Republican candidates for 2012
-
2kool4skool
When you understand what to look for, and pay attention, it's not at all. Anyone who knows what they're talking about understands Obama is probably a 7-1 favorite at worst to win reelection.fish82;1131180 wrote:It's pretty silly to call it this early, fwiw.
That is in no way a judgement from me on his quality as President, it's just the reality of the situation.
I mean, you're the guy who said stuff like this.
fish82;829409 wrote:If Perry runs, We'll be in bed by 10:30 on election night.
You thought RICK PERRY would not only be the Republican nominee by Super Tuesday if he ran, but also win a blowout general election!?!?! I really can't think of anyone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to predicting political races who wasn't lol'ing when people thought Perry had a chance to win the nom, much less a general election.fish82;850264 wrote:If he[Perry] decides to run, he'll win it going away. Romney won't see Super Tuesday.
Plus, we've been down this road before. You considered wagering me(but later backed off) that Bachman would be President!!! Jesus dude :laugh:
fish82;808956 wrote:I dunno...how angry will you people be when Michelle Bachmann is elected?2kool4skool;808966 wrote:But if you're confident, please name the amount you would like to bet on Bachmann being elected.
I'm sure you're a pretty intelligent guy, but just not when it comes to predicting political races. Sorry.fish82;809130 wrote:Did you have a number in mind? -
fish82
LOL...I understand perfectly well what to look for, Junior. Obama leads Mitt within the MOE in the national poll. In the swing states that will decide the election, Obama leads a couple, Mitt leads a couple, and several are within the MOE.2kool4skool;1131265 wrote:When you understand what to look for, and pay attention, it's not at all. Anyone who knows what they're talking about understands Obama is probably a 7-1 favorite at worst to win reelection.
That is in no way a judgement from me on his quality as President, it's just the reality of the situation.
Yeah, that wasn't tongue in cheek or anything. :rolleyes:2kool4skool;1131265 wrote:I mean, you're the guy who said stuff like this.
You thought RICK PERRY would not only be the Republican nominee by Super Tuesday if he ran, but also win a blowout general election!?!?! I really can't think of anyone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to predicting political races who wasn't lol'ing when people thought Perry had a chance to win the nom, much less a general election.
But fair is fair I suppose...you got me, Inspector gadget. I missed one. Wanna tally up the ones I've been dead to rights on? Didn't think so. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman the hate criminal is escaping justice as we speak...while you pour through 6 months worth of posts to find one thing I got wrong. Priorities, man!!!
Broski...again...I was mocking you people for foaming at the mouth when she had her time at the top of the polls. The question was framed around your collective heads exploding should she be elected. I'm a little disappointed you chose to just pick quotes out of old threads sans context, but the more of your stuff I read, I guess I'm not surprised.2kool4skool;1131265 wrote:Plus, we've been down this road before. You considered wagering me(but later backed off) that Bachman would be President!!! Jesus dude :laugh:
As I said, I've "missed" one in 2 1/2 years on here. I'm like 15-1...Whoooooooooooo! Run along....George is probably out killing more black people on your watch, or there are some titty threads to post on. Ciao.2kool4skool;1131265 wrote:I'm sure you're a pretty intelligent guy, but just not when it comes to predicting political races. Sorry.
-
Footwedge
7-1? Don't think so. Obama is just slightly better than a 9-5 favorite right now.2kool4skool;1131265 wrote:When you understand what to look for, and pay attention, it's not at all. Anyone who knows what they're talking about understands Obama is probably a 7-1 favorite at worst to win reelection.
.
http://www.pinnaclesports.com/ContestCategory/Politics/Lines.aspx -
2kool4skool
And I've already put significant money on Obama to win reelection(but back when it was -115), just as I did Romney to be the nominee. If you want to make money, you should follow my lead. Though don't bother betting on Romney now, as the odds have moved way too much. He was an underdog when I bet on him 18 months or so ago.Footwedge;1131314 wrote:7-1? Don't think so. Obama is just slightly better than a 9-5 favorite right now.
http://www.pinnaclesports.com/ContestCategory/Politics/Lines.aspx
Vegas odds aren't reflective of what the actual chances are, they're set to encourage equal betting on both sides so the sportsbook makes money no matter who wins. Realizing this, is the first step to making money via betting. -
2kool4skool
Evidently not, you were convinced if someone like Rick Perry ran, he was a lock to win in a blowout.fish82;1131308 wrote:LOL...I understand perfectly well what to look for, Junior.
There didn't seem to be anything tongue in cheek about it. You posted twice that if Perry ran, it was over for Romney(and Obama.)Yeah, that wasn't tongue in cheek or anything. :rolleyes:
You compared the chances of Bachman being elected to Obama being an underdog in 08. That comparison is nutty as the chances weren't anywhere close. Then you asked if I had a number in mind for our bet(which I gave, but you failed to accept, so I do give you credit for realizing you would come out on the losing end of that one.) I like how you weren't being serious about the things you get dead wrong though, I sense a pattern...The question was framed around your collective heads exploding should she be elected. I'm a little disappointed you chose to just pick quotes out of old threads sans context, but the more of your stuff I read, I guess I'm not surprised.
In my couple minute search I found two. Obama losing reelection will be the 3rd. It seems unlikely I stumbled upon the only two things you've been wrong about(and REALLY wrong at that) but I'll take your word for it.As I said, I've "missed" one in 2 1/2 years on here.
I did "lol" at addressing someone as "junior" on the internet though. It's really not a big deal or anything to get worked up about, you're just not a solid political forecaster. It's a fairly useless skill anyway unless you gamble on it.
But, the internet is serious business and all -
Footwedge
Spare me the lecture on how how books make their money. I think I know a little bit on the subject.The point is...right now Obama is 19-10 favorite according to off shore books. If you think the odds are in fact 7-1, then you probably should keep pounding Obama. My take? These odds are pretty close to reality.2kool4skool;1131322 wrote:And I've already put significant money on Obama to win reelection(but back when it was -115), just as I did Romney to be the nominee. If you want to make money, you should follow my lead. Though don't bother betting on Romney now, as the odds have moved way too much. He was an underdog when I bet on him 18 months or so ago.
Vegas odds aren't reflective of what the actual chances are, they're set to encourage equal betting on both sides so the sportsbook makes money no matter who wins. Realizing this, is the first step to making money via betting. -
2kool4skool
Oh believe me, I am(no homo.)Footwedge;1131334 wrote:If you think the odds are in fact 7-1, then you probably should keep pounding Obama -
fish82
Apparently it is...for you anyway.2kool4skool;1131329 wrote:Evidently not, you were convinced if someone like Rick Perry ran, he was a lock to win in a blowout.
There didn't seem to be anything tongue in cheek about it. You posted twice that if Perry ran, it was over for Romney(and Obama.)
You compared the chances of Bachman being elected to Obama being an underdog in 08. That comparison is nutty as the chances weren't anywhere close. Then you asked if I had a number in mind for our bet(which I gave, but you failed to accept, so I do give you credit for realizing you would come out on the losing end of that one.) I like how you weren't being serious about the things you get dead wrong though, I sense a pattern...
In my couple minute search I found two. Obama losing reelection will be the 3rd. It seems unlikely I stumbled upon the only two things you've been wrong about(and REALLY wrong at that) but I'll take your word for it.
I did "lol" at addressing someone as "junior" on the internet though. It's really not a big deal or anything to get worked up about, you're just not a solid political forecaster. It's a fairly useless skill anyway unless you gamble on it.
But, the internet is serious business and all
By all means, keep shadowing me though...as I said...muy entertaining.
LOLing pretty hard here. Keep up the good fight.2kool4skool;1131329 wrote: You compared the chances of Bachman being elected to Obama being an underdog in 08. That comparison is nutty as the chances weren't anywhere close. Then you asked if I had a number in mind for our bet(which I gave, but you failed to accept, so I do give you credit for realizing you would come out on the losing end of that one.) I like how you weren't being serious about the things you get dead wrong though, I sense a pattern... -
BoatShoes
I was wrong. The Progressive's budget last year projected a .1% surplus by 2021. This year they project 1.6% deficits by 2021 like Mr. Ryan's plan and don't project beyond that so you're right there too. As with Van Hollen's the reason I said "Essentially the same" is because he projects deficits under the 3% danger threshold which Mr. Ryan himself uses to justify his long term budget deficits as not being a bad thing (unlike BHO who projects 5% deficits ad infinitum). Probably bad phraseology to say "the same."fish82;1131203 wrote:Paul's is at 1.2% by 2022. So, no...it's not "just like" at all really. How is their budget balanced in "half the time," when they don't even project out? That seems kinda silly, no? -
ptown_trojans_1
Historically, yes, you are right. But, since WWII, Truman helped set up the current National Security structure, JFK helped cool tensions after Cuba and Berlin, and Clinton was actually not that bad post Somalia.believer;1130643 wrote:Historically Republican presidents are viewed to have stronger foreign and defense policies than Dems. You would think that a person in your line of work would tend to lean that direction, but it's becoming increasingly clear that Big Government Barry is your choice over "Mittens".
Oh yeah, by the way, screw that economy thingy. As long as you Beltway Boys are directly or indirectly collecting a healthy Fed paycheck and cushy bennies, all is good.
Still, LBJ and Carter skew the field.
I'll also say my favorite President's since Watergate are Reagan 85-89 and HW Bush. Brent Scrowcoft is one of my favorite foreign policy advisers. Very strategic and thoughtful.
But, Obama hasn't been that bad., He has been consistent, using American power where needed, and holding back where needed. Now, sure he could handle things better (North Korea and the current FAIL of a deal). But, his policy against Iran, Afgh, and China is pretty damn good and I'd say is better than W.
All that said, Romney has not advanced any strategic or scholarly ideas. His ideas are very broad, generic, and unspecific. Plus, they are not actually that much different than what we are doing today.
He has also not really separated himself on what exactly he would do in Iran or Afghanistan. Plus, his gaffe with Russia is pretty bad, plus his rational against New START made no sense.
I read today that Romney will have a new speech related to foreign policy in April or May. Hopefully, he brings out a logical foreign policy that makes some strategic sense and contains some specifics, mainly on the big three issues: Iran, Afghanistan, and China.
As to me, I did vote for Obama, but was a McCain supporter until he picked Palin. I also can easily see my vote swinging if Romney can provide a coherent, logical, and scholarly strategic vision and some specifics. But, right now, I'll stick with the liberal, even though, I'm not keen on his domestic policy. -
HitsRus
Condi Rice was quoted recently as saying that Obama has done a pretty good job building on what Bush began....and Rice has met a few times with BHO over the course of his term. I'm not sure about China, but AFGH and Iran look about the same as W.). But, his policy against Iran, Afgh, and China is pretty damn good and I'd say is better than W. -
believer
For me it's a mix of foreign and domestic/fiscal policy. Right now the latter is tipping the scale.ptown_trojans_1;1132260 wrote:As to me, I did vote for Obama, but was a McCain supporter until he picked Palin. I also can easily see my vote swinging if Romney can provide a coherent, logical, and scholarly strategic vision and some specifics. But, right now, I'll stick with the liberal, even though, I'm not keen on his domestic policy.
Trillion dollar deficits, the infamous Porkulus Package, unemployment stuck in the 8.5 to 9.8% range for over three years, the ObamaCare Debacle, UAW/Gubmint Motors bailout, gasoline prices that have climbed from $1.89 a gallon to near $4 a gallon in 3 years, the Canadian Pipeline "veto", and much more far outweigh the fact that the Obama Administration has been smart enough to adopt most of "W's" foreign policy views.
I'm going to make the assumption that Romney will tend to lean the Bush/Obama direction with regard to foreign policy. But based on the Obama fiscal track record, I'm more than willing to give Romney a chance to see what damage he can do. -
believer
For me it's a mix of foreign and domestic/fiscal policy. Right now the latter is tipping the scale.ptown_trojans_1;1132260 wrote:As to me, I did vote for Obama, but was a McCain supporter until he picked Palin. I also can easily see my vote swinging if Romney can provide a coherent, logical, and scholarly strategic vision and some specifics. But, right now, I'll stick with the liberal, even though, I'm not keen on his domestic policy.
Trillion dollar deficits, the infamous Porkulus Package, unemployment stuck in the 8.5 to 9.8% range for over three years, the ObamaCare Debacle, UAW/Gubmint Motors bailout, gasoline prices that have climbed from $1.89 a gallon to near $4 a gallon in 3 years, endless unemployment extensions, astronomical growth of Food Stamp/welfare rolls, the Canadian Pipeline "veto", and much more far outweigh the fact that the Obama Administration has been smart enough to adopt most of "W's" foreign policy views.
I'm going to make the assumption that Romney will tend to lean the Bush/Obama direction with regard to foreign policy. But based on the Obama fiscal track record, I'm more than willing to give Romney a chance to see what damage he can do. -
HitsRus
^^^ Established foreign policy alot of times runs itself...the state department is huge and staffed by career diplomats that transcend administrations. It takes a lot of push to change long established policies, and to do so would create ripples far beyond what the uninformed see or envision. Only when something comes along to disturb the status quo ( like 9/11) do you see major changes. At key points, the President and his administration have to make decisions. I don't have too much beef at what BHO has done so far regarding foreign policy, his open mike gaffe not withstanding.
Like believer, it's the domestic stuff which horrifies me....and his claim that his energy policy is "all of the above" is a blatant baldfaced lie. -
ptown_trojans_1
On China, he is shifting all of hard power assets to the Pacific region. We are shifting forces to Guam, Philippines, and Australia. Plus, we are moving to closer to other regional states such as Vietnam and Thailand. The point is to put some pressure on the Chinese, let them know we are not going anywhere.HitsRus;1132302 wrote:Condi Rice was quoted recently as saying that Obama has done a pretty good job building on what Bush began....and Rice has met a few times with BHO over the course of his term. I'm not sure about China, but AFGH and Iran look about the same as W.
Obviously, foreign policy has a greater weight for me, as to me, President's are measured by their foreign policy more than domestic. But, I do see your point, and I wouldn't rule out my switching over to support Romney once he clinches (he will) and then moves to pick a VP and clarify his positions.believer;1132467 wrote:For me it's a mix of foreign and domestic/fiscal policy. Right now the latter is tipping the scale.
Trillion dollar deficits, the infamous Porkulus Package, unemployment stuck in the 8.5 to 9.8% range for over three years, the ObamaCare Debacle, UAW/Gubmint Motors bailout, gasoline prices that have climbed from $1.89 a gallon to near $4 a gallon in 3 years, endless unemployment extensions, astronomical growth of Food Stamp/welfare rolls, the Canadian Pipeline "veto", and much more far outweigh the fact that the Obama Administration has been smart enough to adopt most of "W's" foreign policy views.
I'm going to make the assumption that Romney will tend to lean the Bush/Obama direction with regard to foreign policy. But based on the Obama fiscal track record, I'm more than willing to give Romney a chance to see what damage he can do.
Yes, the infrastructure and career civilian and military officials continue largely the same policies, but the President does appoint a lot of Under Secretaries that have a lot of power in the process. Three examples from the previous administration (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfiwitz, and John Bolton) had a tremendous influence on W's foreign policy, his rational for Iraq, Gitmo, and other various Necon perspective.HitsRus;1132504 wrote:^^^ Established foreign policy alot of times runs itself...the state department is huge and staffed by career diplomats that transcend administrations. It takes a lot of push to change long established policies, and to do so would create ripples far beyond what the uninformed see or envision. Only when something comes along to disturb the status quo ( like 9/11) do you see major changes. At key points, the President and his administration have to make decisions. I don't have too much beef at what BHO has done so far regarding foreign policy, his open mike gaffe not withstanding.
Like believer, it's the domestic stuff which horrifies me....and his claim that his energy policy is "all of the above" is a blatant baldfaced lie.
I do agree on your last point, not a real fan of the energy policy. I see some merits, but he could obviously do more. -
Footwedge
*Neoconptown_trojans_1;1132571 wrote:
Yes, the infrastructure and career civilian and military officials continue largely the same policies, but the President does appoint a lot of Under Secretaries that have a lot of power in the process. Three examples from the previous administration (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfiwitz, and John Bolton) had a tremendous influence on W's foreign policy, his rational for Iraq, Gitmo, and other various Necon perspective.
I do agree on your last point, not a real fan of the energy policy. I see some merits, but he could obviously do more.
.
And you're right on...on the 3 you mentioned. But let's not forget Cheney, Libby, Delay, and Rummy either. If I was the head of the Justice System, all 7 of these monsters would be pounding big rocks into pebbles...daily.
The carnage and cost continue to accumulate thanks to them. -
believer
Yeah...maybe neolibs Holder, Biden, Frank, Pelosi, Geithner, and Dodd can join 'em.Footwedge;1133933 wrote:*Neocon.
And you're right on...on the 3 you mentioned. But let's not forget Cheney, Libby, Delay, and Rummy either. If I was the head of the Justice System, all 7 of these monsters would be pounding big rocks into pebbles...daily. -
majorspark
All you people foaming at the mouth over Rick Santorum can rest easy. He's dropping out. -
WebFire
Quitter.majorspark;1141004 wrote:All you people foaming at the mouth over Rick Santorum can rest easy. He's dropping out. -
gut
Now hopefully Gingrich gets the message. No chance of a contested nomination (or whatever you call it) with Santorum dropping out, I don't think.majorspark;1141004 wrote:All you people foaming at the mouth over Rick Santorum can rest easy. He's dropping out.
EDIT: Oh well, I guess Newt still has more books to sell. -
BGFalcons82
Since the Republican side has been fractured up until this afternoon, it will be interesting to watch how the national polling is affected. More appropriately, the state-by-state polling will come further into focus as we are still using the Electoral College. -
jhay78
I give Santorum credit for taking it this far with pretty much nothing more than an old Dodge pickup and a few hundred grand in Iowa. In the end Romney's carpet-bombing, along with conservatives split among 3 candidates, along with pretty much every prominent Republican politician and conservative media talking head endorsing Romney were too much to overcome.
This guy sums up my worries about the fall campaign:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/10/were-all-in-troubleNow we will put to the test what was always an odd claim, namely that Mitt Romney is well positioned and well equipped to defeat Barack Obama this fall. This is a man who lost by 17 points to an incredibly weakened Ted Kennedy (people forget how vulnerable Kennedy was that year) in one of the most pro-Republican years in history, 1994 (the same year in which Rick Santorum won yet another upset victory); a man who would have been handily defeated if he had run for re-election as governor of Massachusetts in 2006; and a man who could barely squeak past his GOP opponents this year despite running almost non-stop for nearly six full years and despite outspending all of them combined by at least a 2-1 margin, while outspending each of them individually by at least 4-1 and running ads that were 90% negative against them.
Plus, he's a perfect caricature for Obama's anti-corporate-elite message to take root. Plus, he's plastic.
The GOP establishment -- the money men, the consultants who so repeatedly spread the message that only Romney could beat Obama while they angled for a piece of the lucrative campaign pie, the hangers-on and officious kingmakers, and the cultural elitists who secretly share much of the big media's cultural attitudes and disdain for middle America -- now must prove they can actually deliver a victory. If they can't, the GOP should have a figurative bloodletting that banishes them forever from party power.
Nonetheless, every conservative, and everybody who loves this country and cares about its traditions, its Constitution, and its freedom, should do nothing other than help that establishment succeed in this election. Objectively speaking, almost any analyst would say that from the standpoint of a conservative of conscience and a lover of liberty as conservatives understand it, Romney certainly should appear a better choice than Obama -- by an almost astronomical degree. Conservatives would do far better for themselves to hold their noses and work hard for Romney than they would if they stood back, stayed home, and watched the forces of Big Government complete their extreme makeover of American society.
Mitt Romney has none of the personally obnoxious qualities of John McCain. He doesn't go out of his way to insult people, especially conservatives. He does show an understanding of most free-market principles. He seems to have an exemplary family life. He doesn't have temper tantrums like McCain does. If conservatives had been able to have Romney as the Republican candidate four years ago, rather than McCain, they would have been extremely relieved.
An Obama second term would feature expanded use of executive orders, expanded abuses via administrative fiat, further retrenchment from military strength -- and a real effort to stack the judiciary with ideologues who will refuse to rein in these abuses. In fact, the likelihood is reasonably high that he will be able to replace a moderate or conservative on the Supreme Court with a statist ideologue -- and thus secure an Alinskyite vision of a power grab on behalf of radical aims.
Mitt Romney will not do that. Conservatives should leave no doubt that they will not be responsible for failing to try to put him over the top in what is sure to be a brutal and vicious campaign. -
BoatShoesAnd the Freepers are still trashing Romney.
Does the Tea Party go whimpering into the night like Seamus?
-
ptown_trojans_1
If Romney has any brains, he would hammer Obama on the North Korea policy. Because, it has been a total failure, just like Bush's and Clinton's.
-
believer
It's the economy stupid.ptown_trojans_1;1143071 wrote:If Romney has any brains, he would hammer Obama on the North Korea policy. Because, it has been a total failure, just like Bush's and Clinton's.