Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Who's gonna win? Who do you want to win? Do you care? Where is ho_fo?
but I think that Romney will win, however, I really, really hope that Bachman does.
Bachmann? why I have to ask?
would that Herman Cain were still in the race.
I'm too scared of electoral fraud to hope for anything like that.
Despite Bush being on paper totally unsuitable for presidency, he had the entire GOP machine behind him through all levels of the country. From campaigners on the ground, to party grandees, to local administrators, to TV networks and big business. Bachmann won’t have that.
I've quite enjoyed the fact she has cancelled half her public appearances this week, because no-one was showing up.
I'd just be too scared of having her a step nearer the presidency.
But in all seriousness, I'm hoping for a Bachmann victory, just to divide them further. Realistically it'll be Paul or Huntsman, maybe Romney. Huntsman for the nomination in the end.
but I can't see who else could get it, with the party in the state it is
I think he's got an outside chance if the moderates end up with no other place to go.
and the fact he's fairly centrist might attract votes from people who think he's got the best chance of taking votes from Obama. Which he probably does, even if it's still not that likely he will.
Romney is the boring, safe one.
fact is, a lot of Americans, particularly on the far right, won't go near a Mormon candidate with a bargepole. His politics are pretty safe compared to the raving lunacy of Bachmann and others, but it's hampering him. There's a reason that the other candidates are running, at least partly, on a 'not being Mitt Romney' platform.
Well, two questions:
a) Are the majority of Republican voters as extreme as tea party speakers make them out to be/want them to be?
b) Will people try to vote for a candidate that can compete with Obama on the centre ground?
I actually think (and it's a hunch rather than something I have evidence for and I could well be completely wrong) a lot of Republicans are privately turned off by the more extreme rhetoric and will want to vote for a more Centrist candidate and that ultimately the likes of Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich will be edged out for that reason alone.
It's probably an error in my phraseology but I'm not claiming for a second Romney or Huntsman are moderate centrists just that I wonder if, even taking into account how far right the Republican party is (and arguably has to be since Obama's pretty much got the centre ground sewn up) I think most of the candidates on offer are still much further to the right than the voters are - the fact that Romney is seen as the most moderate and balanced candidate is a sign that it's an incredibly extreme pack, even by Republican standards.
And, as said before, it's not a great bunch of candidates. There isn't some outstanding charismatic figure who can act as a flagship for Reagan Conservatives, even if they want them. Newt Gingrich is to Reagan as William Hague was to Margaret Thatcher and, contrary to what you say, I think a lot of voters will not assume anyone can beat Obama but instead be even more determined to select a candidate who will.
With regard to b) I don't actually think Huntsman is the best choice to beat Obama, just that he's the sort of compromise candidate who - were Romney not in the race - might be misguidedly put forward in much the same way Kerry was picked in 2004 'cos nobody felt as strongly against him as they did against anyone else.
I think the 2004 election is a good comparison for a different reason to the one you suggest - I don't there was an assumption amongst most that anyone could beat Bush. I think Kerry was picked 'cos he was a war veteran and moderate and considered to be the least likely to alienate the undecided voters. But that's the exact reason it was a poor choice 'cos it just made the election about Bush vs Anti-Bush and the lack of a strong presence beyond general anti-Bushness is pretty much the exact reason Kerry lost.
I think the Republican determination to beat Obama at any costs could easily see them make the same mistake and put forward a candidate that they perceive to be the 'safest'' choice against Obama (probably Romney obviously - I don't think Huntsman will get the nomination but simply wouldn't completely discount the possibility) and ignore the fact that he's someone that both the Republicans and floating voters alike will be pretty apathetic about.
Your comparison with McCain is a good point but all it shows is that the Republicans would be making a mistake (not that I think there is a candidate who is a good choice in any case), not that that mistake won't be made.
Personally I think initially Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum will split each other's votes as will Romney and Huntsman (obv. after Iowa) so Ron Paul'll do well initially until other candidates step out the race and the votes start to be concentrated. I think, even then, the right of the party won't have as much support as it thinks it does and it'll be most likely Romney (or Huntsman if he manages to edge Romney out of the moderate Republican votes) who ultimately takes it.
Still skeptical about whether anyone can beat Obama though...
and I agree, Obama will get it, if purely for Bin Laden and the lack of a really strong Republican alternative.
He's allegedly surged recently in Iowa too. If he gets top three today there's a vague chance he can pull it round - unlikely though.
If there's a more telling line about the state of American Politics right now, then I'd like to see it: "He described himself as a leader of a band of nuanced partisans. “We’re post-New Deal conservatives, not anti-New Deal conservatives,” he said."
That's the New Deal from 1933-6, almost 80 years ago now.
Also like the part where he says he liked working with Clinton... Could swear he spent most of his time as speaker trying to get Clinton to resign from office or refusing to play ball on government borrowing....
Sounds like a pyschopath. And I mean that medically, rather than metaphorically.
Which everyone then blamed Newt for and Clinton cantered to a second term.
Also Newt ditched his cancer suffering wife in hospital. Whadda guy
and also he will be the Republican candidate for President.
Do I particularly care? No.
I think that's ultimately going to undermine his bid.
but from what I've heard and read RP is really the most sensible sounding candidate. Though it really isn't that hard to be sensible among the GOP nut-job lot.
I think he will win the nomination in the end, though obviously Obama will be reelected.
Plus Conspiracy Theory Nuts seem to be producing volumes of videos telling people to vote for him, which I think will just make more politically moderate people a bit scared to vote for him.
says quite a lot about the competition then, I suppose. Based on a five-minute "research" I just did, having finally taken the effort to find out what I've missed about him so far, he seems to be a racist homophobe, strongly pro-life, anti-taxes climate change denier, who seems to get "anti-establishment" credibility and a heroic lone maverick status for supporting some other policies and ideas those left of the centre support.
the newsletter thing will probably never stop coming back to him, but in every campaign he's been in in the last 15 years that has come back around, and the denoument always seems to be the same.
The pro-life, pro-guns, anti-tax and anti-climate change stuff comes directly from his website.
his website writes about in a tone disturbingly reminiscent of Alex Jones.
He is so anti-anything that is not in the constitution.
I mean if anyone is just realising that now, then they ought to take a look at themselves, because his positions have essentially never changed.
ron paul and bachmann especially. i dont know anything about us politics but bernie sanders seems like the guy i'd vote for
02.30 (21.30) Herman Cain is back! He has told Piers Morgan that he is "on a mission" to start a national movement to tackle the issues he raised during his campaign. He also says he became a grandfather for the fourth time on New Year's Day, re-emphasising his pledge to always put his family first.
Pressed on which candidate he would endorse, Cain said he would remain unconventional and make his decision later depending on who he thinks will have the best chance of beating Barack Obama.
"The media are like rats on a bone. What I do not miss is the pain that all the false accusations have caused my family. I will still be on a mission, because I'm not giving up on all the critical issues during my campaign".
v. good liveblog here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8989002/Iowa-Republican-primary-as-it-happened-January-2.html
I would have liked to have had more detail, maybe found it on its own site, with a snappy name referencing that it is a UK view of American politics. Oh and it is the sort of thing that would be good listened to. Have you thought of doing a podcast?
Surely just buy yourself a domain name, register a blog and buy yourself a microphone. I genuinely can’t see what more there is to it. Please explain if there is.
If you want to do informative/analysis at 70%/30% then really you only need a person (or rolling guests) who know a little bit a and are going to ask intelligent questions. Of course if you are looking at a more debate or analysis than information, then you’ll need someone who is at least as informed as you are. The former would be more likely to become popular, imo.
Just walk into Maplin, and you'll be able to get radio quality stuff for way less than £50.
It is a podcast, no-one will care what the blog looks like.
Did you come up with that line? Because if so, I'm totally going to steal it.
Don't be assuming too many rights Goldstone :P
courtesy of PublicPolicyPolling
Iowa: Paul 20, Romney 19, Santorum 18, Gingrich 14, Perry 10, Bachmann 8, Huntsman 4, Roemer 2:
dipshit Rick Santorum wins, America might as well give the fuck up.
therefore he oughtn't to win?
no he shouldn't fucking win when his biggest selling point is being anti-gay.
but that doesn't reflect his personal sexuality really (sorry if I've got this wrong and it's widely known or something).
sadly, I don't think this is that uncommon. Look at Mark Foley :-(
it's become the norm for most of these rabidly anti-gay rights Republicans to usually be hiding some past 'indiscretions'
and I'm not trolling, but I can understand Santorum, Foley etc. and why they pass the legislation they do. Coming from a certain background and being gay/on the edge creates a fear and hatred of homosexuality, and therefore a genuine fear of oneself. I should know. The idea is to wipe out LGBT culture so you don't have to be part of it, to black everything else out with yourself. It's horrible and immoral, but I do feel a bit of pity for him. No, a lot of pity, if it turns out he's actually gay and it isn't just spin. There, said.
he still makes it his life mission to make the lives of LGBT people that much harder though, which i can't excuse.
he does it because he hates himself. It's no different to monks whipping their sins away. Disgraceful, but perhaps- just perhaps- understandable. Remove the tumour and the body gets well.
*NB before anyone comes snouting round, I'm gay. I'm not trying to imply that it's a disease, or wrong, or anything else, just that I've known deeply closeted people who, in the wrong hands and in the grip of a bit too much power, wouldn't be far away from this.
of course he might just be a heterosexual homophobe to all lawyers reading this.
and a twat
i doubt he'll keep to his politics if he gained power though thats just me
that isnt saying much though. his views on climate change are pretty wacky. i dunno that much but i kind of agree with what you said, but i also think he does have a pretty good shot at the nomination unfortunately.
thanks for the info, needed to wise up
genuinely appreciative since i don't know much and You're The Man To Ask
but the truth is, none of these motherfuckers are truly going to help us. In the end, it's choosing between two shitty sodas owned by the same conglomerate. I'm so fucking sick of how corrupt, worthless, and detached politics have become here. Whoever wins is going to have to play within the same set of rules and will accomplish fuck all when it comes to truly fixing shit/making a difference. I like to think that a candidate will surprise me but I don't think that's going to happen.
I take it back
This is par for the course from them in every Presidential election since Reagan.
definitely more, that would be very impressive
Is USA the only place they still do this?
There's something I just kind of like about Mitt Romney. Well, that's not really truthful. More, there's something that makes me really want to like him even though I can't. (I'd definitely be intrigued to find out his actual views on certain issues though - not so much economic ones, that's more straightforward - of course he has them even if he doesn't 'stay true' to them.) Anyhow, kind of interesting how the Mormon is the one who seems least to consider themselves on some God-given mission.
At least most of the fascists established some sort of public aid...to call any of these candidates conservative is patently absurd. Whoever's got the most money will win the primary, same goes for the election.
when it's all said and done does Obama still have a good chance of being president?
cos all the opposition is well mental, so might have a problem arnering enough support.
He's not doing amazing in the polls, but he has a formidable campaigning machine - he's already raised more money from more individuals for 2012 than 2008. Quite intriguing actually, a huge amount of the money he's raised is from individuals giving less than $100. I was in the US when the mid terms happened and people were talking like there was going to be a revolution on the streets, it was going to be a democrat bloodbath - yet he held the senate (admittedly obliterated in the house).
Plus it's pretty hard for an incumbent to lose - Obama may not have done an amazing job, but he's just about held the economy up (admittedly at great cost for not a tremendous amount of growth, but he can't be held fully responsible for that) and hasn't had a read my lips moment like the last incumbent to lose
no matter who is the Republican candidate, unless something catastrophic happens between now and November (ie. the banking system completely collapses).
ROmney takes it by eight votes! Close shave