Republican candidates for 2012

• HitsRus

  

  Healthcare argument isn't valid either. Health care in the US has been massively increasing for decades outstripping any other countries rise in cost and there hasn't been a significant growth rate increase in costs since Obama took office.
  
  

  
  You obviously haven't been paying any healthcare premiums.
  If healthcare spending is down during the Obama years, it may well be because the demand for elective procedures dropped dramatically during the recession.
  

  Ignoring the price at the pump? You cannot be serious Hits. What exactly does the president do, or not do that influences speculators from driving oil prices up?

  I'm not talking about pump prices now, but in the future which he willfully disregards. Banking on Solyandra, the Chevy Volt...talking of taxing oil companies, nixing and or delaying Keystone, offshore drilling moratrium. No I think it's pretty obvious that this president is no friend of fossil fuels. Moreover, he's not very friendly with nuclear or coal either.
  

  Trillion dollar deficits for example. Explain to me how the GOP has not run up trillion dollar deficits. Because they have...and they will continue to do so

  Yes I'm sure that if the "R's" were in charge, the Democrats would be digging in their heels to try to control spending.
• I Wear Pants

  I did not say it was down. In fact I said it was up.
  
  It's just that the increase is in line with the increases we've seen since at least 1980 or so.
• ts1227

  

  I Wear Pants;1107578 wrote:Which one of you assholes voted for Santorum?
  
  Seriously, who is voting for this guy? I've not met these people.

  I assume you're (barely) located in Columbiana County out there in Homeworth, he cleaned house here (43% to Romney's 28%)
• IggyPride00

  

  Willard outspent Santorum 12 to 1 in Ohio, and he is only going to barely squeak out of a win.
  
  How in the world does he knock off BHO when he won't have any money advantage to basically carpet bomb his opponent into submission? Thus far in the primary that is all he has shown himself capable of doing.
• LJ

  

  IggyPride00;1107668 wrote:Willard outspent Santorum 12 to 1 in Ohio, and he is only going to barely squeak out of a win.
  
  How in the world does he knock off BHO when he won't have any money advantage to basically carpet bomb his opponent into submission? Thus far in the primary that is all he has shown himself capable of doing.

  
  You dont think the ABO vote will have any effect? Really?
• I Wear Pants

  ts1227;1107667 wrote:I assume you're (barely) located in Columbiana County out there in Homeworth, he cleaned house here (43% to Romney's 28%)

  I know, makes me want to firebomb my town. But I've still never had a conversation with a pro-Santorum person outside of a friend from college who has helped in various ways with his campaign. Like I know a lot of ABO people and people who aren't big on Romney and people who are all about Paul. But I don't see people saying "man I really think Santorum is right on the money on a lot of the issues".
• I Wear Pants

  LJ;1107674 wrote:You dont think the ABO vote will have any effect? Really?

  Not as big as people seem to be assuming it will.
  
  Depends on turnout numbers really. If the GOP nominee isn't Paul and 18-30 comes out in any size the GOP is going to be in big trouble.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I think ABO will work on a decent level plus I know there a lot of people who voted for Obama in 08 who aren't going to in November.
• I Wear Pants

  bigdaddy2003;1107696 wrote:I think ABO will work on a decent level plus I know there a lot of people who voted for Obama in 08 who aren't going to in November.

  It's hard to say because while it's true that people have not been pleased with Obama's first turn at the same time I do not think anyone is longing for the days of 2004-2008 again either. We have only the illusion of choice. Coke vs Pepsi. In the end it's still a shitty soda when we need a glass of water.
• dwccrew

  

  believer;1107379 wrote:According to the Paulbotoids, Dr. Paul is not a career politician...he's just an average Joe like you and me.
  
  The fact that he's been elected many times but has basically accomplished little explains why his rhetoric only travels so far.

  BGFalcons82;1107388 wrote:Yep...24 years in the House and nothing to show for it. Talk about "do-nothing"!!
  
  He's a man of great ideas. He has solutions to much of our economic issues. Problem is....he's the wrong guy carrying the message because he can't sell his message. At least 85% of Republican voters aren't swayed by him. The question the Ronulans should be aksing is, "why won't people vote for his message", rather than, "y'all are a bunch of dolts for not "getting" our guy." They can't possibly believe it's the right song for the wrong singer.
  
  Cue up the, "..sound bites shouldn't define a candidate" theme music.

  Eh, if Ron Paul is a "do nothing" politician I'll take him because the results we have gotten from the "do something" politicians have been horrendous. But keep drinking the kool-aid, it's delicious isn't it?
  

  BGFalcons82;1107553 wrote:I'm not a Santorum supporter. Far from it. But it's because I think he's no conservative, I think he erred by backing Arlen Specter, and mostly I think he became a RINO during his stay in D.C. But...in no way...is he crazy.
  
  If ANYONE thinks he's for making gay acts illegal, removing condoms from drugstores, and bombing Iran on January 21, 2013, then they are indeed loco. I will say this about him...he's very genuine and holds nothing back about what he believes. Where y'all get sideways with him is y'all think he'll legislate lifestyles into felonies. Do you really think he'd do that?

  
  Right, Santorum is real genuine. Like how before the Minnesota primary he stated that he doesn't believe dems should be allowed to vote in republican primaries, yet he was out to get dem votes in Michigan, leading them to believe he supported the auto-bailout when he in fact opposed it. Real genuine guy. Keep drinking that kool-aid.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1107554 wrote:Freedom is at stake? WTF Rick?
  Really, guess I missed that one.
  
  Since when is Obama a dictator and can take freedom away from us all? Give me a break.

  Have you not read the NDAA he just signed? Or heard about the assassination of two U.S. citizens he ordered without any kind of due process of law?
  
  Now I agree that Santorum is the last guy who should criticize someone for being a tyrant.
• dtdtim

  LJ;1107674 wrote:You dont think the ABO vote will have any effect? Really?

  The ABO vote has the opportunity to be a factor, imo, but not anywhere near the level needed to win. This election, just like the past 3, is going to be decided by the independent voter and the independent voter does not respond to the "Anyone But _____" message. See: Kerry, 2004.
  
  If there's one certainty that you can count on with the BO 2012 campaign, it is that he will run an outstanding ground campaign. He has had one in every election he's ever won. If the GOP nominee is going to neutralize this the ABO vote has got to be supplemented with the enthusiasm for the candidate personally. He has got to rally people (independents specifically) into voting for him and not against someone else otherwise the ABO vote alone will only stand a chance of maybe neutralizing the Dem ground organization and even that is going to be a tall order (although definitely easier this cycle).
  
  Although you can't ever count out the effect of the ABO vote as there's always the chance it becomes a major factor, it's in the best interests of the campaign not to overstate it. Independents of all kinds, Latinos, Women, and maybe the 18-29 age groups are going to be much bigger factors, imo, and they should be.
  
  The ABO vote isn't going to be around in 2016. Latinos, Women, and 18-29 year olds will be and are going to be an increasingly important factor in the electorate going forward. It serves the GOP's best interests for the present and future to focus more on drawing those groups toward the party and an ABO message isn't going to do it (again, imo).
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;1107720 wrote:Have you not read the NDAA he just signed? Or heard about the assassination of two U.S. citizens he ordered without any kind of due process of law?
  
  Now I agree that Santorum is the last guy who should criticize someone for being a tyrant.

  He actually vetoed the more disturbing parts of the NDAA. And things like the NDAA have widespread Republican support. Especially from guys like Santorum. Frothy is full of shit.
• gut

  dtdtim;1107722 wrote:...and maybe the 18-29 age groups are going to be much bigger factors, imo.

  I think the Obama campaign will need to go balls out to mobilize the 18-29 group JUST TO NEUTRALIZE the ABO effect. A lot of these naive pie-in-the sky kids were extremely excited to vote in their first elections for America's first black POTUS. Many of them have been letdown and are disappointed. I expect Obama to struggle to get that big groundswell of support he had to the polls.
  
  Main difference between the ABO vote vs. the ABB vote in 2004 is the economy and employment isn't in the shitter. Nor was there nearly the alarm over the govt debt and deficits we have today. The Obama supporters are really downplaying this, and I think Repubs haven't said more because they don't want to make the election just about the economy and employment on the unlikely chance a remarkable recovery is staged in the next 6 months.
  
  But Americans typically vote with their wallet and 90% of those heading to the polls next November are worse off than 4 years ago, and many hurting pretty badly. Romney is not particularly compelling, but he's acceptable at least to a level of indifference. It's going to take a ton of money and remarkable campaign for Obama to win this. He's capable of both, but I give the American people a bit more credit (and I don't give them much). If you turn the argument around, why would people come out to vote for Obama?
  
  I think at the end of the day, there are a lot more people so upset with the direction of this country that ABO is going to dominate the number of people who are willing to double-down on a loser. I know a fair number of independents/moderates who voted for Obama, and were relatively excited/hopeful, and are now firmly on the ABO bandwagon. Obama got 53.6% of the popular vote in 2008. Back then it seemed like everyone was for hope and change and on the Obama bandwagon. Try finding many people who admit to voting for him now, much less admit to planning to vote for him in 2012. He'd have an uphill climb against a blind monkey.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;1107723 wrote:He actually vetoed the more disturbing parts of the NDAA. And things like the NDAA have widespread Republican support. Especially from guys like Santorum. Frothy is full of shit.

  He didn't veto them. He issued an executive order to suspend some of the provisions, just in time for the election. Then with the stroke of a pen he can reinstate them. I tend not to trust the guy who sat on his throne and ordered the murder of two American citizens without any authority to do so.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  And yes Frothy is full of shit. So is Barack though.
• dtdtim

  gut;1107724 wrote:I think the Obama campaign will need to go balls out to mobilize the 18-29 group JUST TO NEUTRALIZE the ABO effect. A lot of these naive pie-in-the sky kids were extremely excited to vote in their first elections for America's first black POTUS. Many of them have been letdown and are disappointed. I expect Obama to struggle to get that big groundswell of support he had to the polls.

  I don't think anyone out there doesn't think Obama is going to go balls out to mobilize 18-29ers. Even with the disappointment in the economy, millennials (as well as the 18-29 age group in general) place nearly as much importance on social issues as they do economic policy--keep in mind that this debate isn't about the merit of that particular line of value--but it is what it is. He's not going to match the 2008 youth turnout numbers by any stretch of the imagination but they are still going to claim a fair share of the electorate;the Millennial Generation is the largest in number that the US has ever had and has trended far more to the left than Gen X in every election they've been eligible to vote (2000-Present). Either way, I think the bigger group focus should be on Latinos and the GOP-Latino Identity Crisis that needs to be rectified ASAP to help in the future coalition of the party, even morseso than young people.
  

  gut;1107724 wrote:Main difference between the ABO vote vs. the ABB vote in 2004 is the economy and employment isn't in the ****ter. Nor was there nearly the alarm over the govt debt and deficits we have today. The Obama supporters are really downplaying this, and I think Repubs haven't said more because they don't want to make the election just about the economy and employment on the unlikely chance a remarkable recovery is staged in the next 6 months.

  The GOP candidates aren't exactly doing themselves any favors by focusing on issues other than the economy. It needs to be played up AMAP because it is BY FAR the biggest selling point for the GOP. They have every opportunity to defeat Obama but if they don't focus on the economy or they allow BHO to take the conversation elsewhere it's not going to end well for them. They could easily discuss the economy even in the midst of a recovery by giving a plan for an even faster recovery. If they're running for President at this moment I would hope that they have a plan as such, or at least feel that they do. But they need to get back on that track and fast.
  

  gut;1107724 wrote: But Americans typically vote with their wallet and 90% of those heading to the polls next November are worse off than 4 years ago, and many hurting pretty badly. Romney is not particularly compelling, but he's acceptable at least to a level of indifference.

  John McCain was also not particularly compelling but acceptable at least to a level of indifference. So was John Kerry. And Bob Dole. Indifference wins no elections, and I think you are downplaying (considerably) the electoral appeal of even a half-failure BHO when stood up against Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.
  

  gut;1107724 wrote: It's going to take a ton of money and remarkable campaign for Obama to win this.He's capable of both, but I give the American people a bit more credit (and I don't give them much). If you turn the argument around, why would people come out to vote for Obama?

  See the second paragraph of my original post.
  A)I don't know how or what they do to get them out, but the O camp has always had and will again have a remarkable grassroots campaign that I just don't see Romney being able to compete with if he can't turn 'indifference' into 'excitement'.
  B)Obama has money out the ying yang and is currently spending a total of none of it. The NDP and Dem Congressional bank accounts are also fairly swell, I've heard. Meanwhile, Romney has already spent $3 million in Mississippi-a state he has virtually no chance of winning barring Santorum or Gingrich exiting.
  C)Although I think the economy slows over the summer, say it doesn't and continues growing at current pace through the election. Should no economic alternative be focused on by the GOP candidate the wallet voters aren't going to overwhelmingly vote for him. Keep in mind, polls have consistently shown more voters place blame on Congress for the economy than the President and there could possibly be a sizable portion of the electorate that believes any growth is better than no growth at all. Again, it all stems back to focusing on economics and not social reform. It's absolutely crucial, imo.
  

  gut;1107724 wrote:I think at the end of the day, there are a lot more people so upset with the direction of this country that ABO is going to dominate the number of people who are willing to double-down on a loser. I know a fair number of independents/moderates who voted for Obama, and were relatively excited/hopeful, and are now firmly on the ABO bandwagon. Obama got 53.6% of the popular vote in 2008. Back then it seemed like everyone was for hope and change and on the Obama bandwagon. Try finding many people who admit to voting for him now, much less admit to planning to vote for him in 2012. He'd have an uphill climb against a blind monkey.

  The first thing everyone in this forum should do is to stop equating 'the indepedent or moderate voter I know of that voted for Obama' with how all independents are going to vote in November. It's about as absurd of a declaration as me saying 'I know a ton of old people in Florida that voted for McCain in 2008 but now aren't so clearly Romney's going to lose the elderly vote.' There's a reason people classify themselves as independents; they don't think along the party lines that most on here do and will more than likely let things play out longer before deciding on a candidate even if they are initially ABO. ABO to an independent means far different things when ABO becomes an actual person/alternative.
  
  
  We just have to agree to disagree on what is being downplayed more but I do respect and understand your opinion and enjoy the debate. I just don't think that the ABO message is nearly as compelling to the portion of the electorate that will actually decide the election when ABO becomes Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum (at least in their current state) and this country NEEDS more than that message for things to get better regardless of who wins this election, imo. Both parties share equal amounts of blame for the smear campaigns elections have become and everyone one of us deserves better than that from those we trust to lead (or campaign to lead) our country.
  
  Sorry for the long post...I'll shut up now.
• gut

  dtdtim;1107728 wrote: The first thing everyone in this forum should do is to stop equating 'the indepedent or moderate voter I know of that voted for Obama' with how all independents are going to vote in November.

  Again, he got 53.6% of the popular vote in 2008 despite a huge groundswell of support for "hope and change" and an unprecedented mobilization of the 18-25 or so segment. How can anyone rationally claim, given the results and state of things, that Obama has less than a very large uphill climb? When the Republican candidate becomes known, most of those in the polls will be throwing their support to Romeny vs. trying to prop-up their candidate. Then you will see Obama trailing vs. whomever the Repub nominee is (and it's going to be Romney). Obama is polling similar to what Bush was in 2004, but Bush didn't have all these headwinds. Nor is Romney as stiff or unlikeable as Kerry - the guy actually has a resume to stand on. He's looking at a net negative in terms of votes from that same young group, guaranteed, and the only question is if how much he can minimize it. No way it's offsetting the independent/moderates he lost. He will have to hope they don't go to the polls. We're talking 4%.
  
  4% is not a big number (and it would take less to lose the election). There is a noticeable and stark contrast from the surge Obama enjoyed in 2008. My observations are anecdotal, but don't dismiss them as less than insightful - we are talking less than 4%, and those anecdotal observations are the swing voters he easily won in 2008 that he's pretty clearly lost in 2012. And that's IF Obama can manage to mobilize all the young, hopeful voters who went to the polls for him in 2008 and are now disappointed, disillusioned, and many jobless.
  
  And BHO is a full failure. Christ, we haven't even had a budget in 3+ years. As we get closer to the election he's going to get brutally hammered on the economy. And righfully so. Obama's ONLY chance is an unexpected and dramatic recovery. I'll go out on a limb and say it won't be surprising if Romney beats him comfortably. Not in the least. It will be a minor miracle for Obama to win this. It's going to take a boatload of money and Repubs remaining disorganized while they sit on their thumbs. Won't happen. His best chance is if Paul enters the race as a 3rd party candidate - and don't be surprised to see some Obama money go that route.
  
  I also know of large donors to Obama in 2008 who are kicking themselves for being so stupid. There's a fair amount of people out there who ignored his shortcomings to believe in the ideals he had no hope of executing on. But they've seen the light.
• gut

  Also, what about Obama's Jewish support? High 60's-70% in 2008. 50%ish now. That's worth 2% right there.
• believer

  

  gut;1107730 wrote:And BHO is a full failure. Christ, we haven't even had a budget in 3+ years. As we get closer to the election he's going to get brutally hammered on the economy. And righfully so. Obama's ONLY chance is an unexpected and dramatic recovery. I'll go out on a limb and say it won't be surprising if Romney beats him comfortably. Not in the least. It will be a minor miracle for Obama to win this. It's going to take a boatload of money and Repubs remaining disorganized while they sit on their thumbs. Won't happen. His best chance is if Paul enters the race as a 3rd party candidate - and don't be surprised to see some Obama money go that route.
  
  I also know of large donors to Obama in 2008 who are kicking themselves for being so stupid. There's a fair amount of people out there who ignored his shortcomings to believe in the ideals he had no hope of executing on. But they've seen the light.

  No question about it.
  
  I know plenty of Dems in my life who have flat out told me that they're disgusted with the Bammer and that they will have no problem voting for Romney.
  
  Like you said, the easiest path to a BHO re-election is if Paul goes third party. I'm hoping that based on Paul's anemic performance yesterday - combined with his age - he decides that a third party campaign will only be beneficial to the Obama campaign. That could very well be the case if Romney offers Rand a veep position.
• QuakerOats

  gut --- excellent post, despite its 3:39 am thought process
  
  High unemployment and high gas prices will devour obama, without ever treading into all of his radical policies. And at least half of the independents who felt it necessary to vote for him the last time, will be abandoning him this time; the numbers already reflect that.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Buyers remorse is kicking in full gear as the Obama regime and his minion of DemoKrats continue to run this country in the ground. The Jewish vote tips the scales and the GOP will reign.
  
  
  November 2012 can not get here fast enough.....
  
  That's change we all need.....
• Apple

  

  gut;1107732 wrote:Also, what about Obama's Jewish support? High 60's-70% in 2008. 50%ish now. That's worth 2% right there.

  I'm thinking that support of BHO from the Catholic vote will be significantly less this time around as well.
  
  With the less support from Jewish, Catholics, youth, independents and even some Democrats, where does BHO make up the difference? Women! ...hence all the trumped up contraceptive and women's issues that the MSM continues to identify as the major issue.
• IggyPride00

  

  Santorum lost the Catholic vote in Ohio to Romney by 12 points (43-31) in a relative shocker.
  
  Turns out the Catholic vote in the major metro area is what gave Romney the win. Who'd have predicted that coming in?
• dwccrew

  

  believer;1107733 wrote:No question about it.
  
  I know plenty of Dems in my life who have flat out told me that they're disgusted with the Bammer and that they will have no problem voting for Romney.
  
  Like you said, the easiest path to a BHO re-election is if Paul goes third party. I'm hoping that based on Paul's anemic performance yesterday - combined with his age - he decides that a third party campaign will only be beneficial to the Obama campaign. That could very well be the case if Romney offers Rand a veep position.

  
  I thought I heard a sound bite in which Ron Paul stated he most likely would not seek election as a third party canidate. He didn't in '08 and I doubt he would in '12.