Cain vs. Unable

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I must say this, a Cain/Obama final matchup would make for fascinating political drama.[/quote]

I think reasonable money suggests a Romney/Cain ticket. No idea if this is how it would shake out, but Romney is awfully supportive of Cain.

Cain’s foreign policy chops - or lack thereof - make him not ready for prime-time. He’s not fluent in foreign policy space, but might fit into a VP slot.

This would be a hard ticket to beat, I think:

  1. Romney has the polish and he appeals to independents (who are the GOP’s to lose). And - Romney has the money.
  2. Cain has grassroots authenticity and can (help) bring out conservatives who think Romney is a squishy Rockefeller Republican. He can also help make the case as how important is for those a little further to the right to get out and vote (i.e., he’d ba great cheerleader with credibility).
  3. Cain will force the black community to re-evaluate how it typically votes.
  4. Cain’s strength is financial policy, and he can focus on his specialty since foreign policy will be in the hands of a very competent Secretary of State (who knows who Romney would appoint, but why not Huntsman?).
82

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I must say this, a Cain/Obama final matchup would make for fascinating political drama.[/quote]

I think reasonable money suggests a Romney/Cain ticket. No idea if this is how it would shake out, but Romney is awfully supportive of Cain.

Cain’s foreign policy chops - or lack thereof - make him not ready for prime-time. He’s not fluent in foreign policy space, but might fit into a VP slot.

This would be a hard ticket to beat, I think:

  1. Romney has the polish and he appeals to independents (who are the GOP’s to lose). And - Romney has the money.
  2. Cain has grassroots authenticity and can (help) bring out conservatives who think Romney is a squishy Rockefeller Republican. He can also help make the case as how important is for those a little further to the right to get out and vote (i.e., he’d ba great cheerleader with credibility).
  3. Cain will force the black community to re-evaluate how it typically votes.
  4. Cain’s strength is financial policy, and he can focus on his specialty since foreign policy will be in the hands of a very competent Secretary of State (who knows who Romney would appoint, but why not Huntsman?).[/quote]

Any ticket involving Romney will cause a significant portion of the Republican base to stay home, resulting in a win for Obama.

In fact, if you dig into any poll, the “enthusastic” voters of the Republican party (the ones who father up grandmas from nursing homes to go vote, put out yard signs, raise money, etc.) have very high NEGATIVE opinions of Romney. Without their core supporters, either party looses.

We saw this with McCain – Obama did not win, so much as McCain lost because of lack of voter participation.

At best, the base will stay home.

Probably, a third party (a TEA Party) would run a candidate, which would siphon away 20% of the vote, akin to Clinton v. Bush v. Perot.

In short Romney = 4 more years of Obama.

Anyone who wants to avoid Obama should push Cain or Perry or maybe Gingrich.

83

i have to say I see both Ruffian’s and thunderbolt’s scenarios as plausible. However, I remain a bit skeptical of the “Romney will force people who don’t think he is conservative enough to stay home” line of thinking. Reason being is that he has much more charisma and polish than McCain ever could dream of, and he’s a million years younger. Much of the reason that McCain lost the fence sitters had to do with his inability to appeal to them on other grounds…if somebody looks like they have it together, you might be able to stomach giving them a chance even if you don’t particularly like or agree with their positions. This is something Obama had in ABUNDANCE during the '08 election: For crying out loud, he even convinced the godfather of conservatism’s son to vote for Obama and thereby relinquish his post on National Review as editor for his fathers magazine!

That’s charisma. I mean, this is a guy that is very well educated, very well politically informed, and very politically opposed to everything Obama stood for…but decided to vote for him. Romney has a helluva lot more of this charisma than McCain could ever dream of, and therefore I see far FAR less people being pissed enough to sit home or vote for the opposition.

84

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

i have to say I see both Ruffian’s and thunderbolt’s scenarios as plausible. However, I remain a bit skeptical of the “Romney will force people who don’t think he is conservative enough to stay home” line of thinking. Reason being is that he has much more charisma and polish than McCain ever could dream of, and he’s a million years younger. Much of the reason that McCain lost the fence sitters had to do with his inability to appeal to them on other grounds…if somebody looks like they have it together, you might be able to stomach giving them a chance even if you don’t particularly like or agree with their positions. This is something Obama had in ABUNDANCE during the '08 election: For crying out loud, he even convinced the godfather of conservatism’s son to vote for Obama and thereby relinquish his post on National Review as editor for his fathers magazine!

That’s charisma. I mean, this is a guy that is very well educated, very well politically informed, and very politically opposed to everything Obama stood for…but decided to vote for him. Romney has a helluva lot more of this charisma than McCain could ever dream of, and therefore I see far FAR less people being pissed enough to sit home or vote for the opposition.[/quote]

Good post - and there are the stakes: maybe Romney doesn’t excite the base, but given what has transpired since 2008, the stakes are high enough to get excited.

If the GOP opts for a “turn out the base” strategy expecting to win in 2012, they deserve to lose. Independents have been gift-wrapped and delivered to the GOP. Every election requires a delicate balancing of trying to win moderates and the base simultaneously, but given recent history, the GOP cannot afford to screw this up with independent voters.

Obama’s enormous mistake was that he actually alienated both after getting elected (that’s pretty hard to do): independents got furious at his ideological mission and desire to be “transformational” in a left-liberal scope, and the left-liberal base got furious when Obama refused to fight like the true left-liberal warrior they were certain they had elected.

If the GOP doesn’t learn from these mistakes, they are, of course, doomed to repeat them.

And, it’s what the American electorate wants. They’ve tired of ideological trench warfare. Independents thought they were electing a kind of Clintonian New Democrat in Obama, a Third Way pragmatist. When they learned they didn’t, all hell broke loose. The GOP needs to capture that spirit and deliver the goods.

85

640×522 36.2 KB

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
i have to say I see both Ruffian’s and thunderbolt’s scenarios as plausible. However, I “Romney will force people who don’t think he is conservative enough to stay home” line of thinking. [/quote]

Romney might not raise taxes, and that’s about it. No SS and Medicare reform. The moment he even talks about the need, it becomes an ideological battle. He’ll run fast and far from the issue to keep his independent in order to win the election/re-election. I predict a Romney presidency consisting of similar tax rates, and continued spending increases. This, during the nomination, is as conservative as Romney gets. Worst case scenario, and not all that unlikely with Romney, we begins launching ‘compassionate conservative’ spending of his own. He will veer left on spending, while maybe, maybe, maintaining present tax rates.

If we pick a candidate who is least likely to seem ideological, that will be the presidency (if he can without the base turning out) you’ll get. There is no reforming SS and Medicare (spending cuts), and curbing government spending in general, without getting in a nasty ideological battle. This year, a supposed year of austerity that saw nasty, knock-down, drag out ideological fights? Pitiful.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/588254/201110170805/The-Austerity-Myth-Federal-Spending-Up-5-This-Year.aspx

It will HAVE to get nasty, period. That, are we simply aren’t serious about putting this government on a diet. In which case, why bother voting republican? I’m not looking for the guy who’ll allow spend to increase, but at a lesser rate. I’m looking for the guy who won’t blink when it comes to reforming entitlement obligations and balancing the budget. I don’t think Romney is that guy at all. Watch videos which mash up his various flip-flops is painful! You watch, Obama will hit this guy hard over traditional small government ideas. Romney will squirm and run for the center, disgusting the conservative base. And then Obama will begin hitting him on his flip-flopping (a heck of a lot smoother than Perry did).

86

Oooh, he’s pro-choice.