Republican candidates for 2012

• Tobias Fünke

  

  Footwedge;1050480 wrote:You need to read what I say...and quit jettisoning things I didn't say. Reread my post...I presented a possible scenario if Ron Paul were to win 50 electoral votes.

  Fair enough. Sincere apologies.
• I Wear Pants

  It's laughable that you suggest Romney isn't in the banks and corporations pockets. Just look at his funding. It's the same with Obama.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Perhaps. I guess we'll see?
• O-Trap

  

  Tobias Fünke;1050277 wrote:How would the Paulists feel if it actually ended up being a Mitt Romney/Rand Paul ticket? A guy mentioned this on Fox the other day and the more I think about it the more I fall in love with the idea.

  That'd be the most schizophrenic ticket I'd ever seen.
  
  I get that you like the guy, and I'm not saying people are dumb for that (though I disagree with a good portion of Mitt's record ... vehemently at times), but that ticket would be far too "divided against itself."
  

  I Wear Pants;1050495 wrote:It's laughable that you suggest Romney isn't in the banks and corporations pockets. Just look at his funding. It's the same with Obama.

  Romney the business man was able to be successful and turn a profit for himself against great odds. That is a testament to his ability to thrive in the private sector. I'd take him on a board of mine in a heartbeat.
  
  However, a good business man does not always a good president make. In this case, I do not think Romney would be a good choice at all.
  
  And can we please stop with the "a vote for anyone but the nominee is a vote for Obama" garbage? How many different ways can that fallacy be explained? In the past, I know I used baseball's "magic number" analogy, and it holds pretty well. However, in this case, one could easily retort with "a vote for Romney might as well be a vote for Obama" or even "a vote for [enter establishment candidate here] in the primaries is a vote for Obama in the general."
  
  I don't think I've ever seen a poll where the overwhelming majority of independents were anything but (a) disgusted with Obama's fiscal behavior in this current term, and (b) outraged at the fact that we still have not left either Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone our contemplation of invading additional areas.
  
  Given that the independent group is larger than it has been in recent history, it's important that someone be able to appeal to that demographic. A party-line "Republican" won't do that.
• believer

  

  This election is going to be interesting.
  
  Nearly everyone with a modicum of common-sesnse sees Obama for what he is: An unqualified failure. Meanwhile the Republican field is full of undesirable candidates including Saint Paul.
  
  What we will see this fall are the hard-core leftists who still believe Obama's the Second Coming. They'll continue to buy-off on the "hope & change" mantra and will fall hook, line and sinker for BHO's "gubmint will take care of you" promises. The MSM, of course, will gladly manage his re-election campaign by playing the race card ad nauseam, portraying BHO is a good & decent family man, and as a misunderstood man who - as America's first black POTUS - simply needs 4 more years to move his agenda forward.
  
  For the Republicans, the the party establishment will throw its weight towards insuring Romney is their man. Romney, clearly a slightly left-of-center Republican, will attempt erroneously to portray himself as a conservative to woo independents and the Paulists. He'll try to show that he's not the stiff, boring, and out-of-touch guy that he appears, yet the MSM will do all it can to convince the American voter that a vote for Romney is like voting for "W". Yes Bush Bashing will be back in vogue.
  
  Then we have the hard-core Paulists and other third party types. While we can admire the conviction and steadfast ideology, this will be the block of votes that will decide the outcome of the election. Alone, the Paulists will never succeed. But what they will do is slide the balance of votes from one side or the other. By tossing their votes in the electoral shit can, they will determine the final outcome of the election. In all likelihood a vast majority of those votes would have gone in favor of the Republican candidate thus tipping the scales in favor of 4 more disastrous years of Obamanomics.
  
  While I can appreciate the conviction of the Paulists, my vote will be cast in the hope that we will have something at least slightly better than 4 more years of the kind of insanity what we have just endured. I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. But I'll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.
  
  If the Paulists insist on allowing the worst case scenario to become reality by default, then so be it.
  
  Perhaps this country needs to get worse before it can get better.
• QuakerOats

  Romney's running mate will be the governor of Virginia.
• BGFalcons82

  

  QuakerOats;1050741 wrote:Romney's running mate will be the governor of Virginia.

  Are you speculating or do you have a birdie in your ear?
  Governor McDonnell would be an EXCELLENT choice.
• Footwedge

  believer;1050525 wrote:This election is going to be interesting.
  
  Nearly everyone with a modicum of common-sesnse sees Obama for what he is: An unqualified failure. Meanwhile the Republican field is full of undesirable candidates including Saint Paul.
  
  What we will see this fall are the hard-core leftists who still believe Obama's the Second Coming. They'll continue to buy-off on the "hope & change" mantra and will fall hook, line and sinker for BHO's "gubmint will take care of you" promises. The MSM, of course, will gladly manage his re-election campaign by playing the race card ad nauseam, portraying BHO is a good & decent family man, and as a misunderstood man who - as America's first black POTUS - simply needs 4 more years to move his agenda forward.
  
  For the Republicans, the the party establishment will throw its weight towards insuring Romney is their man. Romney, clearly a slightly left-of-center Republican, will attempt erroneously to portray himself as a conservative to woo independents and the Paulists. He'll try to show that he's not the stiff, boring, and out-of-touch guy that he appears, yet the MSM will do all it can to convince the American voter that a vote for Romney is like voting for "W". Yes Bush Bashing will be back in vogue.
  
  Then we have the hard-core Paulists and other third party types. While we can admire the conviction and steadfast ideology, this will be the block of votes that will decide the outcome of the election. Alone, the Paulists will never succeed. But what they will do is slide the balance of votes from one side or the other. By tossing their votes in the electoral **** can, they will determine the final outcome of the election. In all likelihood a vast majority of those votes would have gone in favor of the Republican candidate thus tipping the scales in favor of 4 more disastrous years of Obamanomics.
  
  While I can appreciate the conviction of the Paulists, my vote will be cast in the hope that we will have something at least slightly better than 4 more years of the kind of insanity what we have just endured. I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. But I'll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.
  
  If the Paulists insist on allowing the worst case scenario to become reality by default, then so be it.
  
  Perhaps this country needs to get worse before it can get better.

  Pretty well written post there man. It's pretty clear to me that more and more people dislike the 2 major parties today. They just don't. So, with Paul's emergence and incredible strides this time around versus 2008, mainstream America I believe understand that the Libertarian party is here...and here to stay. It's an alternative to the 2 that we have had forever and a day.
  
  Now I voted for Paul in 08 and will most likely vote for him this November, if he chooses to run as a third party candidate. Why? Because the convictions of the libertarians match up with most of what I deem in the best interests of our country.
  
  If fiscal concerns are really important to a voter, (Our national debt is now directly equal to our projected GDP) he/she can only vote libertarian. There simply isn't any other choice. Now, I break ranks with Paul...in his ridiculous view that all regulations should be abolished (disband the SEC). That would be a huge mistake. I also do not agree with his view on relaxing safety regulations, and the repealing of minimum wage laws. You allow businesses to pay people 3 bucks an hour...then they will. True. the cost of living will be driven down. But rest assured the poverty rate would increase exponentially. And...in the end, more businesses would fold than ever....because businesses need customers to buy their products/services.
  
  Unfettered capitalism is just as bad as unfettered socialism. Neither have worked in the past....with both systems leading to a caste sytem....2 classes. No country on this planet operates under pure capilism nor pure socialism....and for good reason.
  
  
  In my view, Paul is dead wrong on these. If he thinks the corporatacracy will somehow police themselves, well we have seen exactly what they are capable of...even with supposed safeguards in place. And it wasn't pretty.
  
  Yet, his pros far outweigh the cons. Our foreign policy needs to change. We may act like an empire...but we are not an empire. Empires are wealthy...we are broke.
  
  The Project For New Century America, put in place in 1998, was one of the biggest disasters ever. And we have had to endure an escalating downword cycle because of it. The notion that we are the only superpower of the world, and as such, can kick sand in pussies faces at every whim, is so very wrong on multiple levels.
  
  People around the globe do not like our arrogance....and who can blame them?
  
  So..if nothing else, the last 5 years, under Paul's exposure, the American people now have a third choice. The overwhelming disdain for the Dems and Repubs is actually pretty remarkable. And to millions of Americans, from all walks of life, the Libertarian Party offers up hope for the old school America...which was loved and worshipped not only by the masses at home, but all over the globe as well.
• HitsRus

  

  While I can appreciate the conviction of the Paulists, my vote will be cast in the hope that we will have something at least slightly better than 4 more years of the kind of insanity what we have just endured. I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. But I'll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.

  Actually, I can't appreciate the conviction of Paulists. In fact, it somewhat scares me that so many people are willing to swallow his 'ideas' so fully as almost unquestioned truth, when there is so little to back them up. There is a lot I like about Ron Paul, some things that I'm OK with...but his foreign policy is the far left's agenda, and for me is a dealbreaker. Some conservative supporters of Paul have rationalized it by saying that if he was elected "the realities of the office" would limit what he'd do, but I'm very uncomfortable with that. Newt Gingrich went so far as to say that if Paul won the nomination, he'd actually vote for Obama....and while I'm not a Newt guy, I have to admit that thought crossed my mind too.(horrors!)
  
  

  People around the globe do not like our arrogance....and who can blame them?

  Despite all the 'mistakes' we have made in our foreign policy over the course of the last 75 years, the country has thrived and the world has avoided any major outbreak of hostilities, thanks to America's willingness to be involved and it's assertiveness in the world's affairs. Ron Paul's 'non-interventionist' America simply creates a power vacuum that leads to the slippery slope where minor regional conflicts go unchecked and conflagrate into larger, more deadly wars that eventually one can't ignore. I do not find Paul's contention "who's going to attack us..we can blow anybody off the map" very comforting or very true as it flies in the face of historical precedent and human nature.
• FairwoodKing

  I personally hope that Romney is the candidate because I don't think he can beat Obama. Obama has never hurt me but he has helped me. For that, he will get my vote.
  
  As far as Romney is concerned, I believe that at least 25% of the voters will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstance. At least 10% of that 25% is gay or gay friendly. We know that Mormons are homophobic and that they will do anything to set back the gay cause. Evangelical Christians don't even see Mormons as Christians. The Evangelicals are not going to vote for Obama, but they may just stay home on election day.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  believer;1050525 wrote:This election is going to be interesting.
  
  Nearly everyone with a modicum of common-sesnse sees Obama for what he is: An unqualified failure. Meanwhile the Republican field is full of undesirable candidates including Saint Paul.
  
  What we will see this fall are the hard-core leftists who still believe Obama's the Second Coming. They'll continue to buy-off on the "hope & change" mantra and will fall hook, line and sinker for BHO's "gubmint will take care of you" promises. The MSM, of course, will gladly manage his re-election campaign by playing the race card ad nauseam, portraying BHO is a good & decent family man, and as a misunderstood man who - as America's first black POTUS - simply needs 4 more years to move his agenda forward.
  
  For the Republicans, the the party establishment will throw its weight towards insuring Romney is their man. Romney, clearly a slightly left-of-center Republican, will attempt erroneously to portray himself as a conservative to woo independents and the Paulists. He'll try to show that he's not the stiff, boring, and out-of-touch guy that he appears, yet the MSM will do all it can to convince the American voter that a vote for Romney is like voting for "W". Yes Bush Bashing will be back in vogue.
  
  Then we have the hard-core Paulists and other third party types. While we can admire the conviction and steadfast ideology, this will be the block of votes that will decide the outcome of the election. Alone, the Paulists will never succeed. But what they will do is slide the balance of votes from one side or the other. By tossing their votes in the electoral **** can, they will determine the final outcome of the election. In all likelihood a vast majority of those votes would have gone in favor of the Republican candidate thus tipping the scales in favor of 4 more disastrous years of Obamanomics.
  
  While I can appreciate the conviction of the Paulists, my vote will be cast in the hope that we will have something at least slightly better than 4 more years of the kind of insanity what we have just endured. I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney. But I'll sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing.
  
  If the Paulists insist on allowing the worst case scenario to become reality by default, then so be it.
  
  Perhaps this country needs to get worse before it can get better.

  I sort of agree with this. My view is that the heavy hitters on both sides are really staying out of it. I see most people waiting until 2015-16 to run, hence why you didn't see many of the Republican favorites declare to run. Obama, while not a great President, is doing well enough to pretty much secure a win, just like W did in 2004.
  
  Paul alone, rightly can't win it, but I think his message is a valuable addition to the national dialogue, that is not going away. Any future election will probably have to contend with the libertarian point of view.
  
  Right, now, I'll still probably vote for Obama again, mainly as a default, I'm not a fan at all of the domestic policies, but none of the other candidates have not swayed my vote, so to me it is the least bad option. I see a lot of voters doing the same thing until 2016.
• HitsRus

  

  Paul alone, rightly can't win it, but I think his message is a valuable addition to the national dialogue, that is not going away.

  I agree with this.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;1038760 wrote:Romney has won the endorsements of George HW Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Its about to come full circle.

  All guys who lost presidential elections (HW was 1-1 obviously).
• stlouiedipalma

  fish82;1050295 wrote:The Magic 8-Ball says yes.

  They'll need to hold 60 seats. We've already seen how the minority party creates gridlock in the Senate by threatening a filibuster. I would expect to see more of the same if either party fails to hit the magic number of 60.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  FairwoodKing;1051992 wrote:I personally hope that Romney is the candidate because I don't think he can beat Obama. Obama has never hurt me but he has helped me. For that, he will get my vote.
  
  As far as Romney is concerned, I believe that at least 25% of the voters will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstance. At least 10% of that 25% is gay or gay friendly. We know that Mormons are homophobic and that they will do anything to set back the gay cause. Evangelical Christians don't even see Mormons as Christians. The Evangelicals are not going to vote for Obama, but they may just stay home on election day.

  Romney was a Republican and won in Massachusetts. Think about that for a moment.
  
  I also think people will forget that he is a Mormon (or that he isn't a homophobe) and vote for him simply because of how shitty this economy is.
  
  The GOP is going to have so many soundbites and videoclips of Obama being a blatant liar and accomplishing nothing. Obama will not survive the onslaught.
• gut

  Obama's only chance is an inexplicable warchest (I've heard of more than a few wealthy donors, smart people, wondering why in hell they gave him money the last time) and the fact that many of the unemployed will, inexplicably, vote for him again.
  
  I liken it to the gambler mentality that has people wanting to double-down on a loser.
  
  If we do re-elect Obama, this country will honestly deserve whatever King anti-Midas gives us.
• FairwoodKing

  If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then anybody could. Don't be surprised if Obama gets a second term.
• Anna-Town

  FairwoodKing;1052742 wrote:If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then anybody could. Don't be surprised if Obama gets a second term.

  THIS.
  
  It almost makes me sick to say this but ... If the establishment continues to pretent that this guy named Paul isn't running for president ... I might just vote for Barry
  
  Him having 4 more years is scary ... BUT if a Romney wins it will be 8 years before Cristie, Jindal, Rand Paul have a chance to run. People who may actually do something (unlike Romney or Obama)
• Tobias Fünke

  

  FairwoodKing;1052742 wrote:If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then anybody could. Don't be surprised if Obama gets a second term.

  I wouldn't be surprised but I would doubt it. Europe is going to economically implode within the next two quarters and the economy here will be a serious hit. Just like the '08 fall in October fucked McCain, Obama will be fucked this time.
  
  If Ron Paul were to win the nomination, he could win simply by saying "the monetary policies are destroying us!" and people would flock to him.
• O-Trap

  

  Tobias Fünke;1052353 wrote:Romney was a Republican and won in Massachusetts. Think about that for a moment.

  I would contend that this should be disconcerting to any hard-core neoconservative. If a traditionally Democrat-leaning state votes in a member of the Republican party, it could very well mean that said member has several to many not-so-Republican tendencies.
  
  Looking at his track record itself, I have to admit that I am surprised at how supportive anyone is of him ... but then, the country did vote in Bush 43 for a second term as well as the current schmuck.
  
  Honestly, I'd contend that of all the current field of Republican nominee-seekers, Romney seems like one of the most non-Republican in practice ... again, why it wouldn't be as surprising for him to be elected in Massachusetts as someone like Perry.
  

  Tobias Fünke;1052353 wrote:I also think people will forget that he is a Mormon (or that he isn't a homophobe) and vote for him simply because of how shitty this economy is.

  Depends. Given a few things about his history (both in the public and private sector), I sincerely doubt he will be seen as the answer to our economic woes.
  

  Tobias Fünke;1052353 wrote:The GOP is going to have so many soundbites and videoclips of Obama being a blatant liar and accomplishing nothing. Obama will not survive the onslaught.

  
  It'll be close, as the campaigns will end up looking something like this:
  
  Another four years of the current failure
  -vs-
  A guy with a private sector track record of putting tons of people out of work in order to turn a profit and who, as governor, did at least one thing that looked a LOT like Obama (the "RomneyCare" business)
  
  I'm not saying either of those are as simple as that, but that's how it will end up being portrayed.
  

  Tobias Fünke;1052852 wrote:If Ron Paul were to win the nomination, he could win simply by saying "the monetary policies are destroying us!" and people would flock to him.

  Doesn't hurt that he was saying it back when the country was doing well, economically.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;1052979 wrote:It'll be close, as the campaigns will end up looking something like this:
  
  Another four years of the current failure
  -vs-
  A guy with a private sector track record of putting tons of people out of work in order to turn a profit and who, as governor, did at least one thing that looked a LOT like Obama (the "RomneyCare" business).

  True...But I'd still rather give Romney a chance rather than give Obama 4 more years of raging ineptitude.
• fish82

  

  FairwoodKing;1052742 wrote:If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then anybody could. Don't be surprised if Obama gets a second term.

  That's just silly. W also had 5% unemployment, a budget deficit 1/5 the size of today's, and a 49% approval rating.
• FairwoodKing

  fish82;1053122 wrote:That's just silly. W also had 5% unemployment, a budget deficit 1/5 the size of today's, and a 49% approval rating.

  He was also the worst president we ever had. Compared with Bush, Obama looks like Abraham Lincoln.
• Al Bundy

  FairwoodKing;1053172 wrote:He was also the worst president we ever had. Compared with Bush, Obama looks like Abraham Lincoln.

  Bush was bad, but we only have to go back to Carter to find someone who was worse.
• HitsRus

  

  we've had 35 years of history to judge Carter....not so much historical perspective on GWB.