View topic - U.S. Presidential 2012 • Redscape

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

19 Aug 2011, 1:11 pm

Most Americans don't accept AGW, let alone GOP primary voters

And your evidence of this?
I found this:

Stanford University communications researcher Jon Krosnick has released an analysis of his latest public opinion survey on American's perceptions of global warming. A synopsis of the survey analysis is below, including a video interview of Professor Krosnick. (See links at left for figures used in story below, complete survey results and working papers that provide in-depth analysis of survey results.)
Survey results indicate:
•75% of Americans believe that the world's temperatures have probably been going up;
•Public confidence in what scientists say about the environment has remained constant over the last few years with 70% of respondents trusting scientists a lot or moderate amount;

http://woods.stanford.edu/research/majo ... rming.html

You may be right that republican primary voters don't... But not the majority of all americans. At least according to Stanford.
And as Karl Rove said on Fox News recently, appealing to the far right may mean nominating an unelectable candidate. The problem being that whatever a candidate says during the primary, in pandering to the Christian right, remains a part of the public record. And enduringly frames the public perception of the candidate no matter how hard they might try to pivot away....
An awful lot of Republicans have recently described Perry as dumb. Mostly after his remarks about Bernahke.... That will endure. Especially since Perry hasn't got much in his pedigree that disputes that description. No scholar he...
And as disciplined and professional as Bachman has been on the campaign trail, she's still struggling with her history of gaffes and eccentricities... (And as Newsweek unfairly demonstrated, crazy eyes...)
Romney would be the most appealing candidate but most Republicans and the polls suggest he can't win against Obama. If Paul Ryan enters...as he is being encouraged to do ... it will because Republican leaders see that none of the above can win.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

19 Aug 2011, 1:57 pm

rickyp wrote:
Most Americans don't accept AGW, let alone GOP primary voters

And your evidence of this?

Before I even respond, I would like to congratulate you on your continued demonstration of sheer obtusity. You are a marvel. Why do I say that?

Because we are talking politics. Your "proof" (sorry, but it is a liberal think tank) looks at "adults." You can't pick a more liberal group without actively searching for one. "Registered voters" are more conservative and 'likely voters" are even more conservative. "Likely primary voters" (GOP) are a lot more conservative.

So, the basic premise, see if you can follow it, is this: conservatives (primary voters for the Republican party) are not going to favor spending hundreds of billions of dollars on something they tend to be skeptical of.

You may be right that republican primary voters don't... But not the majority of all americans. At least according to Stanford.

Go ahead. Make more of a donkey of yourself. Who is more ignorant? The person who thinks Obama can give them money or the person who believes there is more to global temperatures than merely CO2 levels?

That a Stanford think tank has done a survey of adults who believe whatever has little/nothing to do with primary voters. You can consider them ignorant all you want, they will decide who the nominee is, not you.

Let's go to Gallup, shall we?

How's that for proof? Huntsman spit in the eye of Republican primary voters. Say goodnight, Mr. Huntsman!

As for my claim about most Americans, same poll, further down:

Altogether, 68% of U.S. adults believe the effects of global warming will be manifest at some point in their lifetimes, indicating the public largely believes the problem is real. However, only 38% of Americans, similar to the 40% found in 2008, believe it will pose "a serious threat" to themselves or their own way of life.

Most Americans just aren't that worried.

That will endure. Especially since Perry hasn't got much in his pedigree that disputes that description. No scholar he...

The President makes mistakes all the time in his alleged field of expertise: the Constitution. Btw, he never wrote anything published by the Harvard Law Review. When they say he was "editor," I don't put much stock in it. Anyone can move text around--like his teleprompter, for example.

And as disciplined and professional as Bachman has been on the campaign trail, she's still struggling with her history of gaffes and eccentricities... (And as Newsweek unfairly demonstrated, crazy eyes...)

If the tabloid Newsweek (that's what it is) printed a similar photo of Barack "Who's Sane" Obama, it would immediately be branded "racist."

Let's see, beyond the usual "57 States" gaffe, how about the lies Obama has told about his Mom and her inability to get medical insurance?

Romney would be the most appealing candidate but most Republicans and the polls suggest he can't win against Obama. If Paul Ryan enters...as he is being encouraged to do ... it will because Republican leaders see that none of the above can win.

You want to use polls? Seriously? Where was GHW Bush at this point? Way out in front. That Obama is close to Romney, who does not have 100% name ID is not good news for your man, Obama.

: freeman2; Dignitary; Posts: 1573; Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

19 Aug 2011, 2:56 pm

Perry and Bachmann are too far out there to have a chance of winning the election. Karl Rove was skillful in portraying Bush as a moderate to the general public and I don't recall him making the kinds of crazy sound bites that are coming from Bachmann and Perry. Perrty and Bachmann scare people who are not from their base. Of course they scare liberals, but they also scare independents and even possibly moderate Republicans (is there s a thing?). I know it is hard for conservatives like Steve and Randy to accept, but there aren't that many of you that buy into the whole conservative program

I agree with Steven that it was a political gaffe by Huntsman in making that tweet. I think Huntsman is kind of a Rockefeller Republican who does not fit into the Republican party on social issues and probably is too fiscally conservative for the Democratic (maybe like Monte?). So either he has to be dishonest about his social views or he has no chance of winning the Republican primary. I say applaud the man for being honest. I think it is a bit appalling that a man who says he believes in evolution and global warming loses his chance of winning the Republican primary, but that's the way it is.

I think of the current Republicans running for president only Huntsman or Romney has a realistic chance of beating Obama. And Steve has convincingly shown that Huntsman has or will alienate the conservative base with his views. So that leaves Romney, who clearly could beat Obama. Here is the pickle the Republican Party faces, however. One of the ways that Karl Rove was able to get his man elected was to dramatically drive up voting among evangelical Christians who of course vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. Evangelical Christians as a general rule do not respect Mormonism as being a valid religion--that is my impression at least. So will they turn out for a Mormon candidate in large numbers? That will be the question and I suspect those evangelical Christians who think Mormonism is a fraudulent religion will simply stay home. And that will make it very difficult for Romney to win.

Republicans cannot square the circle. Most of their candidates are too conservative to win a general election and the two who are moderate enough to win the election are Mormons who will alienate the base. The 2012 election looks good to me right now.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

19 Aug 2011, 3:13 pm

freeman2 wrote:Evangelical Christians as a general rule do not respect Mormonism as being a valid religion--that is my impression at least. So will they turn out for a Mormon candidate in large numbers? That will be the question and I suspect those evangelical Christians who think Mormonism is a fraudulent religion will simply stay home. And that will make it very difficult for Romney to win.

Republicans cannot square the circle. Most of their candidates are too conservative to win a general election and the two who are moderate enough to win the election are Mormons who will alienate the base. The 2012 election looks good to me right now.

When Obama is in the low 30's or high 20's, and he will be, the GOP could nominate Rin Tin Tin and beat him.

Btw, I would urge anyone who asks me to vote for Romney over Obama. No, I don't believe Romney is a Christian. Neither is Obama. I don't vote for Theologian-in-Chief.

I think about 60% of the electorate will want ABB by election day. His main hope would be some idiot, like Trump, making a Perot-like run at the White House.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

19 Aug 2011, 3:15 pm

freeman2 wrote:I think it is a bit appalling that a man who says he believes in evolution and global warming loses his chance of winning the Republican primary, but that's the way it is.

I think it is a bit appalling that a man who says he is pro-life and against affirmative action loses his chance of winning the Democratic primary, but that's the way it is.

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

19 Aug 2011, 3:30 pm

Freeman:

I think Huntsman is kind of a Rockefeller Republican who does not fit into the Republican party on social issues and probably is too fiscally conservative for the Democratic (maybe like Monte?).

I'm a registered Independent, but I will get to vote in the primary under Mass law. I like Huntsman, but why waste my vote? I'll vote for Romney or Christie if he decides to run. In the general election, I would choose any of those over Obama; however, I could not vote for Bachmann or Perry.

On the politics, I do agree with Steve that depending on the next 15 months it is possible that any of these candidates can beat Obama (or lose to him).

Last edited by Ray Jay on 19 Aug 2011, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

19 Aug 2011, 4:03 pm

Your "proof" (sorry, but it is a liberal think tank) looks at "adults." You can't pick a more liberal group without actively searching for one.

You are too funny.
Stanford University is a Liberal Think tank?
The really useful thing about the Stanford poll is that it is conducted in the idential fashion (same questions and same sample format) at regular intervals.
Compare the actual wording of the questions you have on the polls you cite. The attitude that Huntsman attacks is the ignorant slander of Perry's that Scientists are manipulating the data.and lieing about the science behind GW...
Whilst there is all kinds of doubt amongst Americans at large about the overall effect of GW and doubbt that they will be specifically affected in their lives (And if I were 70 I'd say that with some certainty wouldn't I, and there is scientific doubt about these two areas as well) the polls you point to don't indicate the total lack of respect for the scientific community that Perry spewed.
I don't doubt that there is a solid portion that do beleive in creationism and so misunderstand science that they can abide Perry's position. But that isn't indicated in anything you've presented Steve.
Perry's an idiot. The campaign will give him lots of time to continue proving that to voters. I'm betting that Obama would love to run against either Bachman or especially Perry.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

20 Aug 2011, 5:20 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
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.

And there was me thinking that it was the conservatives who were plain speakers and the liberals the dissemblers. Apaprently, we need a Kreminologist of the right to cut through some pretty clear statements to the 'real' message beneath.

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.

Does he need them? Perhaps, but then again perhaps he figures that he won't get them anyway with Perry and Bachmann and a fair few others. Perhaps he is less 'thumbing his nose' than being honest about his views. Which is surely to be given some respect, even if it means that it may lose him votes for not pandering.

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.

Is he though? He's talking about the scientists, not the activists. While there are non-scientists and NGOs who are talking up the issues, scientists are not. Besides which, it doesn't mean that he supports the same prescriptions to deal with climate change that the most febrile green cheerleader will.

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.

A shame, I think. You can't be a moderate in America any more, it seems.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

20 Aug 2011, 5:21 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I think it is a bit appalling that a man who says he is pro-life and against affirmative action loses his chance of winning the Democratic primary, but that's the way it is.

Which man is that?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

20 Aug 2011, 5:59 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I think it is a bit appalling that a man who says he is pro-life and against affirmative action loses his chance of winning the Democratic primary, but that's the way it is.
Which man is that?

My point exactly. The Democratic Party is a very small tent.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

20 Aug 2011, 6:06 am

danivon wrote:
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.
Does he need them? Perhaps, but then again perhaps he figures that he won't get them anyway with Perry and Bachmann and a fair few others. Perhaps he is less 'thumbing his nose' than being honest about his views. Which is surely to be given some respect, even if it means that it may lose him votes for not pandering.

If one wants "respect" for one's views that diverge from a chosen electorate (in this case, GOP primary voters), then one ought not be in politics.

Huntsman is welcome to his views. However, chiding the majority of his potential voting base is the fast ticket out of the race. Good for him for standing on principle!

Of course, it does prove him deranged. Knowing he had those core principles, why did he throw his hat in the ring in the first place?

A shame, I think. You can't be a moderate in America any more, it seems.

Moderation in a person indicates they don't believe in much. What are the foundational principles of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins? You will search in vain for them.

Now, compromise as a group is a different matter. When the best ideas from all perspectives are presented and argued, that is a different matter altogether.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

20 Aug 2011, 6:17 am

rickyp wrote:
Your "proof" (sorry, but it is a liberal think tank) looks at "adults." You can't pick a more liberal group without actively searching for one.

You are too funny.
Stanford University is a Liberal Think tank?

Thank you again for demonstrating your mental vacuity. From the "About/Overview" page of YOUR link:

The Ward W. and Priscilla B. Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University harnesses the expertise and imagination of leading academics and decision-makers to create practical solutions for people and the planet. In the same spirit that inspired Stanford’s role in Silicon Valley’s high-tech revolution, the Woods Institute is pioneering innovative approaches to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century – from climate change to sustainable food supplies to ocean conservation.

The Woods Institute carries out its mission by:

Sponsoring research that leads to new solutions to global environmental sustainability issues.
Infusing science into policies and practices of the business, government, and NGO communities.
Developing strong environmental leaders for today and the future.
Serving as a catalyst and a hub for the university's interdisciplinary work in environmental research, education, and action.

Research at Woods focuses on five core areas:

Climate & Energy
Land Use & Conservation
Oceans & Estuaries
Freshwater
Sustainable Built Environment

The Woods Environmental Venture Projects program provides seed funding to interdisciplinary teams of faculty for innovative research in these core areas.

Through its Strategic Collaborations and Uncommon Dialogues, the institute brings faculty together with leaders from the private and public sectors to develop pragmatic approaches and tools for solving major environmental challenges.

Finding practical solutions also requires leaders in research, business, and public policy who can effectively communicate and collaborate. The Woods Institute provides researchers with leadership training and creates opportunities for decision makers to learn about cutting-edge environmental research. To educate and inspire future leaders, the institute sponsors unique educational programs for students and teachers.

Through this and other work, the Woods Institute is helping to ensure that we can meet the needs of not only the current generation but of generations to come.
"Solving the world's urgent environmental problems takes bold ideas from leaders and experts in many fields and involves collaboration of researchers from diverse disciplines. Stanford's preeminence as a research university and history of multidisciplinary cooperation provide the best academic combination for addressing these problems."

-- Ward Woods, class of '64 and
former Stanford University trustee.

I know you know nothing of American politics (you demonstrate that virtually every day), but the above does not describe mainstream conservative thought. "Stanford" is not as liberal as "Berkeley," but it is not a conservative school at all. The fact that Condoleezza Rice is there does not make it conservative. We can debate this all you want, but the institute you linked is in no way conservative.

Back to the topic. I have no interest in arguing (yet again) about AGW. The Earth will either be destroyed or it won't be--and we can't afford to worry about it at the moment. However, until NYC and Boston are underwater, I'm going to keep burning hydrocarbons.

Perry's an idiot. The campaign will give him lots of time to continue proving that to voters. I'm betting that Obama would love to run against either Bachman or especially Perry.

Every conservative is an idiot--just ask sophisticated people like you or the NYT. Yet, somehow, more often than not, the "idiot" defeats the "genius" and becomes POTUS (Reagan over Carter and Mondale, Bush 43 over Gore and Kerry) How does that happen?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

20 Aug 2011, 6:33 am

Oh, I thought you had a real example. Sorry.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

20 Aug 2011, 7:37 am

danivon wrote:Oh, I thought you had a real example. Sorry.

Yes, the Democratic Party is disappointing. I apologize for their narrowness.

: Archduke Russell John; Dignitary; Posts: 3239; Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

21 Aug 2011, 10:38 am

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Steve's made some very excellent points here that most of you are ignoring. Campaigning in a primary election is much different than in a general election. The electorate is largely your base of support in the primary.

I actually have discussed this a number of times. Currently a majority of states (26) have open or semi open primaries which allow Indpendents to vote which ever party they choose. Of those 26, about 2/3 are fully open primaries which allow Republicans and Democrats to vote on each other primary ballots.

There is no Democratic Presidential campaign primary. Therefore, in 26 states Independents are going to be voting in the Republican primary and in about 18 of them, conservative Democrats unhappy with Obama may choose to vote in the Republican Primaries/Caucuses. So when you count moderate Republican, Independents, and conservative Democrats, it is possible that a good portion of the voters in the Republican primaries/caucuses of 26 states are not going to be the social conservatives that everybody says makes up the Republican base. Somebody like Perry or Bachman will not play well with those voters

Steve likes to say that he will crawl over broken glass and vote for Romney but would stay home if it was Huntsman. Well, I have been a Republican for 24 years. I am very active in my local Republican Party. I have worked for a Republican elected official, and held elected office as a Republican. I truly think Obama is a disaster as President. He lacks any leadership qualities and is a complete and total failure as President. Having said that, if my choice for a Republican President is Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry, I will most likely vote for the Libertarian Party Candidate.

588 posts • Page 15 of 40 • 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 40

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

U.S. Presidential 2012