68
   

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

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 05:56 am
@realjohnboy,
So we have Mitt, Paul, Cain, Huntsman, Newt and ??? Is Santorum officially in? I think Bachman's gonna run. Dunno about Sarah.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 06:04 am
@JPB,
Pawlenty.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 06:08 am
@roger,
I believe that currently, Colorado is the only state that doesn't have a winner take all system for electoral college votes. Maybe i should go check.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 06:11 am
@Setanta,
Maine too, I think.

What about Santorum? Is he in or pondering?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 06:12 am
I just checked, and it's not Colorado, it's Maine (as JPB just suggested) and Nebraska. In those two states, electoral votes are distributed based on the vote in each congressional district, and not based on the state-wide vote.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 01:02 pm
@JPB,
Sarah hasn't a prayer to be the final contender. Are there any current polls on the GOPs now in the running?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 01:11 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
In those two states, electoral votes are distributed based on the vote in each congressional district, and not based on the state-wide vote.


At first blush, this seems like a fairer idea.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 02:54 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

At first blush, this seems like a fairer idea.


Some people believe that whomever gets the most votes should win.

The counter argument is that candidates would ignore rural issues in favor of where they could collect the most votes.
The electoral college system tried to deal with that by, essentially, forcing candidates to compete in smaller states.
Awarding electoral votes based on who wins a congressional district vs carrying a state, may at first seem like a good idea, JTT. But it will never get implemented.
The boundaries of districts get juggled around every 10 years after the census, with new lines drawn not just on population but also on ethnicity, etc.
There is a lot of politics, with the party in power usually getting the upper hand. The great word is gerrymandering.
I am quite certain that allocating electoral votes will not change.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 03:12 pm
@realjohnboy,
The states have the constitutional right to legislate the manner in which electoral votes will be allocated.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 03:54 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
The great word is gerrymandering.


Seems criminal.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 04:11 pm
@JTT,
As a matter of fact, yes it does. Still, there will usually be redistricting after every census, and there ain't no disinterested parties involved. Were they disinterested, they wouldn't be involved.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 04:13 pm
@Setanta,
Oddly, Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 04:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
How bad can Palin be


I hope you don't end up finding out.

I have to admit that I'm shocked that you'd vote for her if she was the candidate facing Obama, simply because she's not Obama. I hope that most voters are more responsible with their votes.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 04:27 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth, If you've been reading my posts on the next election, I've been saying that Palin doesn't have a chance/prayer in winning the nomination. In that context, I would seriously consider another candidate that runs against Obama. I just don't care of Obama's politics (and lies). You might have well asked who I would vote for between Obama and Mickey Mouse. I would have said Mickey Mouse.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 04:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cloud of relief passes by my window.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2011 04:34 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
I hope that most voters are more responsible with their votes.


Now that's funny, Beth.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2011 04:17 am
@roger,
You know, once upon a time i knew that, but had forgotten. State senates are the political equivalent of tits on a boar.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2011 06:31 am
I have to say, so far this has been the most boring election I can remember. But then, I really didn't start paying attention to politics and elections this much until sometime after Clinton was president.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2011 07:03 am
@revelette,
I think the primary season is more interesting when both parties are running primaries. We already know who the Dem candidate will be so we're just watching the Republicans until the general election season starts up next summer.

Edit: I will say, though, that the Republican Party is in flux right now which makes watching the Rep primary race a little more interesting. We've got an avowed libertarian, an avowed fiscal conservative/social moderate, an avowed social conservative, someone who can't quite avow himself of anything, and a mishmash of other players. It will be interesting to see how the party regulars feel about their players.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2011 07:06 am
Quote:
Primary Election 2012: GOP Fervor To Beat Obama Runs Strong In South
Barack Obama 2012



COLUMBIA, S.C. — Republicans in this first-in-the-South primary state aren't too enthusiastic about the crop of GOP presidential candidates. They are fired up about defeating President Barack Obama and confident a Republican can.

"I'm telling everyone that worries about the field: Elmer Fudd can win this election," says Ashby Rhame, a Republican from Sumter County.

In this reliably conservative state, if not across the country, the GOP exudes optimism about making Obama a one-term president, no matter the Republican nominee.

The anti-Obama fervor, or fury depending on who's asked, has energized and helped unite a Republican Party that three years ago was disillusioned and fractured after the Democrat's victory. Obama has turned into a common enemy for the party, bridging divides between the Republican establishment and tea partyers demanding purity in their candidates.

Is the drive to beat Obama so great that Republicans will support a nominee who may have serious flaws or doesn't strictly adhere to conservative principles?

Yes, if recent American history and interviews with more than a dozen Republicans in South Carolina are any guide.

Such eagerness to turn out Obama is not unlike the frenzy among Democrats in 2004 to topple President George W. Bush. Many Democrats desperately wanted to retake the White House, but were lukewarm about their options. It's what led retired Gen. Wesley Clark to be drafted into the race.

In the end, an enthusiastic base wasn't enough. Bush defeated Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in a race that both Republicans and Democrats say is not unlike the 2012 contest, only in reverse.

Then like now, "independents are divided," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "They aren't signing on with Obama, but they're not signing on against him.

As with Democrats in 2004, polls this year show muted enthusiasm among Republicans hunting for a hopeful.

"They've got some good candidates," says Sally Atwater, widow of the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater. "But I'm not sure these are all of them."

Many in this state, which has a track record of choosing the GOP nominee, seem to be following the advice of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham as they decide which politician to back.

"We can beat Obama. Don't let anybody tell you we can't," Graham recently told activists. "I ask one thing of you: choose wisely. Make sure that we choose a nominee that can replace the most liberal administration in history and that that we can keep our track record together as South Carolinians."

To the candidates, he said: "We're excited to meet you, but you've got to prove to us that you can win."

Several Republicans at a state party convention recently say they were heeding Graham's warnings and will consider not just the candidates' records but their ability to go head to head with Obama.

"We all have our favorites, but I think you have to be very, very practical and very realistic," said John Boullossi, a retiree who lives on Hilton Head Island. "I still think that as much as we've heard, nobody has really emerged as the person yet."

Mary Lou Lineberger, a Bluffton tea party leader, is among the many Republicans in no rush to fall in line behind a Republican.

"It is such an important decision and we need to give it some time and look at these people and who they really are," she said.

Can Obama be beat?

"Absolutely, no doubt about it," Lineberger said.

Can anyone do it?

"Anyone can't," she said quietly, leaning forward as if sharing a secret. "He's a formidable opponent."

Others are more optimistic.

Said Diane Barnes, a Republican from Aiken: "We have a whole year and a half before the election ... He's going to do more wrong than good."



source
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.1 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 05:43:11