Politics Who's Gonna Win?

before I say anything I want to dispell the assuption that I am a Democrat. I have voted Democratic in more elections than I have voted Republican to date, I am even registered as a Democrat, but I remain independant of any political party.
Here is how I veiw both parties:
Republicans: Get your message from on high and repeat the party line. Drum that line into the public psyche until it resonates. To hell with subtle differences to hell with the truth even.

Demodrats: Like kiddie sports everybody wins. Everybody gets their say, no cohesive message.

I coould go on I suppose but no matter. Suffice it to say that Mr McCain was a viable candidate for me until he got excited and ran himself out of the race. Oh yeah also when he chose Ms Palin as a running mate and it was obvious he knew little about her.

That said, I have voted Republican, not much but I've done it.

Now to my question

Who is going too win. Not who you or I want to win, but who's going to? Let's step back and look at it like a sporting event of sorts.

Predictions

Here's mine so far

Obama
The republicans are fucking up in the public square wiht the jobs bill, holding gov hostage with the debt ceiling etc

Thoughts?

 

Way too early with too many variables.

But it is certain that the amount of money spent on the 2012 election will be obscene. Obama has a target of raising $1 billion (he raised and spent $750 million as opposed to McCain's $300 million in 08).

And it will be a nastier and uglier campaign than any in our lifetime. Expenditures by independent groups (those not tied to a candidate) are expected to approach $1/2 billion (as a result of the Citizens United decision, these groups spent $200+ million in the '10 congressional elections).

For now, I'm enjoying the Republican debacle with so many story lines.

Will Palin enter the race? Does anyone really care?

Or will Chris Christie be pushed to enter by Republicans concerned about the extremism of the current crop of candidates? If so, how will those extremists react to his record (supports women's right to choose, supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, acknowledges human contributions to global warming,...).

Has Rick Perry's luster peaked already and its only down hill for him now? Much like Michelle Bachmann.

Will the Tea Party types and social conservatives support a Romney campaign if he wins the primary? Despite the fact that many of the former equate his health care program in Mass. to "Obamacare" and many of the latter believe his religion (Mormon) to be an anti-Christian cult.

Will there be a third party candidate under the Tea Party banner or perhaps Ron Paul running as a third party candidate in the general election given that he announced he wont be running for reelection to Congress in 2012?

Lots of political theater to come before we get serious about the general election.

 

i still think the republican field is wide open. perry is floundering, romney is the 2008 big government conservative, and ron paul is still right in the thick of things. cain had a strong showing in florida and there is the palin issue.

i feel like the republican nomination is still very much up for grabs. cain could do some serious damage to obama for sure just because everyone who runs against obama is 'racist'.

i think there's a very strong chance of ron paul running as a libertarian if he doesn't get the gop nomination.

the sad part is that obama has to run on 'not republican.' he could of ended the wars and police state, but nope he's just a big government pimp like everyone else. if ron paul or herman cain gets in he really has no defense against them considering his record. he has no positives for the anti-war crowd or business crowd. if a romney or perry gets in, then it's the usual bullshit.

 

I dont find Cain's win in the FL straw poll to be very meaningful. These are "pay to play" events that attract a handful of people (a couple thousand out of 2+ million Republican voters in FL). Much like Paul's supporters, these are the die hards who would rather spend a Saturday in a hotel room debating the merits of their favorite candidate than being out on the golf course. And of course, all of the Paul supporter attacks of Cain as a tool of the Fed (he was the head of one of the Fed regions years ago) helped Cain as well. But Cain's campaign is self-funded to a large extent. There is no evidence to suggest he could raise the $millions necessary to compete for the long term. Paul can raise money, but he still hasnt demonstrated that he can break the 10% support barrier anywhere outside of straw poll or caucus type events.

I agree that Obama will run as "not Republican" to some extent -- to not deregulate financial institutions, the environment and the workplace; not restricting a woman's right to chose; not proposing to prohibit gay marriage or restore Dont Ask, Dont Tell... And the biggest issue will be the Bush tax cuts that were extended through 2012. Obama (hopefully) will oppose extending the cuts on the top wage earners again. All of these positions will be targeted to the Independent voters who overwhelmingly share those views.

 

One the Republican side:

Palin will not run - she has know that for some time and most non-inside the belt way Republicans.
Christie - will not run, if he does, he will fade fast. Interest in Christie is a mainstream media phenomenon. Most non-east coast Republicans who know him, won't actively support him.
Cain - His best shot is to be on the ticket as a VP. He will run out of money. He is being ignored in the media. His name recognition is to low to win.
Perry - Will not win the nomination.
Romney - Will win, assuming he stays disciplined. This, like McCain, will be a mistake.
The Rest - No impact.

On the Democrat side:

Obama will be unopposed, which is a mistake. Too bad Clinton won't run. Too bad Cuomo won't run.
I would love to see a shake up on the ticket at least, they could pick Landrieu, Senator from New Orleans for VP, that would be interesting - she is not a walking talking automoton for the party line.

Third party:

Trump wants to run oh so bad - if he can just figure out a way to avoid financial disclosures.
Bloomberg - tempted but won't run.
I will end up voting for the Libertarian candidate, whoever that is. No way I vote for Obama or Romney.

Winner:

Right now I say it is even money between Obama and Romney. The key factor will be the economy in the next 12 months.

 

I know that's the point, itll be fun

Between now and the primary the Republicans will have to fight it out exposing weaknesses that will make them a bit more vulnerable in the general. Obama doesn't have to run in a primary and can hold his 1 billion until the intense general election campaign.

They all still have to govern until we vote and Obama has positioned himself with the jobs bill to have to do nothing but fight for jobs until then. He can depend on Congress to push back on details, he knows that the masses aren't paying attention to those details. So he can now say that Republicans are fighting against his jobs bill, playing politics instead of trying to solve problems.

If it's Romney, RomneyCare
If it's Perry, a lot of the new jobs in his state came from the stimulus Obama provided, and a lot of those are low low wage jobs
If Paul runs under a different banner, he'd sap the Republican vote
If Palin gets in, and this would be her most viable chance. It would be no more than entertaining. What's her platform by the way?

 

I saw the video of Herman Cain's interview on MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'donnell. As usual O'Donnell was doing his usual smirky fallacious style of questioning and presenting information and Cain made him look like the complete partisan idiot that he is. It is great to see a real conservative go toe to toe with a liberal on MSNBC. I am liking Cain more and more. And given the fact that the elite media and the Republican Party establishment doesn't know what to do with him - gives him even more grass-roots support in "fly over country". I think he is still a long-shot, but I see the potential for an upset!

 

Similar to Palin one of the appeals to Cain is his non-political way of communicating. People in "fly over country" are tired of the same empty political rhetoric from career politicians regardless of ideology. Blame and discontent is less important than as Cain would say, solving the problems.

 

No.

Cain's message is a bit more than the out of context quote above.

Thinking that being gay is a choice is not anti-gay. It is his opinion as he stated in a couple interviews that I am aware of. Being anti-gay would require doing something detrimental to gay people. Having an opinion is not detrimental to anyone. There is nothing I am aware of that indicates that his actions towards gay people is any different than his actions toward anyone else. In my view it is clear that some people engage in the gay life-style by choice. It is also clear to me that some people are born in a state of sexuality that does not fit into biological norms - including sexual preference. As this issue pertains to the law - it should not matter. The law should be "blind" on this question. That is the real political question.

Being against Sharia Law, I suppose could be considered anti-Muslim, if so many are. Do you support Sharia Law? Would you want to live under Sharia Law? Are you anti-Muslim based on your answers?

 

All the Republican candidates are still in values voter mode espousing policies that are unpopular with the wider voter base.

They're way behind the times and if they don't get the fact fairly soon that, for all but their small base, it's not about the debt or "don't ask, don't tell" or about planned parenthood (it's about jobs), they will not stand a chance against Obama, who is already making the necessary noises and out there stumping a jobs bill.

Consider the length of time it's going to take for them to reasonably ease out of their rigid 'class warfare" stance before they can even begin getting on board the reality train to election day.

Though I'm disappointed with Obama, I'm still hoping he will show us his balls once the election is over. I vote for him.

I think it's a slam-dunk for Obama.

 

As easy as his political targets are, he's still BS crazy and will not survive a general election, should he come up with the funds to do so.



So Ace, do you agree or disagree that appointing anyone of the Muslim faith to the judiciary or Presidential administration will result in that person attempting and somehow succeeding at instilling Sharia law into the constitution?

Do you not see how over the top and paranoid this is?

 

While I'm thoroughly underwhelmed by Obama, I see the conservative circus primary as self destructive. It's hard to tell who will be the last one standing.

I think "none of the above" could win by a landslide.

 

I took it as a "you don't know what you are talking about, get off your but, stop whining" message. Perhaps context does matter.

No, it is not the same.

If the science was settled on this issue, opinion would not matter. If the science has been settled, I am not aware of how homosexuality is objectively determined, are you?

"Set back gay rights"? When serving in the military having "rights" is an odd way to put things - but there are many behaviors military people don't have the right to engage in. I don't even have that right, based on age, to join the military. My perception of that is not "anti-age".

What did he say? I did not hear him say it is not o.k. to be gay, I heard him say that in his opinion it is a choice. Some choose to be Christian and some choose not to be, but if a person chooses to be Christian that does not mean they will act in a negative way toward non-Christians.

If that is what he actually said, I would have a problem with it. I suspect that was taken out of context.

His target is not Muslims and Gays. Wow, it is amazing how the liberal attack machine kicks into gear. What you are doing is exactly what O'Donnell was doing in my opinion. By the way, how many Muslims has Obama appointed? What are Obama's views on being gay? How are they different from Cains? Did you know Obama and Cain most likely share the same religious views? Do you know what their religion says about being gay? Consider that simply a question for thought and don't answer. There is no value in a discussion on religious beliefs.
--- merged: Oct 7, 2011 8:55 PM ---

I had not seen that clip, thanks for sharing.

I recall a thread where this issue was being discussed. I had questions and still do on this issue. One thing is clear, is that Cain is clear on his point of view. If by definition being Muslim means a loyalty to the religion at the expense of loyalty to the Constitution, there is something here worth of discussion on a broader scale.

My question is simple and may require a Muslim to answer it: Can a Muslim pledge an oath to the Constitution of the US? Can a Muslim uphold US law when it conflicts with Muslim doctrine? I have seen conflicting responses on these issues.

In response to a question presented earlier, I guess I would rather have bigotry, communicated in the open (so it can be understood and responded to), than empty political rhetoric - where they hide what they really think.

 

are you fucking serious?

​

 

If by definition being Christian means a loyalty to the religion at the expense of loyalty to the Constitution......
I believe that a majority of both Christians and Muslims here in the US hold the Constitution in high regard and accept it as the law of the land. It is only ignorance and bigotry that believe otherwise.

If the Muslim is a US citizen, why wouldn't they? I don't buy the bogeyman lie that US citizens who happen to be of the Muslim religion can't make a distinction between secular law and religious personal belief and would prefer Sharia law to the US Constitution.

All politicians lie. Cain's probably lying as well. He may not have any such problem with gays and Muslims but in order to be accepted by the bigoted wing of the republican party (at least in the primaries) he needs to pander to their fear and intolerance.

 

Why ask him the question? The only thing that matters is his view on the policy issues. That is the point. How does he differ on policy from Obmam - one thing - don't ask, don't tell. And on that point we don't know what his alternative policy position might be, because the real key question is dealing with gay people serving in the military. Gay people have always served in the military in this country.

There are heterosexual behaviors restricted in the military. If a person has a strongly held religious belief that conflicts with the military they can not serve unless that belief is made secondary.

That is a big leap. Clinton instituted DADT, do you take that same leap with him?

I stated his position is clear. However, I do not pretend that there is no context to his position. I do not pretend that the millions who share concerns similar to his are not out there. Like I said I have tried to gain a better understanding myself. I believe issues like this need to see the light of day and be discussed. I respect people who come out and say what they truly believe, even when I disagree. It appears to me that you prefer that any dialog be stifled. I get the feeling that when a person presents questions, concerns that an easy label and dismissal is all that is required. I disagree with an approach like that - it solves nothing. Based on what I have seen in the clip, I have more questions for Cain. The sad thing is we will most likely get more questions about the type of pizza he prefers or why he didn't serve in Vietnam, like the great John Kerry - who as is his custom, was for the war before he was against it - or is it the other way around?
--- merged: Oct 7, 2011 10:15 PM ---

Chritians are often questioned about conflict between the law of the land and their religion. The issue of the Pope and loyalty to the US has frequently come up for Catholics running for national office. Evangelical Christians are often dismissed by liberals without question regarding their policy positions. This is not new or an issue unique to being Muslim.

Perhaps we need to revisit the thread were this issue was being discussed. Like I wrote, I have questions.

You can not have it both ways - do you think he believed what he said or not? To me there is no doubt he said what he believed. Context matters. If true, that a cornerstone of the Muslim faith is that religion expressly trumps loyalty to the government, I would not trust a Muslim's oath to the Constitution. It would be clear that there is a conflict - they would need to reconcile this. And you can consider me a bigot, if expressing that thought defines on as a bigot..