Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? - Page 399 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

...

Page 399 of 865

First

199 299 349 379 389 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 409 419 449 499 599

Last

Page 399 of 865

First

199 299 349 379 389 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 409 419 449 499 599

Last

11-10-2011 , 03:06 PM

#9951

DjSkyy

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,735

is newt being seriously considered as a gop front running candidate now?

11-10-2011 , 03:10 PM

#9952

LKJ

Smugly Contemptuous

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 95,986

Quote:

Originally Posted by DjSkyy

is newt being seriously considered as a gop front running candidate now?

One can hope.

11-10-2011 , 03:11 PM

#9953

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

He is next in line to be not Romney.

After he implodes i think they covered every candidate who isnt Romney. Well, Paul and Huntsman are left, but they are never gonna be frontrunners. Even people who hate Romney consider him more palatable than them.

11-10-2011 , 03:16 PM

#9954

Mayo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 50,967

Santorumentum, ho!

11-10-2011 , 03:18 PM

#9955

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Quote has to be fake, because only Austrians could have seen the bubble coming. Right? Right?

uhhh, what? i think your reading comprehension failed ya here buddy. try reading slower imo

11-10-2011 , 03:30 PM

#9956

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

uhhh, what? i think your reading comprehension failed ya here buddy. try reading slower imo

Why don't you take a deep breath and tell me what "The media have been foretelling a massive bust in housing prices..." (c. 2005) means to you, and then we can have a chat about reading comprehension.

11-10-2011 , 03:33 PM

#9957

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by swinginglory

13,

You are clearly entitled to your opinion, but if you believe the electorate as a whole hasn't moved away from Obama to a significant degree and that will have no effect in states that he won by 0.4% and less than 2%, I don't know what to say other than we will see.

Are you sure Obama isn't going to sweep all 50 states this time?

Only one of us is citing empirical evidence. The fact is that the polls show Obama ahead of everybody except Romney in OH, NC and FL. And he's basically tied with Romney.

Of course the polls could be wrong, especially at this point.

11-10-2011 , 03:38 PM

#9958

snagglepuss

banned

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

ahh ya sry misread and thought your point was cain had foretold the housing bubble and was like wtf. /nimbin-brain deep breath taken

that said in 2005 the overwhelming media coverage and mantra recited by most politicians and mainstream economists was of 'no housing bubble! no housing bubble!'. which of course was the 'public' viewpoint of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, and alan greenspan as well.

so yeah, maybe that is a fabricated quote! or maybe cain happened to catch a few of the isolated voices warning of a housing bubble and was just echoing his federal reserve buddie's chants of 'no housing bubble!'?

11-10-2011 , 04:09 PM

#9959

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

X-post from the Penn St. thread. Apparently Frothy is a big PSU and Second Mile booster. Odds Sandusky loaned him boys ~3%?

Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum thought enough of Jerry Sandusky nine years ago to sponsor the former Penn State defense coordinator for a "Congressional Angels in Adoption" award, citing his work with a non-profit group he founded to provide care for foster children.

"Its philosophy is simple: it is easier to develop a child than to rehabilitate an adult," read the citation in the awards dinner program from Sept. 24, 2002.

Santorum, a 1980 PSU graduate, is one of the school's most distinguished alumni - a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who represented Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate from 1995 to 2007. A social conservative and champion of adoption, Santorum is staking his candidacy on an appeal to family values.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepol...psus-sandusky/

11-10-2011 , 04:55 PM

#9960

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Steve Benen makes the point that I've been trying to raise, i.e., questioning why Romney is not being confronted directly by his opponents.

Quote:

In theory, revelations like these would shake up the Republican presidential race, but that assumes Mitt Romney has competent primary rivals who actually want to win.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s past support for abortion rights and state-funded family planning, especially during his Senate run in 1994 against Ted Kennedy, is well known. But Romney’s support has lasted longer, and goes deeper, than many may assume.

During Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign, he sought the endorsement of Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts by filling out a questionnaire that made his continued support clear. The document was first circulated in 2007, but is now taking on new relevance as Romney tries to clarify his opposition to abortion rights and government-funded family planning.
Romney pledged his support for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protects women’s choice, for laws protecting the safety of abortion clinics, for increased access to the morning-after pill and for late-term abortions when the mother’s health is at risk. Romney also indicated on the form that he supported the “state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women.”

At a certain level, this seems huge. Romney, in his only successful campaign for public office, put his commitment to reproductive rights in writing — not only endorsing protections for Roe, but also expressing support for using taxpayer money to pay for abortion services.

Quote:

This is about the time we’d see every other Republican presidential campaign launch their rapid-response operations, raising hell with every political reporter they can find. We’d see press releases, web videos, the works.

But in 2011, that just never seems to happen.

I thought, for example, the GOP field would be apoplectic when we learned that Romney had promised center-left activists he would “act as essentially a sleeper agent within the Republican Party, adopting liberal stances, rising to national prominence, and thereby legitimizing them and transforming the Party from within.” But the other Republican campaigns let it slide.

I also thought the GOP field would go berserk when we learned that Romney’s health care program in Massachusetts uses taxpayer money to provide medical care to undocumented immigrants. But the other Republican campaigns let this slide, too.

I also thought the GOP field would pounce immediately on revelations that Romney’s policy team advised the Obama White House on how best to shape “Obamacare.” But, again, the other Republican campaigns said nothing.

I thought Romney would be slammed repeatedly for his support of health care mandates. And his support for gun control. And his record supporting gay rights. And his belief in climate change. And now his support for taxpayer-financed abortions. Sure, he’s flip-flopped on all of these issues and more, and has become something of a far-right extremist, but at one time, Romney was practically a liberal — a detail that might matter to some Republican primary voters.

And yet, with fewer than eight weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, there are no attack ads targeting Romney airing anywhere in the country, and in last night’s debate, no one even tried to lay a glove on him. It’s one thing to note how lucky Romney has been, but this is something else altogether. We’re talking about an entire GOP presidential field that practically seems willing to let Romney win.

11-10-2011 , 05:04 PM

#9961

LKJ

Smugly Contemptuous

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 95,986

Pawlenty tried and got smacked down...well, maybe "smacked down" isn't right, but he was just too weak to execute it. Santorum has tried, but nobody takes him seriously. Perry tried to attack, but was terrible at it. Huntsman does actually have a negative ad against Romney out there.

Meanwhile, Cain has risen above Romney without going negative, and Newt is making a strategical choice (that seems to be getting a foothold) of running a positive campaign.

Ron Paul really should be going negative though. It makes no sense that he's not.

11-10-2011 , 05:09 PM

#9962

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Pawlenty never tried seriously. Remember how he got roundly criticized for saying nothing against Romney during the first debate? He tried a little afterwards, but I guess was so inept it didn't matter.

Santorum might be trying before small audiences, but he sure hasn't really tried during any debate on national tv.

It's a little understandable for second-tier people not to attack; because it's not even clear that attacks would benefit them personally. But they also have nothing to lose so they really should be doing something like this.

Cain's approach appears to be working for now, so I'll give him a pass.

It makes no sense that Perry has not gone on the offense more.

11-10-2011 , 05:11 PM

#9963

nyc999

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 18,661

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it came down to Romney & Newt in the spring. Newt is basically attacking the media and talking about things he did 20 years ago in every debate, but he's coming across as knowledgeable and above the fray (in terms of fighting between candidates), and since he's been behind most of the time, no one has tried to attack him.

I can see Cain maintaining high numbers in the GOP polls, but losing ground among independents and therefore against Obama.

11-10-2011 , 05:12 PM

#9964

LKJ

Smugly Contemptuous

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 95,986

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Santorum might be trying before small audiences, but he sure hasn't really tried during any debate on national tv.

11-10-2011 , 05:14 PM

#9965

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

that said in 2005 the overwhelming media coverage and mantra recited by most politicians and mainstream economists was of 'no housing bubble! no housing bubble!'. which of course was the 'public' viewpoint of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, and alan greenspan as well.

so yeah, maybe that is a fabricated quote! or maybe cain happened to catch a few of the isolated voices warning of a housing bubble and was just echoing his federal reserve buddie's chants of 'no housing bubble!'?

The idea that "everyone" missed the housing bubble is very much overplayed.

New York Times, "Week in Review", August 26, 2006.

11-10-2011 , 05:15 PM

#9966

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

OK, I take it back about Santorum. I guess he's just been ineffective.

11-10-2011 , 05:28 PM

#9967

LKJ

Smugly Contemptuous

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 95,986

As for Perry, he really has tried to go negative. It's just that the first time he got stuck in this forgetful stuttering thing trying to list off Romney's flip-flops and did terribly. Then the next time it got really heated and came off badly for him. I think in this last debate he just wanted to get through it without getting harmed again since he'd have another chance a few days later anyway, and then of course he stepped in it. I don't think it's lack of effort to go negative on Perry's part. He just sucks at it.

Here is Huntsman going negative:

Ron Paul is one who manages to poll near double digits and with some kind of rub could make a run at it, but staying the course isn't going to do it. That's why it makes the least sense that he's just sitting back and almost never attacking (except for attacking Perry when he first entered).

11-10-2011 , 05:31 PM

#9968

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKJ

Here is Huntsman going negative:

That's some happy music for an attack ad.

11-10-2011 , 05:35 PM

#9969

Go Get It

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 12,506

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

Pawlenty never tried seriously. Remember how he got roundly criticized for saying nothing against Romney during the first debate? He tried a little afterwards, but I guess was so inept it didn't matter.

Santorum might be trying before small audiences, but he sure hasn't really tried during any debate on national tv.

It's a little understandable for second-tier people not to attack; because it's not even clear that attacks would benefit them personally. But they also have nothing to lose so they really should be doing something like this.

Cain's approach appears to be working for now, so I'll give him a pass.

It makes no sense that Perry has not gone on the offense more.

He now works for Romney, maybe he knew it was coming? Either way if Romney is the next potus TPaul is in a good spot for some power imo.

11-10-2011 , 05:37 PM

#9970

LKJ

Smugly Contemptuous

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 95,986

The problem, of course, is that Mitt is absolutely elite at debating and it's pretty daunting to try to take him on. Newt might be up to the task but we're just not going to see that until and unless it gets down to the two of them.

11-10-2011 , 05:49 PM

#9971

Wynton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 15,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKJ

But I'm not just talking about attacks during debates; I'm also talking about advertising.

I think your last series of posts indicates that the candidates actually are making some attempt at going after Romney, but that most of them are just incredibly bad at it.

I do think that, once people start dropping out, then we'll see more negative stuff, assuming that someone other than Romney is actually still standing.

11-10-2011 , 06:04 PM

#9972

LKJ

Smugly Contemptuous

Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 95,986

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynton

But I'm not just talking about attacks during debates; I'm also talking about advertising.

And that matters too, but the debates do end up touching everything...nothing in a campaign happens in a vacuum. That's what you saw with Pawlenty; he hit Romney on Fox News Sunday, got asked to answer for it at the debate 2-3 days later and wilted like a pussy.

Not everyone would wilt like Pawlenty did, but the only other option is to stand by it and say it to Romney again in the debate, at which point he's always fully ready to turn around and own them. Then running the attack ads ends up doing the attacker more harm than good. I think that's what we've seen go on.

11-10-2011 , 10:12 PM

#9973

Mayo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 50,967

I'm getting tired of waiting for Nate Silver to start getting all Bayesian on the electoral college, so I made a really simple model that treats each state as independent and I assigned a projected winning percentage to each candidate for each state based on the polling from this Wiki page and my own gut instinct. The results were ridiculously close:

So, I am ready to predict, as an uninformed guy with an overly simple mathematical model and a lot of faulty assumptions, that the president might or might not get reelected. You heard it here first, folks.

Last edited by Mayo; 11-10-2011 at 10:13 PM. Reason: This was mostly just to get myself back into programming.