity for them to have a mother and a father.” He did not address how lack of equal marriage rights might hurt children of same-sex couples.
Gee, what a joker; since no individual is against gay marriage, there's should be no restrictions, but because it's public policy? Since when and how did he arrive at this silly conclusion?