On Carter: by the time of the election, even if he was the greatest hawk in American history (he surely was not), he came across as incompetent, clueless, and ineffectual--across the board. His bold stroke against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an Olympic game boycott.

danivon wrote:Surely they may have to present an alternative as well? Or is oppositionalism enough - Is it 'presidential' to [i]not[i] propose anything?

Let's see. Who is it that is not proposing anything?

Oh yeah. The current President.

What tax increases is he proposing to cover the deficit?

What cuts?

What entitlement reform?

Thanks for making my point!

Good lords, I go to the beach for 3 days and when I get back big changes abound,

Bachman wins the Ames straw poll with Ron Paul coming in second. - well this just confirms how meaningless this poll is. If nothing else shows this, the fact that Rick Santorum came in 4th with 10% sure as heck does.

Rick Perry enters with great fanfare. - Well it has been a long accepted fact that he was going to enter. A lot will depend on his fund raising abilities but I just can't the Republicans nominating another conservative from Texas. Especially one who hosts a prayer revivial just days before he announces. Republicans can be stupid but not that stupid.

Did Ron Paul have a campaign ending moment in the debate when he said Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons and the U.S. should do absolutely nothing to interfere.

The biggest bomb so far is that Pawlenty is dropping out. With a decent showing in both Ames and the debate, you would think he would stay in.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Good lords, I go to the beach for 3 days and when I get back big changes abound,

Bachman wins the Ames straw poll with Ron Paul coming in second. - well this just confirms how meaningless this poll is. If nothing else shows this, the fact that Rick Santorum came in 4th with 10% sure as heck does.

It's the first major straw poll, and the big one for Iowa in the lead-up to the caucuses, but it's only ever run in years when there isn't a clear Republican nominee (ie: when there's a first term GOP man in the White House), and the first one was a low-turnout affair in 1979. With 1987, 1995, 1999 and 2007 being the only other occurrences, it's not got much of a history. The main flaw for it as far as I can see (apart from it being so long before the Caucus that it often misses a high profile late runner, such as Reagan) is that it is based on a self-selecting and paying electorate, which is not going to be representative of the general registered Republcan.

In terms of predictive power, it has picked the Iowa Caucus winner 2.5 times out of 5, the eventual RNC winner 1.5 times out of 5 and the the victorious President only once (one George W Bush in 1999). The 'halves' are for 1995 when Bob Dole tied with Phil Gramm.

Rick Perry enters with great fanfare. - Well it has been a long accepted fact that he was going to enter. A lot will depend on his fund raising abilities but I just can't the Republicans nominating another conservative from Texas. Especially one who hosts a prayer revivial just days before he announces. Republicans can be stupid but not that stupid.

To be honest, I think Perry has a very good chance, but only if he can overcome Bachmann or she drops out soon. The prayer revival was clearly an attempt to build 'profile' among the religious right before a candidacy, and while it may have turned off a lot of moderate Republicans it will also have fired up a lot of the 'base'. You win (closed) primaries by appealing to the base...

Did Ron Paul have a campaign ending moment in the debate when he said Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons and the U.S. should do absolutely nothing to interfere.

I think he will fizzle out. His support is very keen and active, but I suspect that the appeal for true economic libertarianism is weak outside that (and once you get to the more socially conservative parts of the Republican Party, his stances will not resonate well at all). The statement on Iran was an example of his forthrightness which will count against him - as much as people say they want forthright politicians, what they really want is forthright politicians who agree with them.

The biggest bomb so far is that Pawlenty is dropping out. With a decent showing in both Ames and the debate, you would think he would stay in.

He spent a couple of years trying to cultivate Iowa, and not a small amount of money I expect, and had a mountain to climb. When Bachmann came in and swept it, I think it was clear that he'd struggle. He wasn't doing well in head-to-head polling in Minnesota against Obama, and I suspect he'd look at how well Bachmann was doing and realise that if he can't carry his home state against a candidate with a similar stance, he'd not get very far. The debate looked to me like it cooked his goose - he competed directly with her and didn't come off very well. I'm not sure how it was a 'decent showing' to be honest, he may have got some jabs in, but Bachmann appealed to the intended audience and turned him into a target.

Romney looks like being the main challenge of the moderate wing of the GOP, and the others on that side don't look too strong. Perry and Bachmann are going to fight for the mantle of the right. Those seem to be the main candidates, frankly.

The danger for Perry and Bachmann is that they end up cancelling each other out and let Romney run away up the flank. I think both of them would prefer to have a decisive series of primaries early on that leads to one dropping out (and endorsing the other) than to keep on in there. Unless, of course, they are happy to settle for and compete for the VP slot.

danivon wrote:He (Pawlenty) spent a couple of years trying to cultivate Iowa, and not a small amount of money I expect, and had a mountain to climb. When Bachmann came in and swept it, I think it was clear that he'd struggle.

Exactly right. Furthermore, his organization was perceived to be better. His problem was he ran Hillary's campaign: experience over message. It failed her and it failed him.

Romney looks like being the main challenge of the moderate wing of the GOP, and the others on that side don't look too strong. Perry and Bachmann are going to fight for the mantle of the right. Those seem to be the main candidates, frankly.

I still think it's possible that a "bridge" candidate gets in--someone who can unite much of the centrist and conservative wings. I think Christie, Ryan, or Jeb could be that sort of person.

I will say I was encouraged by Romney's "vote for Obama if you want someone who will raise taxes" retort to a lefty heckler before the debate. He showed more fire in those few minutes than I have ever seen from him.

The danger for Perry and Bachmann is that they end up cancelling each other out and let Romney run away up the flank. I think both of them would prefer to have a decisive series of primaries early on that leads to one dropping out (and endorsing the other) than to keep on in there. Unless, of course, they are happy to settle for and compete for the VP slot.

Perry has more than a few skeletons in his closet. We'll see how they impact his popularity and how he deals with them. Right now, it appears to be Romney vs. the Bachmann/Perry winner. I do think you are right though, Dan, if it goes into a full 3-way contest, Romney probably gets the nomination. Frankly, I think he would be the better general election candidate (of those three).

That's a lot of agreement between Steve and Owen. Cool.

Doctor Fate wrote:I still think it's possible that a "bridge" candidate gets in--someone who can unite much of the centrist and conservative wings. I think Christie, Ryan, or Jeb could be that sort of person.

They haven't got long to start getting ready for a campaign though. I think Jeb has the major disadvantage of having 'Bush' as a surname, though, even if he does come across as better than George W.

Perry has more than a few skeletons in his closet. We'll see how they impact his popularity and how he deals with them. Right now, it appears to be Romney vs. the Bachmann/Perry winner. I do think you are right though, Dan, if it goes into a full 3-way contest, Romney probably gets the nomination. Frankly, I think he would be the better general election candidate (of those three).

I think at the moment, Romney is the GOP's best shot for a win. He can appeal to the middle ground like few of the others can. I'm not sure his religion will be that much of an issue - it shouldn't be.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I still think it's possible that a "bridge" candidate gets in--someone who can unite much of the centrist and conservative wings. I think Christie, Ryan, or Jeb could be that sort of person.

They haven't got long to start getting ready for a campaign though. I think Jeb has the major disadvantage of having 'Bush' as a surname, though, even if he does come across as better than George W.

True. However, if he enters, I think that all changes. For those who don't know: Jeb is married to Columba Garnica Gallo, who is from Mexico. Talk about inoculation from "racism" charges. Jeb's Spanish is better than W's. He is by far the better communicator, etc.

In a general election, I think Jeb wipes Obama out, maybe even getting more than 60% of the vote.

There is one other person who could change the election a great deal: Marco Rubio. If he is the VP nominee, as the son of Cuban immigrants, I think he is a game-changer too. And, he is very eloquent. In addition, either Jeb or Rubio would make Florida a mortal lock.

I think at the moment, Romney is the GOP's best shot for a win. He can appeal to the middle ground like few of the others can. I'm not sure his religion will be that much of an issue - it shouldn't be.

It may be an issue in South Carolina and in some southern States--in the primary. I think it probably won't be an issue if he is the nominee.

I believe the President is going to have to wage the nastiest campaign in a century and even then only has less than a 50/50 shot at reelection. Republicans will rally around whoever the nominee is and there is a very good likelihood that Obama will not be able to convince independents that the GOP nominee is more dangerous than "four more years" of economic havoc.

except for 2008, since 1976 the Republican candidate who was the national polling leader before the Iowa Caucuses eventually won the nomination. Except for Giuliani.
One of the problems with the Iowa caucuses having so much importance in the electoral process for Republicans is that they are perhaps the most conservative republican voters in the country... Massachussetts is next and they are the most liberal of republicans..
How does one appeal to both ends of the spectrum? (source for claim: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Indeed if winning the republican nomination means out conservativing everyone ... such an unappealing candidate may emerge that Obama will win by default.

rickyp wrote:except for 2008, since 1976 the Republican candidate who was the national polling leader before the Iowa Caucuses eventually won the nomination. Except for Giuliani.
One of the problems with the Iowa caucuses having so much importance in the electoral process for Republicans is that they are perhaps the most conservative republican voters in the country... Massachussetts is next and they are the most liberal of republicans..
How does one appeal to both ends of the spectrum? (source for claim: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Indeed if winning the republican nomination means out conservativing everyone ... such an unappealing candidate may emerge that Obama will win by default.

Doubt it. Remember: Obama was the most liberal candidate. How did he win? Running against Bush and painting McCain, a pretty moderate guy, as "four more years" of Bush.

Keep telling yourself Obama is going to win. It will make the day after the election all the more sweet.

danivon wrote:The debate looked to me like it cooked his goose - he competed directly with her and didn't come off very well. I'm not sure how it was a 'decent showing' to be honest, he may have got some jabs in, but Bachmann appealed to the intended audience and turned him into a target.

I didn't actually get to see the debate so I am going off of what I read about it. The Pawlenty/Bachman exchange came out as about 50/50 meaning half the people writing about it said Pawlenty came out looking the best and half saying Bachman did.

danivon wrote:The danger for Perry and Bachmann is that they end up cancelling each other out and let Romney run away up the flank. I think both of them would prefer to have a decisive series of primaries early on that leads to one dropping out (and endorsing the other) than to keep on in there.

Unfortunately for them, I do not think that is not going to happen. From what I have read, the Republicans are going for a different set up on their primaries this year. Basically, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will be in February and winner take all in delegate counts. However, the primaries run between March 1st and March 31st will be those that do proportional delegate allotment. Then any other winner take all primaries after April 1st .

This means I can see a long drawn fight between the two of them. Of course, that assumes both of them are still around by then which I don't think is a foregone conclusion.

From the thread's first post:

Archduke Russell John wrote:In a couple of other threads I said the top 4 candidates for the Republican nomination were going to be Pawlenty, Daniels, Huntsman and Romney. I said Huckabee, Palin and Trump were not going to run. I was right about Huckabee and Trump. Both have said they are not running. Just waiting to see what Palin does. However, I am going to stick by the opinion that she is not running.

Not dogging the Archduke (as I have the considerable benefit of hindsight), but I think it's clear that Pawlenty, Daniels and Huntsman will NOT be the nominee. Huntsman, already on life support, pulled the plug with his tweet about global warming and evolution. Whatever one believes on those things, going left in the primary on social and economic issues is NOT the way to get the nomination.

I am reading some things about Rick Scott of Texas jumping into it. However, I haven't seen enough to form an opinion on it yet.

Rick Perry seems the real deal--a threat.

Will anyone else get in? Ryan? Christie? Jeb?

In some ways it seems that Perry is running to the right of Bachmann ... I find that amazing.

"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
Jon Huntsman

And this statement means he's going left on social and economic issues?

My problem with Perry is that he believes that anyone who disagrees with him is sinister. The Fed is contemplating treason. scientists who believe in global warming are doing it for the money. (There are about an equal number of people on the left who fit this description.)

I think we all have to respect that those with different opinions are not evil, but just see the world differently. When we malign the other side's motives we are all in trouble. It also shows that the Presidential candidate doesn't have an open mind and will just dismiss any opinion that he doesn't agree with.

rickyp wrote:"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
Jon Huntsman

And this statement means he's going left on social and economic issues?

As you are part of the "I can't understand conservatives" Left, let me translate. Huntsman is not-so-subtly deriding those who believe in Creationism or in "intelligent design." That is "going left on social issues" in the sense that many primary voters will disagree with him. In other words, he's thumbing his nose at a substantial number of voters whose support he needs.

He is also "going left on economic issues" by supporting AGW hysteria. It will cost untold fortunes to take action. Most Americans don't accept AGW, let alone GOP primary voters.

So, on two issues he's put himself perfectly in mainstream Democratic thought. That's probably not going to help get the Republican nomination. If he ever had a shot, he has less than zero now.