-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
16 Jun 2011, 5:04 pm
That same WSJ poll showed that 61% believe that primarily Obama inherited our current economy and did not cause it.
Steve, I think you are projecting your views on the rest of the electorate. GWB won reelection even though his support was not great in 2004 since Iraq was in trouble. There is the power of the incumbency at work. If the Republicans put up someone on the right, most of the center will vote for Obama. If they put up Romney or another relative centrist, they have a very good chance. I guess Romney would go right for his VP pick to shore up the base. Christie or Bachmann should do the trick. Of course the election is more than 16 months away. So much can change ...
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
16 Jun 2011, 5:43 pm
Ray Jay wrote:That same WSJ poll showed that 61% believe that primarily Obama inherited our current economy and did not cause it.
I think that is something messaging can address over the next 15 months. The question is this: have his actions improved the economy and the future? I think, unless the economy takes a sudden turn for the better, the answer is a resounding "no."
Steve, I think you are projecting your views on the rest of the electorate.
Look at the polls in the Red States he won. I don't think you'll stick with your "projecting" theory for long. Will he win North Carolina again? I doubt it. Indiana? Florida?
He's underwater in PA. I don't think it's going to be easy for him to win, unless the economy picks up a lot.
GWB won reelection even though his support was not great in 2004 since Iraq was in trouble.
Narrowly, but that was mostly, I think, because Kerry was a pretty easy target. I don't think Romney will be easy to shoot at from the left.
If the Republicans put up someone on the right, most of the center will vote for Obama.
Sure, if they want things to continue as they are . . .
If they put up Romney or another relative centrist, they have a very good chance. I guess Romney would go right for his VP pick to shore up the base. Christie or Bachmann should do the trick.
Rubio is the man. No, not Ricky Rubio!
-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
20 Jun 2011, 1:26 pm
Apparently Jon Huntsman came in second at the
RLC straw poll with 382 votes Other results
Ron Paul(612)
Bachman(191)
Herman Cain (104)
Mitt Romney (74),
Newt Gingrinch (69),
Sarah Palin (41),
Rick Santorum (30)
Tim Pawlenty (18).
The RLC is the FiCon, SoLib branch of the party. These are the people that I think are going to support Huntsman over Romney. When combined with the Independants that can vote in 26 of 50 Republican primaries, will it be enough to push him over the top?
I am curious Steve. You say you would walk over glass and vote for Romney but would stay home for Huntsman. I am curious as to why? You mentioned the fact that Huntsman supported a cap and trade plan for Utah while he was governor. However, hasn't Romney said he would support something like that in the past?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
20 Jun 2011, 1:48 pm
Archduke Russell John wrote:Apparently Jon Huntsman came in second at the
RLC straw poll with 382 votes Other results
Ron Paul(612)
Bachman(191)
Herman Cain (104)
Mitt Romney (74),
Newt Gingrinch (69),
Sarah Palin (41),
Rick Santorum (30)
Tim Pawlenty (18).
The RLC is the FiCon, SoLib branch of the party. These are the people that I think are going to support Huntsman over Romney. When combined with the Independants that can vote in 26 of 50 Republican primaries, will it be enough to push him over the top?
I am curious Steve. You say you would walk over glass and vote for Romney but would stay home for Huntsman. I am curious as to why? You mentioned the fact that Huntsman supported a cap and trade plan for Utah while he was governor. However, hasn't Romney said he would support something like that in the past?
First, that straw poll can be bought. It measures the willingness and/or pliability of supporters, nothing more or less. Want to know the value of that straw poll? Palin behind Gingrich; Pawlenty behind Santorum. You won't find polls like that.
Second, Huntsman governed a conservative state as a moderate and embraced several of Obama's worst ideas. I know a lot more about Romney who governed a liberal state as a moderate--his tendency will be to lean right. He won't tilt as far as I'd like, but he won't go as far to the left as Huntsman will.
Third, there really, no matter what you think, is not room for two moderates in the race. If Huntsman can kick Romney to the curb, good for him. I just don't think he will. The Tea Party and more conservative elements of the party will support someone. The establishment will support someone else--likely to be Romney. There won't be enough support for another moderate, unless he/she is off-the-hook. Nothing in Huntsman's demeanor thus far suggests he is the GOP-equivalent of Obama.
Fourth, the primary schedule doesn't favor Huntsman. He can't win Iowa. He won't win New Hampshire. He won't win South Carolina. I doubt he can win Florida. So, four up, four down. (Mormonism all but makes both Iowa and South Carolina unwinnable). When does he start winning?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
20 Jun 2011, 1:52 pm
Well, yes, we saw a load of straw polls before 2008 that put Paul at the top or at least in the running. Where did he end up? Unless they've altered the methodology significantly, I'd say they have limited use.
-
- Archduke Russell John
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am
20 Jun 2011, 5:47 pm
I agree that a straw poll isn't a big deal. However, what it does show is that party activist are more behind Huntsman then Romney. The story behind the scenes is that the Party is less then enthuses about Romney and are looking for somebody else. Huntsman has a chance to win New Hampshire or at least finish a close second. That will make him more palatable to South Carolinians that do not like Romney which might also give him Florida.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
21 Jun 2011, 9:06 am
Archduke Russell John wrote:I agree that a straw poll isn't a big deal. However, what it does show is that party activist are more behind Huntsman then Romney. The story behind the scenes is that the Party is less then enthuses about Romney and are looking for somebody else. Huntsman has a chance to win New Hampshire or at least finish a close second. That will make him more palatable to South Carolinians that do not like Romney which might also give him Florida.
I think that straw poll was as meaningful, in the end, as my desire in 2008 that Duncan Hunter be the nominee. Want some evidence?
Look no further.And, while you and others may love his support for gay civil unions (I think they're fine on a State level--consistent federalist that I am), how will that help him in South Carolina? How will his Mormonism help him in South Carolina? There is a segment of Republicans reluctant to vote for a Mormon. I suspect that States like South Carolina will be more anti-Mormon than most. Romney can only do well there if the field is still large and somewhat split. If it was him against Perry or Bachmann straight up, he'd get routed in SC.
I'll make a wager: Huntsman will win zero primaries and will be out of the race early. If he wins the Nevada caucus, he could hang on for a while, but he'll be gone after failing to score on Super Tuesday.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
21 Jun 2011, 9:33 am
Btw, if any Republican here finds himself/herself agreeing with
Meghan McCain, I would suggest you need to reexamine your presuppositions. She is suggesting re-running her dad's campaign. With all due respect, that was a disaster.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
21 Jun 2011, 10:07 am
Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, if any Republican here finds himself/herself agreeing with
Meghan McCain, I would suggest you need to reexamine your presuppositions. She is suggesting re-running her dad's campaign. With all due respect, that was a disaster.
I dunno Steve, she seems to be giving pretty sound advice to me. Where does she fail?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
21 Jun 2011, 10:28 am
geojanes wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:Btw, if any Republican here finds himself/herself agreeing with
Meghan McCain, I would suggest you need to reexamine your presuppositions. She is suggesting re-running her dad's campaign. With all due respect, that was a disaster.
I dunno Steve, she seems to be giving pretty sound advice to me. Where does she fail?
Tips 5, 6, and 7.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
21 Jun 2011, 10:37 am
In my mind, number 7 is a winning strategy:
Tip No. 7: This is the most important...forget the extreme right. You aren’t going to be their candidate anyway, Michele Bachmann is. Those people also wouldn’t vote for Obama if their life depended on it. Reach out to independents, women, and Republicans like me. The ones who struggle with feeling isolated in our own party. We will come out and support you with unbelievable enthusiasm if you don’t treat big-tent, socially liberal Republicans like us as a mutation in the original design. There isn’t anything wrong with Republicans like me, and trust me, there are a lot more of them out there than you realize, and some of them are just hitting voting age.
You don't want to admit it and completely alienate the right, but who else are they going to vote for? While at the same time you can pick up a whole bunch of swing voters in the middle. That's what you've got to do to win, isn't it?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
21 Jun 2011, 10:55 am
geojanes wrote:In my mind, number 7 is a winning strategy:
Tip No. 7: This is the most important...forget the extreme right. You aren’t going to be their candidate anyway, Michele Bachmann is. Those people also wouldn’t vote for Obama if their life depended on it. Reach out to independents, women, and Republicans like me. The ones who struggle with feeling isolated in our own party. We will come out and support you with unbelievable enthusiasm if you don’t treat big-tent, socially liberal Republicans like us as a mutation in the original design. There isn’t anything wrong with Republicans like me, and trust me, there are a lot more of them out there than you realize, and some of them are just hitting voting age.
You don't want to admit it and completely alienate the right, but who else are they going to vote for? While at the same time you can pick up a whole bunch of swing voters in the middle. That's what you've got to do to win, isn't it?
Look at the history of GOP winners. They didn't run like Ms. McCain suggests. Why is that?
Glad I asked. The "enthusiasm" (read "money") doesn't come from the middle.
Obama ran as a wink-wink "moderate," but the netroots knew who he really was. And, they supported him in a big way. Clinton ran as a moderate too. Who won?
The history of "reasonable" Republicans reads like a laundry list of nice losers.
Btw, I'm not saying ignore the center. I am not saying wear "pro-life" t-shirts to rallies. I am saying that writing off the base is a big mistake and I'll give you one perfect example: "read my lips, no new taxes."
GWHB wrote off the base and gave birth to Perot, who led Bill Clinton (iirc, 43% of the vote--I checked. I'm right.). Ms. McCain is writing a prescription for another disaster.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
22 Jun 2011, 10:59 am
Huntsman is off to a fine start--he won the endorsement of Harry Reid (well, okay, Reid only said he was better than Romney).
And, then there's
this:All three cable networks had moved on before Huntsman got to the core of his message. “We will conduct this campaign on the high road,” vowed the candidate. “I respect the president of the United States. He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love. But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who’s the better American.”
That is the essence of Huntsman’s appeal, and, by the caustic political standards of 2011, it is a radical proposition. Huntsman, who was until recently President Obama’s ambassador to China and yet who notably didn’t mention Obama by name in his kickoff speech, made a plea for “civility, humanity and respect” — the very qualities our political system seems to abhor.
I wish Huntsman luck in this noble pursuit, but the high road almost always leads to political oblivion. For Huntsman to maintain his course all the way to the Republican presidential nomination would turn politics on its head. More likely, he will join other decent men — Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch — whose presidential campaigns were quickly forgotten.
Early signs suggest Huntsman will do no better. Polls show upward of six in 10 Republicans don’t know enough about him to form an opinion. In Iowa, where Huntsman has said he will not compete, one poll found total support for Huntsman of one — not 1 percent, but one person.
He could shock the world. However, there's nothing to suggest that yet.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
22 Jun 2011, 3:27 pm
Steve, aren't you forgetting that GW Bush in 2000 stood as a moderate 'compassionate conservative' and won (ish)?
Or that when GHW Bush lost in 1992, it was less that Perot was a threat from the right (he was taking votes from the centre a lot), but more that Bush had been sunk by breaking his "read my lips" promise and the economy wasn't looking too good. He'd won handily in 1988 as a moderate rather than as a far right candidate.
While the Republicans cannot afford to take their right wing for granted, they really are not going to get a Presidency without appealing to the center.
So, I hope that they take your advice, Steve, and not that of Ms McCain.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
23 Jun 2011, 9:25 am
danivon wrote:Steve, aren't you forgetting that GW Bush in 2000 stood as a moderate 'compassionate conservative' and won (ish)?
He had the advantage of running against one of the most pompous windbags ever to enter American politics. If Gore wasn't so boorish during the debates, I don't think Bush could have won-ish.
Or that when GHW Bush lost in 1992, it was less that Perot was a threat from the right (he was taking votes from the centre a lot), but more that Bush had been sunk by breaking his "read my lips" promise and the economy wasn't looking too good. He'd won handily in 1988 as a moderate rather than as a far right candidate.
Not at all. GHWB won in the shadow of Reagan. Perot, actually, won a good number of votes from conservatives who were disheartened by what they perceived as Bush moderating FROM Reagan's positions.
While the Republicans cannot afford to take their right wing for granted, they really are not going to get a Presidency without appealing to the center.
I think the Democrats and Obama are doing a right fine bit of work isolating themselves. Some are calling for another stimulus. Uh-huh. Sure.
So, I hope that they take your advice, Steve, and not that of Ms McCain.
Yes, because Ms. McCain is quite the insightful political observer. She is to the left of her middle-of-the-road father, who just threw a lifeline to Obama re: Libya. If moving to the left is the right thing to do, you and Ms. McCain are the main proponents of it.
