Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XI

[Matt]

And the hard right base's mere presence (personified in the crap on Fox News) energizes the otherwise beleaguered liberal base. It's a self-feeding cycle.

No it doesn't. Our side has always been notoriously apathetic, even when dealing with the likes of George W. Bush's second term. Do you really think that Romney is enough to scare them into action? If it were Palin or Santorum or a truly scary conservative, you may have a point, but despite Romney's attempt to pander to the right in the primary (which most people saw through anyway), he will not mobilize liberals in a way that is even close to comparable to the way Obama's presence energized the conservative base.

Also, I have to say I don't get why Romney people are pushing Rubio so hard (he's clearly being vetted). He may help in Florida with Cuban-Americans, but he brings nothing to the table anywhere else because he is a far-right fire-breather that Romney is going to pretend during the general he's not and most hispanic voters disagree with Rubio's platform. It's not nearly as bad, but it's similar to when McCain picked Palin to pander to women voters.

I still think it probably will be Portman. If one thing defines Romney, it is cautious predictability. Portman offers him that. ON a side note, it's going to attempt at ruining the (stage) name of one of my favorite actresses.

Oh well.

I just don't see what Portman brings to the ticket. That has to be something that is considered moving forward. Portman won't deliver Ohio. I think if Romney can find a running mate who delivers a swing state, he will go with them. Romney doesn't need a game changer but he does need someone who does something other than being the safe choice.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I think the most mobilizing force for the Left right now is Paul Ryan. I hope he's picked for the VP.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Obama's best bet is to villainize the Republican party as a whole(especially the far right parts of it) and tie Romney up to that. That would be enough to scare alot of people into voting Democrat while not pissing off independents.

Scare tactics just aren't going to work.

The problem is if you look at Obama's record as POTUS, he is a centrist. He's basically bended over backwards on many issues to appease the Republicans with little or no compromise coming from the other side.

Obama being a "centrist" comes from the fact that he had no choice but to. But his Senate record is the complete opposite. And he's running on the left once again.

Also you can't blame the Republicans for not wanting to work with him after the way he treated the GOP during the first two years of his term.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think the most mobilizing force for the Left right now is Paul Ryan. I hope he's picked for the VP.

I can agree with that.

 

[enterthemadness]

Interesting. Exciting. Keep it up.

http://www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2012/04/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-polling-at-15-in-new-mexico/


Gary Johnson polling 15% in New Mexico new poll says.

 

[Matt]

ETM, we have a libertarian thread. Discuss Gary Johnson there, please.

 

[Superman]

I find it rather hypocritical to criticize the right for their double standards (which do exist) when the left has been showing the exact same double standards towards Obama.

I never said they didn't, But since this is the Republican thread I don't see the point of talking about what Dems do other than to change the subject from what the Repubs are doing, Something Right Wingers love to do when it's something they don't want to talk about.

You want to talk about the Dems double standards, Knock yourself out, The place to do that is the Dems thread, That is unless you are trying to change the subject with the old "They do it too" tactic.

As for me I'll stick to Repubs in the repubs thread thank you.t:

 

[Marx]

I still think Romney is a very weak candidate. President Obama can argue that the economy is getting better and that things are, in fact, improving. It might be incredibly slow progress, but it is still progress.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Overall, Romney certainly is a weak candidate. Smart, but weak. If Obama didn't have such a bad hand of cards, he would easily crush Romney.

 

[Matt]

I still think Romney is a very weak candidate. President Obama can argue that the economy is getting better and that things are, in fact, improving. It might be incredibly slow progress, but it is still progress.

While you are right that Romney is a weak candidate, so is Obama because this isn't 2008 anymore and he actually has a record to run on this time (and a weak one at that). Obama is probably the most beatable sitting president since Carter (and I include H.W. Bush because if you take Perot out of the equation, he kills Clinton, his loss was almost a fluke). Romney is weak, but Obama is beatable. Even by a weak candidate.

As for your other point, Obama can argue whatever he'd like but it'll make him look worse. For him to go on stage and say, "It's getting better, it is just slow and there's nothing I can do about that," when the unemployment rate is between 8-10 % and people are paying out of their asses for gas would come across as INCREDIBLY out of touch.

Obama needs to accept that the economy is still terrible for the average Joe (no matter what the DOW and NASDAQ say....they are just meaningless numbers to most Americans), andnot blame Bush, not blame Republicans but just own up and try to present the case that what he has done is helping it and that Romney will undo any progress that has been made and set it right back on the track it was on.

Like I said, Obama is beatable right now. God help him if his healthcare law gets overturned. Being as no one cares about foreign policy at the moment (which means Bin Laden and Gaddafi equate to jack ****), if Obamacare gets overturned, Obama's entire platform will have to consist of asking America for a mulligan. When you factor in that Romney will no longer have to campaign on repealing Obamacare (which means it can't really be used against him), that will spell bad news for Obama.

 

[Matt]

Overall, Romney certainly is a weak candidate. Smart, but weak. If Obama didn't have such a bad hand of cards, he would easily crush Romney.

And there's the rub. Romney is a weak candidate, but like I said, Obama is a weak incumbent. Weaker than H.W. Bush who lost primarily due to Perot. Obama's probably the weakest incumbent since Carter.

I think that Obama will ultimately win, because I think he will take Ohio, PA and Florida (unless Romney picks Ridge ) but it is going to be a close one. Americans aren't happy with Obama, he is beatable. Any competent Republican would probably beat him. It is really too bad that the Republicans decided not to run any this time around.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I personally think that Romney will come out on top in Florida. I think it's down to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado.

 

[Matt]

I personally think that Romney will come out on top in Florida. I think it's down to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado.

I just think Romney is too disconnected from Latino voters to take Florida. And every time he makes a play to win them over, the disconnect grows it seems.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I just think Romney is too disconnected from Latino voters to take Florida. And every time he makes a play to win them over, the disconnect grows it seems.

But much of Florida's Latino vote are Cubans which are a reliable Republican voting bloc.

Romney's Latino problem is going to be more of a factor in states like Colorado and Nevada.

 

[Chris B]

The thing is, when you look at the polls, Obama is doing pretty good right now despite being such a vulnerable incumbent on the surface.

Granted, the election is over six months away and a lot can happen until then, but I think baring some catastrophe, he'll get another term.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The thing is, when you look at the polls, Obama is doing pretty good right now despite being such a vulnerable incumbent on the surface.

Not really. An incumbent shouldn't be having polls where the challenger is in a statistical tie, an actual tie, or winning. His RCP Average is less than 4% and he almost never goes above 50% in any poll. Especially considering how bad the primary process hurt the GOP candidates.

 

[Chris B]

Not really. An incumbent shouldn't be having polls where the challenger is in a statistical tie, an actual tie, or winning. His RCP Average is less than 4% and he almost never goes above 50% in any poll. Especially considering how bad the primary process hurt the GOP candidates.

I'll concede that his lead is often within the margin of error in a lot of polls. Still, it's not like Romney is blowing him out of the water either.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'll concede that his lead is often within the margin of error in a lot of polls. Still, it's not like Romney is blowing him out of the water either.

You're right that Romney isn't blowing him out of the water, but look at this from a historical perspective, at this point of the race incumbents like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush held comfortable leads over Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and they still lost by comfortable margins. Consider how much of a weak candidate Romney is and Obama does not have a comfortable lead over him is not a good sign at all. Consider the absolute lunacy that were the GOP primaries and Obama does not have a comfortable lead developed by that clown show is possibly one of the worst signs for him possible.

For an incumbent, Obama should be doing much, much better.

 

[Matt]

If Obama wins re-election, he should send fruit baskets or something as a thank you to Gingrich and Santorum. If Romney took the nomination after New Hampshire, Obama's presidency would be in serious jeopardy. Instead Romney had to go further and further right, deal with manufactured issues like the GOP's war on women, etc. It made him an even weaker candidate than he already was.

So yeah, should Obama win, he owes those two gentlemen quite a bit.

 

[SV Fan]

You're right that Romney isn't blowing him out of the water, but look at this from a historical perspective, at this point of the race incumbents like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush held comfortable leads over Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and they still lost by comfortable margins. Consider how much of a weak candidate Romney is and Obama does not have a comfortable lead over him is not a good sign at all. Consider the absolute lunacy that were the GOP primaries and Obama does not have a comfortable lead developed by that clown show is possibly one of the worst signs for him possible.

For an incumbent, Obama should be doing much, much better.

This was from May 20, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

The sharp national divide continues on many topics, but may best be illustrated with the current presidential horse race numbers. If the election were held today, the head-to-head matchup between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry shows the candidates would be tied at 42 percent each. Earlier this month Bush was at 44 percent and Kerry 41 percent.

Bush won even though they were stastically even.

In the case of Mitt Romney, I really need he thinks to drop the Obama sucks, i will do better speeches, at some point most people will realize that "i can do better" is a rather baseless statement that doesn't really say much. I think people want to hear what he would do to make things better

 

[Handsome Rob]

This was from May 20, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Bush won even though they were stastically even.

In the case of Mitt Romney, I really need he thinks to drop the Obama sucks, i will do better speeches, at some point most people will realize that "i can do better" is a rather baseless statement that doesn't really say much. I think people want to hear what he would do to make things better

No less baseless than "hope" and "change." I do agree with you--Romney (and any Presidential candidate) should be more willing to go into specifics and not just come up with generalities that make for good soundbites. "I can do better" is meaningless without the specifics to back it up.

Although, you see how many swooned over Obama and put him in office. So, superficial, meaningless fluff wins over a lot of sheep--that's why they do it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This was from May 20, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Bush won even though they were stastically even.

In the case of Mitt Romney, I really need he thinks to drop the Obama sucks, i will do better speeches, at some point most people will realize that "i can do better" is a rather baseless statement that doesn't really say much. I think people want to hear what he would do to make things better

Bush was also a very weak incumbent. If the economy were slightly crappier, I am in the firm belief that he would have lost to John Kerry.

 

[Marx]

I still maintain that Mitt Romney is the republican version of John Kerry.

 

[Matt]

And because you want to believe that you ignore that Kerry could've beat Bush if not for 9/11 and the fact that we were at the beginning of a recession rather than in the midst of one. Things didn't really get bad until early 2006.

 

[Matt]

Bush was also a very weak incumbent. If the economy were slightly crappier, I am in the firm belief that he would have lost to John Kerry.

I also think the war played a role. Most did not realize how bad things were until late 2005/early 2006 and Americans tend to be very reluctant to change commander-in-chief during war time unless things get REALLY bad.