Republican Primaries (3 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

maybe, but still:

[youtube]er-9q-RKDiA&start=264[/youtube]

 

[Lentern]

romney won't beat obama. to be honest, nor would paul.

Do you think Obama himself is a strong candidate? 2008 he benefited heavily among other things from the Palin catastrophe and the Bush legacy, presumably the former wont be an issue while the latter will be a much smaller one this year. There also seem to be fairly high dissatisfaction levels with his Presidency.

 

[SylviaB]

 

[hayabusaboston]

Looks like Romney's gonna kick obama out.

I heard on the radio, they're like "And the person who will defeat Obama I believe is Mitt Romney"

LOL "defeat"

Its like Obama's a villain HAHAHAH

 

[Lolsmith]

Looks like Romney's gonna kick obama out.

I heard on the radio, they're like "And the person who will defeat Obama I believe is Mitt Romney"

LOL "defeat"

Its like Obama's a villain HAHAHAH

jesus christ go away

 

[hayabusaboston]

jesus christ go away

ffs you go away weirdo

 

[funkshen]

Because candidates polling below 10% are dropping out?

John Huntsman wants to be president. It is quite clear that this is not going to happen in 2012. So what about 2016? If Romney wins the presidential election, Huntsman isn't going to have a shot in 2016. Huntsman also doesn't gain in the short term from endorsing Romney as he isn't going to be offered VP (will probably be Marco Rubio) or SoS. Moreover, there is bad blood between the Huntsman and Romney families. So it is quite clear that this is not an endorsement, but maneuvering: Romney won't win the presidency, so Huntsman is putting the pieces in place for 2016 and the future competition (Bobbie Jindal, Chris Christie).

Nixon did the same thing in 1964

 

[Lentern]

John Huntsman wants to be president. It is quite clear that this is not going to happen in 2012. So what about 2016? If Romney wins the presidential election, Huntsman isn't going to have a shot in 2016. Huntsman also doesn't gain in the short term from endorsing Romney as he isn't going to be offered VP (will probably be Marco Rubio) or SoS. Moreover, there is bad blood between the Huntsman and Romney families. So it is quite clear that this is not an endorsement, but maneuvering: Romney won't win the presidency, so Huntsman is putting the pieces in place for 2016 and the future competition (Bobbie Jindal, Chris Christie).

Nixon did the same thing in 1964

None of this therefore indicates Huntsman doesn't think the Republican Party can win merely that Huntsman himself can't. I'll ask you what I asked garygaz, do you think Obama is a strong candidate? If so why?

 

[funkshen]

None of this therefore indicates Huntsman doesn't think the Republican Party can win merely that Huntsman himself can't. I'll ask you what I asked garygaz, do you think Obama is a strong candidate? If so why?

you quite clearly didn't read what i wrote, which indicates that huntsman not only knows he can't win himself (patently obvious), but his bets are on romney not winning the presidential election and he is posturing accordingly.

no, i don't think obama is a particularly strong candidate. his fundraising is better than romney's but that's much of a muchness. obama has enjoyed a consistent lead on all of the head to head polls. romney is a special case as the spread between him and obama is incredibly thin, which is not necessarily a good thing. romney is a well oiled weathervane, or rather a flip flopper and hypocrite (this is one of the things that killed Al Gore). this is why he'll get the nomination, and not the presidency. for this reason and others, on election day a shitload romney will not get a shitload of important votes: no independents, no wishy washy dems, and a lot of christians (who might prefer a wishy washy hawaiian indonesian muslim athiest black power christian to a mormon). a lot of people will call obama a hypocrite too but atleast he has taken some scalps. there are so many ways to spin romney (a plutocrat, a hypocrite, a legatee, a financier, Obama/Romneycare) it might even be a landslide.

if obama's next four years go well (maybe he'll preside over an improving economy), a democrat might win in 2016. whoever gets the republican nomination that year (for instance, John Huntsman) will have a very good chance in 2020 since republican presidents win after having lost a presidential election once (or through being the son of a former president).

 

[Lentern]

you quite clearly didn't read what i wrote, which indicates that huntsman not only knows he can't win himself (patently obvious), but his bets are on romney not winning the presidential election and he is posturing accordingly.

no, i don't think obama is a particularly strong candidate. his fundraising is better than romney's but that's much of a muchness. obama has enjoyed a consistent lead on all of the head to head polls. romney is a special case as the spread between him and obama is incredibly thin, which is not necessarily a good thing. romney is a well oiled weathervane, or rather a flip flopper and hypocrite (this is one of the things that killed Al Gore). this is why he'll get the nomination, and not the presidency. for this reason and others, on election day a shitload romney will not get a shitload of important votes: no independents, no wishy washy dems, and a lot of christians (who might prefer a wishy washy hawaiian indonesian muslim athiest black power christian to a mormon). a lot of people will call obama a hypocrite too but atleast he has taken some scalps. there are so many ways to spin romney (a plutocrat, a hypocrite, a legatee, a financier, Obama/Romneycare) it might even be a landslide.

if obama's next four years go well (maybe he'll preside over an improving economy), a democrat might win in 2016. whoever gets the republican nomination that year (for instance, John Huntsman) will have a very good chance in 2020 since republican presidents win after having lost a presidential election once (or through being the son of a former president).

Oh god you're one of those conviction politician types. Think Howard was successful because he stood up for what he believed in blah blah blah.

To begin with I did read it and the reasons you had provided as evidence that Huntsman viewed the election as unwinnable were not that, all his behavioural patterns indicated was that he knew he wouldn't get it this time . The fact that he may be positioning for 2016 only means that he's considered the possibility that Romney will lose, not that he is confident it'll happen.

Nothing killed Gore, let's be very clear about what the facts were as opposed to the apocryphal myths. Al Gore was following a controversial two term President and won the popular vote by a good half a million votes. The reason people attack candidates as flip floppers, weathervane etc is because the actual policy platform they've ended up running on is extremely electable and hard to campaign against effectively. Romney's populism should bode nicely with many of those groups you refered to, Indpendants, swinging independants etc. Romney's stand for nothing will contrast favourable with Obama's rhetoric about change, the future etc which is not particularly reassuring for ordinary Americans worried about their mortgages etc.

But again, I reserve judgement until Romney picks a VP, a nutter could undo all Romney's good work.

 

[funkshen]

Oh god you're one of those conviction politician types. Think Howard was successful because he stood up for what he believed in blah blah blah.

To begin with I did read it and the reasons you had provided as evidence that Huntsman viewed the election as unwinnable were not that, all his behavioural patterns indicated was that he knew he wouldn't get it this time . The fact that he may be positioning for 2016 only means that he's considered the possibility that Romney will lose, not that he is confident it'll happen.

Nothing killed Gore, let's be very clear about what the facts were as opposed to the apocryphal myths. Al Gore was following a controversial two term President and won the popular vote by a good half a million votes. The reason people attack candidates as flip floppers, weathervane etc is because the actual policy platform they've ended up running on is extremely electable and hard to campaign against effectively. Romney's populism should bode nicely with many of those groups you refered to, Indpendants, swinging independants etc. Romney's stand for nothing will contrast favourable with Obama's rhetoric about change, the future etc which is not particularly reassuring for ordinary Americans worried about their mortgages etc.

But again, I reserve judgement until Romney picks a VP, a nutter could undo all Romney's good work.

i'm not a conviction politican type. atleast, i don't think i am. i don't know what means really, seems like a stupid label, and i certainly don't think any politican ever won simply for the fact that he stoop up for what he believed in.

huntsman knew he was never going to win. he didn't have the money at all. his staff pretty much quit on him. he didn't have the logistics from the get go, he pretty much just had a big grant from his dad and a small fund raising effort, so the election was unwinnable from the start. he was dipping his toes in the water. he is confident Romney will not win (as are the punters), and is endorsing him to curry favour with the establishment that has been behind romney for over a year. he has made a serious compromise, offering utah to to romney on a plate not long after expressing serious reservations and indeed criticisms of the Romney platform and campaign, and in light of the family feud. a very cynical move of an ambitious 2016 presidential hopeful (2016 isn't going to happen if romney wins duh)

the gop election has been all about claims on conservative values. this is why romney has flip flopped a billion times on shit like abortion (pro/anti choice), superpac ads, healthcare, climate change, TARP. this has NOT been the sort of flip-flopping to attract wishy washy dems or independents, a "policy platform... [that] is extremely electable and hard to campaign against effectively" (Lentern, 2012). it has been quite the opposite - to assume the mantle of conservative values, which simply hasn't worked, and has just become ammo for anti-Romney campaigns which have not begun in earnest at all. despite your concerns about mortgage-fearing americans, obama is delivering to the voters lower unemployment, stable gas prices, dead bad guys, wars winding down etc. obama doesn't have to convince a single republican to vote for him, and he only needs to convince the swinging votes that they don't want they alternative (who has had to move away from the center to claim the conservative values mantle).

i agree a nutter could undo Romney's work, but its unlikely. i mean, marco rubio is a nutter, but an amateur compared to palin.

 

[Lentern]

i'm not a conviction politican type. atleast, i don't think i am. i don't know what means really, seems like a stupid label, and i certainly don't think any politican ever won simply for the fact that he stoop up for what he believed in.

huntsman knew he was never going to win. he didn't have the money at all. his staff pretty much quit on him. he didn't have the logistics from the get go, he pretty much just had a big grant from his dad and a small fund raising effort, so the election was unwinnable from the start. he was dipping his toes in the water. he is confident Romney will not win (as are the punters), and is endorsing him to curry favour with the establishment that has been behind romney for over a year. he has made a serious compromise, offering utah to to romney on a plate not long after expressing serious reservations and indeed criticisms of the Romney platform and campaign, and in light of the family feud. a very cynical move of an ambitious 2016 presidential hopeful (2016 isn't going to happen if romney wins duh)

Again, none of this is evidence of anything except that Huntsman can't win this time and that he hopes Romney can't win. It doesn't demonstrate that Romney is unlikely to win.

the gop election has been all about claims on conservative values. this is why romney has flip flopped a billion times on shit like abortion (pro/anti choice), superpac ads, healthcare, climate change, TARP. this has NOT been the sort of flip-flopping to attract wishy washy dems or independents, a "policy platform... [that] is extremely electable and hard to campaign against effectively" (Lentern, 2012). it has been quite the opposite - to assume the mantle of conservative values, which simply hasn't worked, and has just become ammo for anti-Romney campaigns which have not begun in earnest at all. despite your concerns about mortgage-fearing americans, obama is delivering to the voters lower unemployment, stable gas prices, dead bad guys, wars winding down etc. obama doesn't have to convince a single republican to vote for him, and he only needs to convince the swinging votes that they don't want they alternative (who has had to move away from the center to claim the conservative values mantle).

i agree a nutter could undo Romney's work, but its unlikely. i mean, marco rubio is a nutter, but an amateur compared to palin.

You're right in so far as Obama need only convince swinging voters they don't need to change but Obama conjures expectation of further change. He has accrued the benefits of incumbency as well he might have done. For all the journalists who fall in love with his camelot rhetoric, it does not reassure, it excites, it unnerves.

I'd also make comment on your suggestion that Obama has consistently lead in two way race polls against Romney. This is true but rarely beyond the margin of error. The poll lead far from suggests Romney is a no chance.

 

[funkshen]

listen you're obviously quite opposed to thinking about the situation in any other way. i can't say i understand why you're being so obstinate, and of course i can't say i'm not entirely wrong, but the whole point about political speculation like this is that hidden political motivations and machinations are revealed through action and behaviour. so i'll just lay out the facts for you again.

there is no love lost between Huntsman and Romney and their families. they have been rivals for a long time
Huntsman has made serious criticisms about and allegations against Romney's campaign
Huntsman endorsed McCain in 2008
Romney will offer Huntsman nothing
Huntsman has no imminent reason to endorse Romney

in spite of this, Huntsman has officially endorsed Romney, which DOES benefit Romney (whether its just icing on the cake is a different issue, he probably would have won South Carolina and Utah anyways). this is not some trivial gesture, or Huntsman being a good sport. Huntsman would rather Romney's head on a pike. Huntsman wants to be the presidential candidate (in 2016), and is acting with a certain confidence that Romney will not win. this is a calculated, partisan move.

the polls are pretty meaningless anyways considering they will wildly fluctuate when Romney and Obama go head to head.

 

[Lentern]

listen you're obviously quite opposed to thinking about the situation in any other way. i can't say i understand why you're being so obstinate, and of course i can't say i'm not entirely wrong, but the whole point about political speculation like this is that hidden political motivations and machinations are revealed through action and behaviour. so i'll just lay out the facts for you again.

there is no love lost between Huntsman and Romney and their families. they have been rivals for a long time
Huntsman has made serious criticisms about and allegations against Romney's campaign
Huntsman endorsed McCain in 2008
Romney will offer Huntsman nothing
Huntsman has no imminent reason to endorse Romney

in spite of this, Huntsman has officially endorsed Romney, which DOES benefit Romney (whether its just icing on the cake is a different issue, he probably would have won South Carolina and Utah anyways). this is not some trivial gesture, or Huntsman being a good sport. Huntsman would rather Romney's head on a pike. Huntsman wants to be the presidential candidate (in 2016), and is acting with a certain confidence that Romney will not win. this is a calculated, partisan move.

the polls are pretty meaningless anyways considering they will wildly fluctuate when Romney and Obama go head to head.

Look, I agree that Huntsman is maneuvering to run in 2016, he wants the job and has no chance of getting it this time round and I definitely think there is a significant chance that the republicans lose (though not an absolute probability)however whilst his conduct befits someone who thinks Romney is highly likely to lose this year it also befits someone who is merely trying to give themselves the best possible opportunity to become President. Think about it this way, at the last election the GOP went with maverick McCain and he lost, this time they appear to be going with moderate Romney, how likely do you think it is that they'd run a candidate from outside the neocon base three elections in a row. His chances of getting the nomination in 2016 are much higher if Gingrich contests this election.

 

[funkshen]

i see what you're saying; either way, huntsman is maneuvering. i just think it's a pretty big move for him to support romney. at the very least it indicates that he thinks romney will be the candidate for 2012, i agree its a bit more of a stretch to imply confidence in romney's loss.

i find it highly unlikely that a neocon candidate will win in 2016. the next generation will be coming through (jeb bush, chris christie, bobby jindal, john huntsman) since everyone is getting too old, and like romney they will just move their platform to accommodate.

 

[Chemical Ali]

Was talking to some Americans the other night. They said they reckon that Ron Paul is crazy, but at least you know what you get with him. They couldn't explain why they thought ending the wars on drugs and terrorism was crazy.

 

[Lentern]

Was talking to some Americans the other night. They said they reckon that Ron Paul is crazy, but at least you know what you get with him. They couldn't explain why they thought ending the wars on drugs and terrorism was crazy.

He is crazy, he wants to make gold and silver the only forms of legal tender.

 

[funkshen]

He is crazy, he wants to make gold and silver the only forms of legal tender.

no, he wants to make gold and silver legal tender for public-private transactions. he can't do anything about the constitutionality of fiat currency.

our current situation is the aberation

also he could never make it happen. it'd be like deriding a candidate for endorsing a federally funded school for witchcraft and wizardry

 

[Lentern]

no, he wants to make gold and silver legal tender for public-private transactions. he can't do anything about the constitutionality of fiat currency.

our current situation is the aberation

also he could never make it happen. it'd be like deriding a candidate for endorsing a federally funded school for witchcraft and wizardry

Of course he could never make it happen, that's why he's nuts. You don't call someone nuts for making practical proposals.

 

[Chemical Ali]

why