Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by GhostWriter16, Aug 18, 2011.
Romney will collapse and Huntsmann will swoop in to eat up moderate support.
Or so I can hope.
Ya.. There is a large group of people that think no matter what happens, Romney is a for sure win. They said that about Romney the last time, and Romney has been almost deathly silent despite all the recent politics. Romney is entrenching himself in New Hampshire, but Rick Perry is a serious contender who would probably win Iowa and South Carolina if they were held today..
I could dig it if Bachmann or Perry won.
Not sure. At the moment I would have to say it is neck and neck between Bachmann, Romney, and Perry. Bachmann has the nutjobs, Romney has the 'moderate's, and Perry has the capacity to be a hybrid and siphon away a signifigant number of votes, or fail to gain enough traction on the national stage once the media start picking apart his record.
Hoestly, neck and neck. I would love a Bachmann presidency just for the sheer laughs it would create. (And UK might annex us because we demonstrated that despite some sucesses, we are still ignorant colonials who shouldn't be trusted with a country.)
What does that even mean? This has nothing to do with Obama. If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Perry or Bachman, then they're screwing themselves.
Some of them just are stupid enough, as you say it.
Many southern, religious republicans will never vote for Romney. I'd say that their hatred towards Mormonism is so great that they would rather check Perry/Bachmann's name than vote for Romney.
History repeats itself. It's too early to call, but I have a feeling that either:
-If Perry wins (which I believe is likely) Obama will win independents and center/right voters who dislike the radical agenda.
-If Romney wins (which can happen, but I think it is less likely) a large number of Tea Party members will abstain or vote for some other person.
People who neglect history are doomed to repeat it.
If Perry wins, I could see Obama really struggling. His base is nowhere as enthusiastic as it was in '08 and Perry does have a substantial track record behind him and he has the ability to say "I make jobs" on a level suitable enough to pundits to yell at each other in 30 second soundbites.
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are the only two serious contenders. Personally, I'd lay odds on Perry.
Downtown has been pretty convincing that the Mormon angle isn't having the negative effect it could once be expected to have.
I like Ron Paul a lot but he's probably not going to win.
And thus he will.
If this was '06-07, Obama didn't look like he had a chance, and look where we're at.
Ron Paul is a perrenial candidate. The reason he is getting traction this time around outside of his devoted fan base, is that a bunch of people are fed up with the current economic policies (which is justified) and haven't don't understand economics well enough to know why Paul's ideas are so terrible to the economy and America.
Moving outside the economic areas, all Obama/any candidate has to do to sink Paul is to bring up the Civil Rights Act group of laws. On the national stage Paul will go down faster then a submarine equipped with screen doors instead of pressure hatches. Dredging up some tired old dixiecrat talking point works on the state level, not at the national stage were the focus of the nation, and the world, is on you!
Obama never staked out a foreign policy that was completely at odds with his own party's. Obama had actually won statewide office. Obama hadn't run for the nomination before and lost by an embarrassing margin. Basically, Obama did the kind of things plausible nominees do, and didn't do the kind of things candidates like Ron Paul do.
We've seen this show before, back in '08. Ron Paul is great at attracting a small core of incredibly dedicated supporters. Unfortunately for Paul, you win primaries by rounding up tons of supporters, not a small group of super-fans.
By the first paragraph, one could also assume that Romney is in the same situation as Paul's: a perennial candidate that never seems to clinch the election. Also, by your logic, novel candidates receive an edge over recurring candidates.
But, there is no doubt that Paul will put a dent in the primaries. In 2008, Paul won less than 5% of the votes from all Republican primaries. I'm assured that he will get more than that, a lot more.
Except Romney has only run once before. And the Republicans have often nominated someone who was a runner up in the previous nomination.
You're ignoring the key modifier. Ron Paul didn't just run and lose in '08, he run and lost by an embarrassing margin. Romney was a front runner in the crowded '08 field, and McCain became a national figure when he did surprisingly well against Bush in 2000.
Romney lost in 2008, but he won in something like a dozen primaries and caucuses. Ron Paul? Placed a weak second in handful of small caucus states
Why is Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Tim Pawlenty listed but not Newt Gingrich?
Newt is the radioactive monkeys option.
Actually my friend(whose a canadian citizen living in Hong Kong) tells me that a lot of foreigners think highly of Bachmann and support her, which I find odd.
Because Bachmann as president would be a four-year long gag reel?
Separate names with a comma.