I guess this is a good time as any to bring up this “Who Will Win” thing.
I believe (as many do) that this election is for the GOP to lose; not for Obama to win.
The GOP has been “given” a horrible record and a horrible economy, along with a President with terrible “favorable” numbers across the Board (with the exception of 1) he’s likable (by many) and 2) he works hard).
The Right hates him; his base is angry at him; and people need jobs.
Yes, he will have a “War Chest”; and for the sake of argument, the “MSLM in his pocket”.
But can the GOP blame a loss all on those last two?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Newty is crazy, and delusional. He is a liar and unstable.
Why has the GOP turned against Newty ? Simple. He can’t beat Obama.
Romney is the only guy among the current lunatics. Santorum is too conservative. The guy doesn’t even want people to use condoms for fuck’s sake. [/quote]
This is exactly it.
Newt has no chance whatsoever of winning. The only person currently running who has a chance to beat Obama is Romney.
[/quote]
That’s what “they” said about McCain.[/quote]
Well, I don’t think Romney will beat Obama. I just think he is the only one with a chance to do so (of the republicans running).[/quote]
The Republicans cut from the same cloth as Romney do NOT win elections:
McCain
Dole
GHWB (I’m talking about his primary race against Reagan in 1980 and Clinton race in '92. His election in '88 was a sheer coattails effect from serving as VP under Reagan AND running against the dorkiest goofball of the 20th century, Dukakis).
Ford[/quote]
Okay. Which one has a better chance right now then? Of those currently running?[/quote]
I honestly don’t know. I think Romney, Gingrich or Santorum could beat him because the economy stinks so bad.
It was ultimately the economy that sunk McCain IMO. I think McCain wins in '08 if the bottom hadn’t started falling out of the financial sector that fall. Look at the summer (2008) polls to prove my point.
Yes, many whined, “We don’t want another George W Bush,” but ultimately it was the economy (“stupid”).[/quote]
I think that Obama could rape kittens on the white house lawn and still beat Gingrich.
Something I liked that Romney did, was defend capitalism.
[/quote]
Was that when he was defending TARP/stimulus and Romneycare? You want to defend capitalism without looking like a tool? Don’t defend bailing out capitalists and banks, who then turn around and oil your campaign machine.[/quote]
He defended capitalism when his tax information was made public. He pointed out that he invested his money legally, and took advantage of the tax code.
A quote my tax guy once told me, “Hey Max, I don’t make the rules, I just navigate them to find ways to save you as much money as possible.”
Both sides take payoffs, Obama took more money from Wall Street than any other president in history. Let’s be brutally honest. Romney is walking a fine line, he has to juggle being a rich guy while looking somewhat moderate.
This fringe element bullshit is not going to win in the long run. I know we all differ in our opinions, I just think people on both sides of the aisle are done with those who have gone totally bat-shit.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I guess this is a good time as any to bring up this “Who Will Win” thing.
I believe (as many do) that this election is for the GOP to lose; not for Obama to win.
The GOP has been “given” a horrible record and a horrible economy, along with a President with terrible “favorable” numbers across the Board (with the exception of 1) he’s likable (by many) and 2) he works hard).
The Right hates him; his base is angry at him; and people need jobs.
Yes, he will have a “War Chest”; and for the sake of argument, the “MSLM in his pocket”.
But can the GOP blame a loss all on those last two?
That’s worth discussion.
Mufasa[/quote]
I think the GOP needs a bit of a make-over with their reputation. It’s been 4 years, not nearly long enough for people to forget the mess with the war, the WMD lies, all that shit. Should they be able to reduce some military spending, become more neutral on social issues (being ok with gay marriage and ok with abortion), ease some of the regulations, go forward with Keystone Pipeline, they have a pretty good chance of beating Obama. This current crop of GOP candidates makes me think Jeb Bush doesn’t look so bad. I mean, Gingrich ? Really ?
This is why I think Romney is the only guy to beat Obama.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Newty is crazy, and delusional. He is a liar and unstable.
Why has the GOP turned against Newty ? Simple. He can’t beat Obama.
Romney is the only guy among the current lunatics. Santorum is too conservative. The guy doesn’t even want people to use condoms for fuck’s sake. [/quote]
This just kills me…why can the GOP not find a very fiscally conservative candidate with socially moderate views.
If we had a candidate like that who could speak at a high school level he would destroy Obama.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Newty is crazy, and delusional. He is a liar and unstable.
Why has the GOP turned against Newty ? Simple. He can’t beat Obama.
Romney is the only guy among the current lunatics. Santorum is too conservative. The guy doesn’t even want people to use condoms for fuck’s sake. [/quote]
This just kills me…why can the GOP not find a very fiscally conservative candidate with socially moderate views.
If we had a candidate like that who could speak at a high school level he would destroy Obama.[/quote]
It’s funny, here in Los Angeles, considered highly Democratic, we have a talk radio duo who is just like this (fiscally Conservative but socially neutral), and they DESTROY our state legislature. These 2 guys have single-handedly beat down higher taxes, they were nearly successful at defeating the Dream Act, and vital in the recall of former Governor Gray Davis. Every single politician in this state is scared shitless of these two, because they have about 1.5 million listeners just in LA County, and probably a couple million within the state overall.
What I have found to be true, particularly in a highly Democratic area, is to attack an issue, not the whole party. We beat down higher taxes by a 2 to 1 margin, even in this highly Democratic state, because at the end of the day, people don’t want to pay higher taxes.
Attack the principle, not the party, and you win big.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Newty is crazy, and delusional. He is a liar and unstable.
Why has the GOP turned against Newty ? Simple. He can’t beat Obama.
Romney is the only guy among the current lunatics. Santorum is too conservative. The guy doesn’t even want people to use condoms for fuck’s sake. [/quote]
This is exactly it.
Newt has no chance whatsoever of winning. The only person currently running who has a chance to beat Obama is Romney.
[/quote]
While you are correct this is very difficult for the zealous right to get their arms around.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Newty is crazy, and delusional. He is a liar and unstable.
Why has the GOP turned against Newty ? Simple. He can’t beat Obama.
Romney is the only guy among the current lunatics. Santorum is too conservative. The guy doesn’t even want people to use condoms for fuck’s sake. [/quote]
This is exactly it.
Newt has no chance whatsoever of winning. The only person currently running who has a chance to beat Obama is Romney.
[/quote]
Of the three ( I dismiss Paul), Romney is the least likely to win. Polls at the moment don’t matter. The narrative in the general will change the story quickly. The base turnout will be suppressed, and those independents won’t break for him as hard as people think. Not after what the billion dollar Obama machine does to him. He can barely pull this off with a huge money advantage as it is. Obama will not have Newt and Satorum money disadvantage.
He is completely disarmed on three big issues. While, begging to be turned into a Tonight Show/SNL flip-flopping panda-bear caricature. Only the caricature will be all too damn accurate.
[/quote]
You cannot attack someone for the same things that you do. In fact, if Romney cannot be the perfect candidate better that he’s a flip-flopper than anything else as Obama is also a flip-flopper.
Whereas Gingrich has major character issues and Santorum is (will be when the media gets a full stranlge hold on him) seen as a moralist. And this in a time when people reject this type of reasoning out of hand.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The first Speaker of the House to ever be removed for ethics violations.
[/quote]
This is historical ignorance. Gingrich was not removed, nor did he resign over ethics violations. That’s a complete falsehood.
[/quote]
You are correct he was fined and then resigned months later. Yeah…that looks good. So what will the MSLM say?
“Gingrich the only Speaker of the House who was fined for ethics violations. And who resigned months after that.”
Yeah that looks good. He should run against Obama because no one will care about that stuff it’s only a Presidential election and it’s not like the Obama people and the MSLM will make any hay with this stuff.
Hiring a lobbyist to work in a different capacity other than lobbying is not the same thing as being a lobbyist…especially for frannie and freddie. [/quote]
Oooooh, so surrounding yourself with actual lobbyists (influence peddlers), who actually practiced lobbying, including for the Macs, no problem. Gee, and here I was thinking Romney was taking a principled stand!
[/quote]
Hiring a former lobbyist as say a consultant is not illegal and not even immoral. So, you can keep saying it’s wrong but…well it’s just not. Go back to Romney being a flip-flopper while that won’t hurt him for reasons I’ve already explained at least you have a basis for an argument.
Hiring a former lobbyist as say a consultant is not illegal and not even immoral.[/quote]
Neither is being a consultant, which is the friggen point! But if you’re going to make a stink of it then don’t throw in with actual lobbyists (you know, who actually lobby for a living), like a tool. Especially when your advisers lobbied for none other than the Macs! You’re the one who has been on parroting the campaign crafted “influence peddler!” Yet, when someone points out Mitt’s little ‘influence peddlers’ (and they actually were Mac lobbyists) you come to the rescue. Influence peddling bad, hiring professional influence peddlers good. Mind = blown.
If McCain beat Romney over flip-flopping, Obama’s team will end him.
Hiring a former lobbyist as say a consultant is not illegal and not even immoral.[/quote]
Neither is being a consultant, which is the friggen point! But if you’re going to make a stink of it then don’t throw in with actual lobbyists (you know, who actually lobby for a living), like a tool. Especially when your advisers lobbied for none other than the Macs! You’re the one who has been on parroting the campaign crafted “influence peddler!” Yet, when someone points out Mitt’s little ‘influence peddlers’ (and they actually were Mac lobbyists) you come to the rescue. Influence peddling bad, hiring professional influence peddlers good. Mind = blown.
If McCain beat Romney over flip-flopping, Obama’s team will end him.
[/quote]
Again, being a lobbyist for fannie and freddie and hiring a lobbyist as a consultant are two entirely different things. Those consultants are not running for the highest office in the land AND he didn’t hire them to lobby. If you don’t see the difference it’s not because you’re not smart enough it’s because you’re too stubborn to accept the major differences…AND you don’t like Romney so hey…you can look at him and say “his hair is out of place so he’s no good.” Okay bad comparison his hair is never out of place.
As to your other comment, you should know by now that a primary is different than a general election. Once again, who votes in a republican primary? The far right (mostly). In a general election most couldn’t care less that he changed his mind and grew more conservative over the years. And most importantly Obama is the king of flip-flops. If he dares bring it up to separate Romney from the right all Romney’s team has to do is bring up Obama’s flip-flops which separate him from the far left. Things like renewing the Bush tax cuts and not closing Guantanamo. There is a long list of his flip-flops. So bring it on! It’s a wash Sloth.
Romney is it buddy – that is if you want to win. [/quote]
Oh yeah. The guy who was beat by the guy who Obama beat. Winning![/quote]
What does that mean again? Oh yeah NOTHING!!
Shall we take a quick peek at history?
There are many examples but let’s just take the following: Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 1976 and went on to lose to Jimmy Carter. Four years later Reagan gets the nod and beats Jimmy Carter.
Now why was that?
Many reasons–A primary is not a general AND once a man is in office and has a record to run on people tend to be more critical.
Romney is it buddy – that is if you want to win. [/quote]
Oh yeah. The guy who was beat by the guy who Obama beat. Winning![/quote]
What does that mean again? Oh yeah NOTHING!!
Shall we take a quick peek at history?
There are many examples but let’s just take the following: Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 1976 and went on to lose to Jimmy Carter. Four years later Reagan gets the nod and beats Jimmy Carter.
Now why was that?
Many reasons–A primary is not a general AND once a man is in office and has a record to run on people tend to be more critical.
I get it though you hate Romney. [/quote]
Romney is sure as heck no Reagan. Hell, he ran away from Reagan (and the Contract).
See you at his concession speech. Romney was disliked before, but now he’s burned his bridges. When the numbers come in from his loss, and it’s evident the base didn’t turn out, we’ll have something to talk about. Until then, run your ‘conservative.’