View topic - Republican Presidential Nomination • Redscape

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

16 Jan 2012, 11:36 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Not that this will make the Archduke feel better, but I caught a bit of Huntsman on the Huckabee show this weekend. He was answering a question from an SC voter re the Department of Education. He was brilliant. It actually made me think "Well, maybe if this turns into a dogfight, he could be the guy."

I was actually, for the first time, excited about his candidacy.

That's very ironic. Ideologically I feel closer to Huntsman than any of the other candidates, including Obama. It seems that Huntsman's ideas are better than his presentation. Although he is smart, looks like a President, has integrity, and a good resume to back it up, there is something about his mannerisms that people (and especially Republicans) found off putting.

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

16 Jan 2012, 11:47 am

Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Not that this will make the Archduke feel better, but I caught a bit of Huntsman on the Huckabee show this weekend. He was answering a question from an SC voter re the Department of Education. He was brilliant. It actually made me think "Well, maybe if this turns into a dogfight, he could be the guy."

I was actually, for the first time, excited about his candidacy.

That's very ironic. Ideologically I feel closer to Huntsman than any of the other candidates, including Obama. It seems that Huntsman's ideas are better than his presentation. Although he is smart, looks like a President, has integrity, and a good resume to back it up, there is something about his mannerisms that people (and especially Republicans) found off putting.

That was the other thing I liked about the snippet I saw: he was funny. He has come across as too "Jon Huntsman." My sense was that he was too full of himself.

Yes, everyone who runs for President has a certain level of arrogance/self-confidence. He just communicated a level that was over the line for me.

Of course, that he entered the race by basically telling Republicans not to be dumb was not the best approach. I just think they had the whole race measured wrongly and mis-calibrated their campaign.

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

16 Jan 2012, 1:53 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Not that this will make the Archduke feel better, but I caught a bit of Huntsman on the Huckabee show this weekend. He was answering a question from an SC voter re the Department of Education. He was brilliant. It actually made me think "Well, maybe if this turns into a dogfight, he could be the guy."

I was actually, for the first time, excited about his candidacy.

Now, that he has dropped out....of course... :wink:

Ray Jay wrote:[That's very ironic. Ideologically I feel closer to Huntsman than any of the other candidates, including Obama. It seems that Huntsman's ideas are better than his presentation. Although he is smart, looks like a President, has integrity, and a good resume to back it up, there is something about his mannerisms that people (and especially Republicans) found off putting.

It was the fact that he was intelligent and didn't try to hide behind the aw shucks I'm an everyman. Unfortunately, the public doesn't distinguish the difference between a guy who is smart and condescending and a guy who is smart and self-confident. There are two local Philly radio talk show hosts that I really like that I almost stopped listening to because of their reaction to Huntsman speaking Mandarin at the NH debate. Instead of saying here is a smart guy who can do they job, they accused him of being smug.

It is the one thing that I really hate. It is typified by the bumper stickers that say "My kid beat up your honor student". I really hate that.

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

16 Jan 2012, 1:58 pm

steve

Digging deeper into the Fox poll, here's a nugget from page 19: Job approval for Obama among independents is 52% disapprove, 36% approve. Hint: that's not good.

No its not. Why is it then, despite this number, he still leads Mitt in a face to face?

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

16 Jan 2012, 2:22 pm

rickyp wrote:steve
Digging deeper into the Fox poll, here's a nugget from page 19: Job approval for Obama among independents is 52% disapprove, 36% approve. Hint: that's not good.

No its not. Why is it then, despite this number, he still leads Mitt in a face to face?

Barely. Let's face it, the MOE is +-3 points, so Obama is anywhere from being 5 points behind Romney to 7 points ahead.

Still, I'm not sure that 'Job Approval for Obama' is relevant to the Republican Nomination process, other than that they want to end up with a candidate who can win, not one who is just a placeman while the real big contenders wait it out for 2016. If Obama was way ahead, then there would be a different race as it would not matter so much.

It's interesting to note that Gingrich is still ahead of Santorum in SC. I'd think that Florida would be better for Newt as well.

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

16 Jan 2012, 3:25 pm

rickyp wrote:steve
Digging deeper into the Fox poll, here's a nugget from page 19: Job approval for Obama among independents is 52% disapprove, 36% approve. Hint: that's not good.

No its not. Why is it then, despite this number, he still leads Mitt in a face to face?

In addition to Danivon's astute comment, there is the matter that you seem to forget as easily as common sense: Obama has 100% name recognition; Romney does not.

Back to the horse race, I don't care what anyone says, if Romney wins SC by 10 or more, this thing is over. Sure, Paul will stay in, but it's to make a speech or have some impact at the convention. No one can compete with Romney in FL because of the money needed.

: Guapo; Dignitary; Posts: 2552; Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

16 Jan 2012, 3:33 pm

Archduke Russell wrote:It was the fact that he was intelligent and didn't try to hide behind the aw shucks I'm an everyman. Unfortunately, the public doesn't distinguish the difference between a guy who is smart and condescending and a guy who is smart and self-confident. There are two local Philly radio talk show hosts that I really like that I almost stopped listening to because of their reaction to Huntsman speaking Mandarin at the NH debate. Instead of saying here is a smart guy who can do they job, they accused him of being smug.

It is the one thing that I really hate. It is typified by the bumper stickers that say "My kid beat up your honor student". I really hate that.

The dude was more plastic than Romney, and smarmier than Obama. He took every opportunity to talk about his adopted Chinese daughter, whether relevant or not. I guess the girl doesn't mind being paraded like a trophy, but it's annoying. Not to mention, you're not going to get a candidate to beat Romney, who is left of Romney!

There is only one stop Romney candidate in the Republican field. He is also the only candidate that will beat Obama.

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

16 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm

Guapo wrote:There is only one stop Romney candidate in the Republican field. He is also the only candidate that will beat Obama.

I understand Paul supporters like Guapo are enthusiastic. However, what makes them think he will beat Obama?

His domestic agenda will scare the center-left. His neo-isolationism will scare the center-right. If Obama has somewhere between 42 and 46% of the vote locked down, then how could Paul win?** I think there have been a few polls that showed him within the margin of error and one or two that showed him leading, but really: is the United States going to elect a guy who does not really want to be President? He has said he can't really see himself in the White House. I don't think he really thinks he can win.

So, why do you?

**By this, I mean that group will vote for him no matter who the opponent is. I don't think many in the mushy middle will flock to Paul. He is pretty extreme for most people.

: Guapo; Dignitary; Posts: 2552; Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

16 Jan 2012, 5:19 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
Guapo wrote:There is only one stop Romney candidate in the Republican field. He is also the only candidate that will beat Obama.

I understand Paul supporters like Guapo are enthusiastic. However, what makes them think he will beat Obama?

His domestic agenda will scare the center-left. His neo-isolationism will scare the center-right. If Obama has somewhere between 42 and 46% of the vote locked down, then how could Paul win?** I think there have been a few polls that showed him within the margin of error and one or two that showed him leading, but really: is the United States going to elect a guy who does not really want to be President? He has said he can't really see himself in the White House. I don't think he really thinks he can win.

So, why do you?

**By this, I mean that group will vote for him no matter who the opponent is. I don't think many in the mushy middle will flock to Paul. He is pretty extreme for most people.

If nobody but his enthusiastic supporters is voting for him, what accounts for his surge over the last 4 years--and the bigger ones more recently? Lot's of left-wingers like Ron Paul because of his stances on civil liberties and overseas. See Cenk Uygar. Will they like his economic policies? Well, he was one a few who stood against the bubbles and bailouts. He may not win them all over, but what president does?

Ron Paul kills everyone else among independents--and this is even among polls that have generally been found to underestimate him. Aren't they this "center" you're talking about?

Look at it this way:

Just by having him as the candidate, you maximize the Republican vote.

What percentage of Republicans would NOT vote for Ron Paul over Obama? If the big goal is to beat Obama, the majority of republicans (not activists or junkies) will vote for whoever they pick.
On the converse, how many will be disenchanted by Romney? Ron Paul's 25% won't vote for him. What about other conservatives that can't stand Romney? Romney as the candidate could lose 35% of the Republican vote. Independents? I just don't think Romney inspires them to come out to beat Obama. That's how incumbents with low ratings win--nothing better (or different enough) to pick.

And about a guy who doesn't "want" to be president: I think that's exactly what we need. We need someone who is applying for a job, not a title or an achievement.

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

16 Jan 2012, 11:12 pm

Did you watch the debate tonight? Those are GOP primary voters booing. After three debates, Ron Paul could not get 40% in a general election. His foreign policy is just too 19th Century.

Domestically, I'm about the only Republican who has the stomach for what Paul says. No Democrat would ever go for it. Independents would run from him once the anti-Paul ads started running.

"Ron Paul published racist newsletters . . ."

"Ron Paul is proposing such radical cuts in government services, Granny will have to rob banks or steal cat food from the neighbors to survive . . . "

"Ron Paul says he would not have sent American troops to fight Hitler. Hitler? Can we trust this man to be President?"

On and on it would go. $1B in advertising. A media, skeptical of conservatives, would turn into sulfuric acid on Paul.

Watch this clip. These are Republican voters in a conservative State. While Paul is consistent, he is politically tone-deaf. That won't get him into the White House.

Now, you said . . .

Guapo wrote:If nobody but his enthusiastic supporters is voting for him, what accounts for his surge over the last 4 years--and the bigger ones more recently?

I know Ron Paul supporters. They are either young, crazy, or both.

I would not say his support has "surged." I think it has increased. Surged?

Let me know when he wins a State. If he could not win Iowa, which is all organization, and did vote for Pat Buchanan (fairly isolationist), he can't win anywhere.

What percentage of Republicans would NOT vote for Ron Paul over Obama? If the big goal is to beat Obama, the majority of republicans (not activists or junkies) will vote for whoever they pick.

I'm not even sure I could vote for Paul. I might, IF I was sure the Congress could reel him in on foreign policy, but that is where the President is most powerful.

I can almost guarantee a real option would develop if Paul is the nominee. I'm not talking Trump, but someone a lot more centrist than Paul.

I think his goal is furthering his libertarian message.

I've said this before: I've seen Rand work a room. He is not quite as out there as his Dad. I think if there is ever going to be a President Paul, it will be his son. Getting elected to the Senate against the GOP machine was pretty impressive.

: theodorelogan; Adjutant; Posts: 180; Joined: 28 Apr 2011, 9:18 am

17 Jan 2012, 12:35 am

Yep, quite a crowd, that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltRTLNZmmfs

Then again, the crowd cheered when he said we need to end these wars...I don't get it.

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

17 Jan 2012, 6:37 am

theodorelogan wrote:Yep, quite a crowd, that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltRTLNZmmfs

Then again, the crowd cheered when he said we need to end these wars...I don't get it.

SC has a large ex-military population. Many of them don't like the "blame America first" foreign policies of Ron Paul. On the other hand, most conservatives don't care much for nation-building. If Paul stopped there, he'd be fine. He doesn't.

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

17 Jan 2012, 8:10 am

I think many would see Mark Steyn as pretty conservative. He's certainly not a "Mitt Romney Republican." This note from less than a month ago is why Ron Paul would be such a weak general election candidate.

“Let’s say for a moment 9/11 was an inside job. Does that also mean the Bali night club bombing was an inside job? That the Madrid train bombing was an inside job? That the Beslan school shooting was an inside job? That the London tube bombings were an inside job? In that case, that’s one hell of a sum to be hiding somewhere within the darkest recesses of Dick Cheney’s specific line items.”

And that, says Steyn, along with his isolationist view on foreign policy, is where Paul “meets the left.”

“So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”

Steyn also turned his attention toward Paul’s controversial newsletters from the 1990s.

Steyn raised the question that if Paul is unable to hold his newsletter to strict standards — in which accusations that Martin Luther King Jr. had sex with young boys made its way into print — is he capable of being the president of the United States?

“When a guy says, you know he signs off on Martin Luther King had sex with underage boys and then he says, ‘Oh I don’t know how that got into my newsletter. It must be an unpaid intern.’ I mean, if for example at SteynOnline.com, or HughHewitt.com — a statement to the effect that Martin Luther King was having sex with underage boys appeared, and you or I said, ‘Oh I have no idea how that got up there. I’m a busy chap. I can’t possibly be expected to take note of everything that appears there’ — whether you believe me or not, you have at least had it confirmed to you that if I can’t run a small modest publishing enterprise. I shouldn’t be entrusted with the government of the United States. He’s basically said the buck doesn’t stop here.”

I don't quite agree that Paul has called 9/11 an "inside job." However, he has implicitly blamed American foreign policy. So, did Spain, Britain, Russia, etc. all "deserve" it too? Will leaving Islamists alone cause them to stop terrorism?

Steyn's description of this as "utopian isolationism" is exactly right. Paul's foreign policy is a pipe dream.

: Guapo; Dignitary; Posts: 2552; Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

17 Jan 2012, 8:54 am

Hey, if you'd rather have Romney, that's your prerogative. But don't resort to insults and Danivon tactics (ignoring the question over a semantic issue). I don't read everything or watch everything, but I'm under the impression that Republicans are looking for an alternative--presumptively a conservative. I was simply making a mathematical and ideological point. Of the current crop of candidates, nobody can beat Romney, unless they align behind Paul. If his foreign policy scares you too much, so be it. I find it hilarious, but oh well.

: Guapo; Dignitary; Posts: 2552; Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

17 Jan 2012, 9:04 am

As for whether any Republican can beat Obama, it's out of the question. You will lose 20% of your voting base without him. The only option is for someone to draft Rand at the convention.

I wouldn't vote for a Romney/Rand VP ticket. I'll vote Johnson or stay home. I might vote for Rand as President, however.

How about that?

Paul/Paul 2012
Rand/Paul 2012

See? You can hide him in Rand!

636 posts • Page 19 of 43 • 1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 43

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

Already a Member Login Here

Republican Presidential Nomination