68
   

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

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 03:35 pm
@parados,
Still dodging I see.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 03:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You are very wrong on many levels.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 03:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
True, but doing someone's bidding for free, is not illegal.

Your opinion on Thomas and $3.25 will get you a fat free latte at Starbucks.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 03:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
Edgar, this is why I just can't ignore you.

You bemoan people (who for you are like me) just can't accept that Edgar may be a liberal but his opinions are sincere and he's basically a good guy.

Oh we're so narrow minded!

Then you post a comment like this.

In itself, no big deal but when viewed in the context of your constant whining, it's hysterically hypocritical.

Either stop it or get of your freaking high horse.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The man reeks to high heaven.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What happened to Palin's 2d place?


She's not running yet, so she's not one of the options in the test poll.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/26/iowa-poll-romney-bachmann-lead-republican-pack/


Quote:
results indicate Iowa Republicans would be receptive to additional candidates in the race. Just 14 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers say their minds are made up about their choice in the presidential race. Another 14 percent don’t have a first choice yet. Sixty-nine percent say they could be persuaded to support a candidate other than their first choice.

Those findings could encourage potential candidates now on the sidelines, such as Gov. Rick Perry of Texas or former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. The poll tested favorability of several prominent Republicans, but the trial heat question included only those who have declared they’re running.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:42 pm
@ehBeth,
Just as an aside, ehbeth. The 1st story on the Des Moines Register's poll came out last night. That was my source, late last night and this morning. There was no mention made of Palin or Perry, which caught my eye as well as c.i's. Later stories today seem to be adding stuff about those two. But the original story said nothing about either of them.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:44 pm
@ehBeth,
Just as an aside, ehbeth. The 1st story on the Des Moines Register's poll came out last night. That was my source, late last night and this morning. There was no mention made of Palin or Perry, which caught my eye as well as c.i's. Later stories today seem to be adding stuff about those two. But the original story said nothing about either of them.
It seems the paper is in a bit a defense mode.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 04:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
I went to the Register site to read the articles - they are time-stamped.

the one I linked to is from 4:00 a.m. today
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 05:27 pm
@ehBeth,
I have a problem, ehbeth, with the Des Moines poll.
It came out late on Saturday night. I read it. Only today have there been revisions to the original article trying to explain why Palin and Perry were not included.
It seems to me to have been sloppily done.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 05:56 pm
@ehBeth,
What's interesting to me is the simple fact that even if Palin isn't running, most polls will show where she stands, because we sort of all know she's going to run. If past polls show her in second place, you can bet your bottom dollar she's going to run.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 06:24 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, there are earlier articles on the site (same writers, different articles)

I've got my own theory why they mention the non-runners in the later articles, but it's only a theory.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 07:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

You, like Parados are mixing up concepts.

It's not a question of bias, it's a question of benefit.

What?

This from the guy that was arguing without a fact to support it that Walker was planning to get married? It isn't a question of benefit at all Finn. If it was then you would see that the evidence to make Thomas return the bust is just as strong as the evidence Walker planned to get married.

But in reality, not being forced to return a bribe is NOT the benefit a person receives from the bribe. Your logic is that a judge that is bribed PRIOR to a ruling can't benefit. That is ridiculous. (I am not arguing that Thomas' gift was a bribe. That requires more facts than are in evidence. But I do find it interesting how you think Walker benefits but Thomas doesn't.)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 07:16 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
If we assume Walker should have but did not recuse himself, the remedy isn't for his ruling to be overturned and all other avenues of appeal shut down forever.

But you have been told this REPEATEDLY. The court doesn't rule on ASSUMPTIONS. There must be evidence and since there is no evidence there is no case. You are the one that is so biased you can't see that evidence is non existent.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 07:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Still dodging I see.

I'm not dodging anything. Your assumptions are crap. They would require that courts rule on nothing other than a person's idiotic and unsupported assumptions.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 09:44 am
One of the things we've been discussing over the last several months, is the relative unpopularity of new GOP governors in many swing states; and whether or not this will affect the election.

In some cases, it's really difficult to see how it couldn't:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5876964367_b04a0d8f71_b.jpg

I think that FL, while being a top candidate for this effect, may be canceled out in the end, b/c Rubio has a 98% chance of being someone's VP pick.

Without OH and WI it's a long row to hoe for Republicans this cycle....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 09:54 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I thought you conceded Walker did not state he had intentions of marrying his partner? If so, then there is not evidence that Walker had intentions of marrying his partner so according to you logic, there was no benefit to his ruling on the case in question.

In my own opinion, which probably ain't worth a plug nickle, Thomas is clearly biased in favor of Crow and other conservative groups who gave him and his wife money, gifts, etc. and should have recused himself from the cases involved. Like the article said of which I left in my last post, the whole thing calls his integrity into question but evidently Supreme Court Justices are not held to those standards. Mores the pity.

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 10:00 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

True, but doing someone's bidding for free, is not illegal.


I didn't argue it was.

Quote:
Your opinion on Thomas and $3.25 will get you a fat free latte at Starbucks.


Who wants that ****?

Re: Thomas, I couldn't care less about some bust. More troubling, by far, is the fact that he routinely lied on his financial disclosure forms for years, hiding his wife's income from far-right groups. And he seems unlikely to recuse himself from any upcoming health-care battles, despite the fact that his wife is actively being paid a lot of money to politically fight against that bill.

I'm sure you can agree with me that judges who lie on their financial disclosure forms deserve investigation. Right? Or that judges who have a direct personal stake in an issue before their court should recuse themselves. Correct?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 10:05 am
At least one prominent Liberal blogger thinks that Bachmann will win the Republican nomination:

http://dailykos.com/story/2011/06/27/988434/-Why-Michele-Bachmann-will-be-the-GOP-nominee?via=blog_1

Quote:

Mon Jun 27, 2011 at 08:10 AM PDT
Why Michele Bachmann will be the GOP nominee

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/66958/Bachmann_CPAC_550.jpg

Michele Bachmann will be the GOP nominee.

Yeah, yeah—this could be wishful thinking. Bachmann would gift Obama a second term and would lead to another Democratic wave election in the House. And yeah, this assumes that Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin don't get into the race. But this is the age of Christine O'Donnell and Ken Buck. Republican primary voters don't give a damn about electability, but about casting a vote for the purest candidate.

Currently, there are three real candidates in the race—Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich is history, Rick Santorum is yesterday's news, Ron Paul is a niche product, John Hunstman has six supporters, and Herman Cain exists only to allow Republicans to say, "Some of my best friends are black!"

Of the three credible candidates, Bachmann easily wins the purity test. Romney has been on the other side of pretty much every issue of current importance to Republicans, while Pawlenty supported the individual mandate. They're toast.

But it's not just policy substance. The early GOP nomination calendar clearly favors Bachmann.

We start off with the Iowa caucus on January 3. Now caucuses are tailor made for the most socially conservative candidates, as it is those activists who dominate these low-voter turnout affairs. In 2008, a banner year for caucus turnout, just 114,000 Republicans turned out. Currently, there are about 610K (PDF) registered Republicans in Iowa, out of 2.1 million registered voters in the state. In other words, a minority of a minority make the calls. And living in next-door Minnesota, Bachmann is about as local as you can get with that crowd of crazies. Iowa is hers.

Wyoming goes next on January 5, though the RNC has stripped it of half its delegates for moving ahead of New Hampshire, and will likely be ignored. So New Hampshire is next on January 8.

The Granite State will be Mittens territory. He's from next-door Massachusetts, and the state's GOP voters are less obsessed with the social issues that will dominate Iowa. In fact, if I'm the rest of the field, I concede New Hampshire to Romney and move on to ...

Michigan? Again, the state has tried to leapfrog the traditional early states, slotted itself into January 15, and again, it is being stripped of delegates. It was ignored in 2008 until Clinton won it by default, and she tried to pretend the victory was significant. The same might happen in 2012, but it won't matter. The parties are still (unfortunately) beholden to the unjustified monopoly of those traditional early states. So we go to...

South Carolina and Nevada. Both of these hold contests on January 19. The Nevada effort is caucuses, and Bachmann should do well in those. South Carolina is a primary, and they are also losing half their delegates for pushing its primary ahead of where the RNC wanted it (after February 5). But it's a traditional early state, and bound to be contested by all parties.

South Carolina, where social issues dominate, just elected Nikki Haley as governor, a Michele Bachmann clone. In 2008, McCain won the primary with 33 percent of the vote, while Huckabee notched a close second with 30 percent. Conservative voters today are far less tolerant of what they consider to be mushy Republicans than they were three years ago. The state is primed for a Bachmann-style candidate.

After South Carolina we have Florida, which is being penalized for moving itself up to January 29, and I have no idea how that state will play, or if it will even matter. Then on Super Tuesday, February 5, 21 states including California, New York, Illinois, and Georgia will dump hundreds of delegates into the race, possibly ending the race.

Will Bachmann have the juice to compete in this wide a field? Watch her early fundraising numbers. She's likely to raise more than the rest of the field. I bet she laps it.

So with Bachmann we have perhaps the best-funded candidate, with an early map that favors her brand of culture-war conservatism, and genuine street credibility with the teabagger types that will enable her to quickly build a national grassroots network.

So yeah, this runs counter to conventional wisdom, and I recognize that I'm out on one hell of limb, but I'm not seeing a path to the nomination for any of the other declared Republicans.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 10:32 am
You know, the country survived ideological lame-brains like Reagan and the younger Bush. If someone like Bachmann were actually elected, it could be the death knell of the tea bagger clowns. No matter how "ideologically pure" she might be, she'd run smack into the brick wall of the system in Washington. Nobody can keep their promises once they get there. I'd bet we'd survive such a debacle, too.
 

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 0.77 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 02:02:12