The same.
I think that Palin’s value to the GOP is NOT as a candidate; but as an eventual public voice for Presidential candidate.
Jumping into the race at this point will (IMO) weaken the overall field by shifting votes from the frontrunner(s).
Mufasa
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have no idea.
Perry has to be careful, while steering to the right he could easily implode. Probably won’t happen because he has some good handlers who know just how far to push it. Over all he could play rather well on the public stage vs Obama. Perry can almost (not quite) match Obama’s stage presence. He’s a decent speaker. And his enthusiasm is far and away better than Obama’s and that matters when voters look at them side by side. The Christian right loves him to pieces which means that they’ll turn out in large numbers on election day. The media will have a field day trying to scare voters into thinking that Perry is a scary Christian man who will make every one pray before Dinner each evening. I can hear Jon Stewart now taking Perry apart piece by piece—But he’s just a comedian right? Ha! The good part is the Christian right has abandoned Michelle Bachman. That I’m thankful for.
Romney passed health care in Mass. This is something that the media will grab a hold of and not let go. He’s also a Mormon and even though we have freedom of religion in the US, that will be a point of contention with some people, why I don’t know, if you seriously ill and the best doctor around was a Mormon would you decline treatment? But of course the media will drill it home so often that before the election is through you’ll think he has 5 wives. Side by side with Obama Romney will look just as Presidential and he is a better speaker and debater than Obama. You read that correctly! Romney is polished poised and if he should be the nominee will be very much used to standing on stage and debating. This is something that Obama will not be used to. So he may look rusty as Bush did in his first debate with John Kerry. Either way Romney matches Obama’s charisma.
I doubt Christie will enter the race but if he does he will zoom to the top three rather quickly. He has that “every man” appeal which will win over plenty of male votes. He won’t do as well with the women as Perry or Romney. He brings NJ (15 electoral votes) to the republican side and that’s a big help as they usually vote for the democrat. But I rather think that Christie would better serve the republican party on the bottom half of the ticket. There he could pound Obama and allow the top part of the ticket to take the high road.
Rubio will not run this time around, nor will he accept the VP position. Sure I could be wrong but I’d bet on it. He has a promising future and does not want to throw it away running against Obama the media darling. Plus he’s fairly new to Washington and would help himself more by establishing his power base and running in 2016 against a new pack of democrats, should Obama win this time around.
Bachman is DOA. When Perry entered the race you could hear a huge sucking sound at her national campaign headquarters. It was the wind created from all of her supporters running from her to Perry. Like a balloon losing air the Bachman candidacy is in huge trouble. She may hang in there for a while but I don’t see her going the distance. And if the nominee is smart he’ll not pick Bachman for VP for many obvious reasons. Her only hope is to win a major debate over Perry in her next couple of outings. Don’t expect it as Perry is far to savvy to allow Bachman the opportunity.
I heard former Governor of NY George Pataki may get into the race. He is nothing that anyone should be concerned with. But, he would make a fabulous VP. If he can help win New York (31 electoral votes) for the ticket. But there’s no guarantee, as sitting Governors do a lot better in their states than former Governors. A huge plus for the GOP ticket if they could pull that one off. And I dare say this would put them over the top as New York is never in play for the republicans. The last time that New York voted for a republican was Ronald Reagan in 1984. And in fact Reagan lost New York in 1980 against Jimmy Carter.
Santorum is in this race to win the bottom part of the ticket. He was underfunded from the beginning and his intentions are obvious. Santorum might work well with a more centrist nominee such as Romney. But there is no guarantee that Santorum could bring PA he was unseated in running for reelection for Senator. Bob Casey beat him back in 07’. After that I thought his political career was essentially over. What he’s doing now is, I think pure genius, if he can pull it off. I like his conservative positions but he comes off as mean spirited at times and scowls far too much. Someone should tell him that only happy upbeat conservatives like Ronald Reagan get elected to high office.
Cain Absolutely not going any where. Dull is a good word to define Cain. Between his lack of stage presence and his lack of experience he’s the total losing package. Nor would I suggest that the eventual nominee choose him for VP hoping to win the black vote. The black vote is not going to take even one step away from the democratic party, especially with Obama on the ticket.
John Huntsman is one more who is in it for the VP slot and has already stated that he’d be proud to serve on the ticket with Michelle Bachman. No one ever says things like that this early unless that is in fact their true intentions from the start. But whomever gets the nomination should steer clear of this guy. He’s a democrat in republicans clothing. And more importantly he’s dull. Not Herman Cain dull, but not much better. He too, like Santorum has a smiling problem. And yes that stuff is important. And not on a conscious level. Someone may not look at him and say “he’s not smiling I’m not voting for him.” But on a subconscious level it is very important. “You know I like that guy, I can’t put my finger on why but I just do.” That type of thing. Huntsman is not going anywhere. He’ll soon drop from the public screen and you will never hear of him again. He will move to Mexico and live under an assumed name. Okay, probably not but he’s not going to become President that I can assure you.
Ron Paul Since I’ve already written volumes on why he will not win I don’t feel compelled to restate the obvious here. Suffice it to say that only the young and naive believe that he has a chance. Nor will he be on the ticket with the eventual winner. He will however go back to his tiny district and probably get reelected until he reaches the age of 100 which is only a few years away. 
So who is going to win? I Don’t know. But it’s a lot of fun trying to figure it all out isn’t it?
[/quote]
Nice summary. In your opinion what are the crucial issues that a candidate must touch upon to make themselves first the candidate, and secondly, electable?
Bambi:
I agree with Max on this; hammer home the President’s tenure ("It’s the economy, Stupid…) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY AVOID GOING “TOO” FAR RIGHT WITH RELIGION/GAY RIGHTS/ABORTION, ETC.
It will certainly excite the base…but can be a losing strategy in the General Election.
(By the way; I thought that launching his campaign with a “Prayer Service”; in order to fire-up the base; was a brilliant political move on Perry’s part).
Mufasa
[quote]Bambi wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have no idea.
Perry has to be careful, while steering to the right he could easily implode. Probably won’t happen because he has some good handlers who know just how far to push it. Over all he could play rather well on the public stage vs Obama. Perry can almost (not quite) match Obama’s stage presence. He’s a decent speaker. And his enthusiasm is far and away better than Obama’s and that matters when voters look at them side by side. The Christian right loves him to pieces which means that they’ll turn out in large numbers on election day. The media will have a field day trying to scare voters into thinking that Perry is a scary Christian man who will make every one pray before Dinner each evening. I can hear Jon Stewart now taking Perry apart piece by piece—But he’s just a comedian right? Ha! The good part is the Christian right has abandoned Michelle Bachman. That I’m thankful for.
Romney passed health care in Mass. This is something that the media will grab a hold of and not let go. He’s also a Mormon and even though we have freedom of religion in the US, that will be a point of contention with some people, why I don’t know, if you seriously ill and the best doctor around was a Mormon would you decline treatment? But of course the media will drill it home so often that before the election is through you’ll think he has 5 wives. Side by side with Obama Romney will look just as Presidential and he is a better speaker and debater than Obama. You read that correctly! Romney is polished poised and if he should be the nominee will be very much used to standing on stage and debating. This is something that Obama will not be used to. So he may look rusty as Bush did in his first debate with John Kerry. Either way Romney matches Obama’s charisma.
I doubt Christie will enter the race but if he does he will zoom to the top three rather quickly. He has that “every man” appeal which will win over plenty of male votes. He won’t do as well with the women as Perry or Romney. He brings NJ (15 electoral votes) to the republican side and that’s a big help as they usually vote for the democrat. But I rather think that Christie would better serve the republican party on the bottom half of the ticket. There he could pound Obama and allow the top part of the ticket to take the high road.
Rubio will not run this time around, nor will he accept the VP position. Sure I could be wrong but I’d bet on it. He has a promising future and does not want to throw it away running against Obama the media darling. Plus he’s fairly new to Washington and would help himself more by establishing his power base and running in 2016 against a new pack of democrats, should Obama win this time around.
Bachman is DOA. When Perry entered the race you could hear a huge sucking sound at her national campaign headquarters. It was the wind created from all of her supporters running from her to Perry. Like a balloon losing air the Bachman candidacy is in huge trouble. She may hang in there for a while but I don’t see her going the distance. And if the nominee is smart he’ll not pick Bachman for VP for many obvious reasons. Her only hope is to win a major debate over Perry in her next couple of outings. Don’t expect it as Perry is far to savvy to allow Bachman the opportunity.
I heard former Governor of NY George Pataki may get into the race. He is nothing that anyone should be concerned with. But, he would make a fabulous VP. If he can help win New York (31 electoral votes) for the ticket. But there’s no guarantee, as sitting Governors do a lot better in their states than former Governors. A huge plus for the GOP ticket if they could pull that one off. And I dare say this would put them over the top as New York is never in play for the republicans. The last time that New York voted for a republican was Ronald Reagan in 1984. And in fact Reagan lost New York in 1980 against Jimmy Carter.
Santorum is in this race to win the bottom part of the ticket. He was underfunded from the beginning and his intentions are obvious. Santorum might work well with a more centrist nominee such as Romney. But there is no guarantee that Santorum could bring PA he was unseated in running for reelection for Senator. Bob Casey beat him back in 07’. After that I thought his political career was essentially over. What he’s doing now is, I think pure genius, if he can pull it off. I like his conservative positions but he comes off as mean spirited at times and scowls far too much. Someone should tell him that only happy upbeat conservatives like Ronald Reagan get elected to high office.
Cain Absolutely not going any where. Dull is a good word to define Cain. Between his lack of stage presence and his lack of experience he’s the total losing package. Nor would I suggest that the eventual nominee choose him for VP hoping to win the black vote. The black vote is not going to take even one step away from the democratic party, especially with Obama on the ticket.
John Huntsman is one more who is in it for the VP slot and has already stated that he’d be proud to serve on the ticket with Michelle Bachman. No one ever says things like that this early unless that is in fact their true intentions from the start. But whomever gets the nomination should steer clear of this guy. He’s a democrat in republicans clothing. And more importantly he’s dull. Not Herman Cain dull, but not much better. He too, like Santorum has a smiling problem. And yes that stuff is important. And not on a conscious level. Someone may not look at him and say “he’s not smiling I’m not voting for him.” But on a subconscious level it is very important. “You know I like that guy, I can’t put my finger on why but I just do.” That type of thing. Huntsman is not going anywhere. He’ll soon drop from the public screen and you will never hear of him again. He will move to Mexico and live under an assumed name. Okay, probably not but he’s not going to become President that I can assure you.
Ron Paul Since I’ve already written volumes on why he will not win I don’t feel compelled to restate the obvious here. Suffice it to say that only the young and naive believe that he has a chance. Nor will he be on the ticket with the eventual winner. He will however go back to his tiny district and probably get reelected until he reaches the age of 100 which is only a few years away.
So who is going to win? I Don’t know. But it’s a lot of fun trying to figure it all out isn’t it?
[/quote]
Nice summary. In your opinion what are the crucial issues that a candidate must touch upon to make themselves first the candidate, and secondly, electable?[/quote]
Mufasa said it well. The GOP nominee must keep the focus on the economy. There is no other issue that even comes close in 2012. If Obama is able to shift people’s attention away from the economy he wins. Keep in mind he can do that multiple ways. Here just two:
1-Keep the GOP nominee off message by constantly attacking him. Here’s wher an Obama friednly media will help him greatly.
2-Use the military might of the US to shift focus away from the economy.
If I were the GOP nominee the words “abortion” and “gay marriage” would never be mentioned unless I was pushed. But the words “unemployment” and “national debt” would always be on my lips.
If the GOP has just the right combination on the ticket, and runs a near perfect campaign centered around the economy they can squeak out a victory against Obama (especially if Obama keeps Biden. If he dumps Biden for Hillary there is no winning). Otherwise, it’s not happening.
Cheers Mufasa and Zeb some interesting views there from both of you.
I agree with both of you that an economy wide focus is much more important and that ‘cornerstone’ issues such as abortion or gay marriage should not be mentioned by the GOP candidate - Clinton got it right when he ran. It’ll be very interesting to see how the economy of the US, and the global economy as a whole, shifts in the next 18 months
Out of interest Zeb why would, in your opinion, an Obama/Hilary campaign be any more effective than Obama/Biden? Is it because having Hilary is essentially having Bill back?
It would fire up Liberal Women and Black Americans, Bambi.
In the Black Community; Clinton is considered the first “black” President…and is admired till this day.
Mufasa
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Cheers Mufasa and Zeb some interesting views there from both of you.
I agree with both of you that an economy wide focus is much more important and that ‘cornerstone’ issues such as abortion or gay marriage should not be mentioned by the GOP candidate - Clinton got it right when he ran. It’ll be very interesting to see how the economy of the US, and the global economy as a whole, shifts in the next 18 months
Out of interest Zeb why would, in your opinion, an Obama/Hilary campaign be any more effective than Obama/Biden? Is it because having Hilary is essentially having Bill back?[/quote]
It’s not about Bill directly. It’s about all of the women who had their hopes dashed when the entire democratic party and the main stream liberal media fell in love with Obama and threw Hillary under the bus. Hllary was going to be the democratic nominee. It was her day in the sun. And then suddenly POOF – She was yestardays’ news and many women resented that but went for Obama as they didn’t like McCain. They shouldn’t assume that will happen again. Most likely Obama will win the female vote by a slight margin without Hllary. But with Hillary he will win it in a very big way. In a close race it could be the difference between winning and losing.
And of course having Bill Clinton campaign for you would be like having a third member on the ticket. For example Obama could be campaigning in the key state of Illinois (his home state) while Hillary is in Ohio (toss up state), and Bill is in PA another important toss up state. I think they would be unstoppable.
I would have to say that having her in the ticket has many positives and no negatives. But will Obama’s immense ego bow to the Clinton’s in such a fashion? Would it look disloyal to dump Biden? Of course there could already be a deal in the works. Biden is VP for four years he then retires- he’s not asked to leave- but retires. And Hillary steps up “reluctantly.”
Very interesting stuff.
One other point.
One “knew” Clinton’s view on social/cultural issues without him having to dwell on them. As has been pointed out; he knew better thsn anyone that it was all about the economy.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One other point.
One “knew” Clinton’s view on social/cultural issues without him having to dwell on them. As has been pointed out; he knew better thsn anyone that it was all about the economy.
Mufasa[/quote]
He is a master politician and could really help Obama get elected. But is Obama too egotisical to allow that to happen?
This thread have taken a positiv turn. Its actually a good read.
Mufasa and Zeb should have theire own column in a newspaper or tv channel where they discuss tactics
and strategys in the current affairs in the political sphere.
Do we have a historical precedent for a President running a second term and CHOOSING to change their VP? (i.e. not from death, illness, etc.)
I think that a lot of the President’s strategy will depend on the GOP nominee.
Mufasa
Do we have a historical precedent for a President running a second term and CHOOSING to change their VP? (i.e. not from death, illness, etc.)
I think that a lot of the President’s strategy will depend on the GOP nominee.
Mufasa
How is it going to differ via candidates? As the most likely look to be Romney and Perry (though obviously it’s too early to be certain) would Obama point out Romney’s flip-flopping record and say he’s a ‘rhino’, so you might as well vote for the real democrat? And with Perry would he affirm his centrist credentials more, trying to take in the moderates Perry could scare away.
I agree on the newspaper column, you guys really know your stuff here.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If I were the GOP nominee the words “abortion” and “gay marriage” would never be mentioned unless I was pushed.
[/quote]
Which would be often, and at length. When you don’t want to talk about it, they will make you talk about it. And, if you stonewall, and hem-and-haw, you’ll look like a man who doesn’t even believe in what he supposedly believes in. Ultimately, if republicans can’t win with those issues out front, then it doesn’t matter who wins. Long term, our national health revolves around winning the cultural argument, not the economic argument.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
When you don’t want to talk about it, they will make you talk about it. And, if you stonewall, and hem-and-haw, you’ll look like a man who doesn’t even believe in what he supposedly believes in. Ultimately, if republicans can’t win with those issues out front, then it doesn’t matter who wins. Long term, our national health revolves around winning the cultural argument, not the economic argument.
[/quote]
First of all when the topic comes up you clearly define your position, you don’t run from your beliefs. No need to run as most of America (over the age of 28 or so) is center right on social issues. But the point is to keep the pressure on Obama about the economy because THAT is the single most important topic on the majority’s mind. And that is where Obama is weakest! Just as in a boxing match you would strike your opponent repeatedly on his right eye because that’s where he’s bleeding.
Also, the smart GOP nominee will want to send a message that he is not touting himself as a social conservative. By not doing this he will also pull in more independents and democrats. And he will already have the republicans in his corner.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If I were the GOP nominee the words “abortion” and “gay marriage” would never be mentioned unless I was pushed.
[/quote]
Which would be often, and at length. When you don’t want to talk about it, they will make you talk about it. And, if you stonewall, and hem-and-haw, you’ll look like a man who doesn’t even believe in what he supposedly believes in. Ultimately, if republicans can’t win with those issues out front, then it doesn’t matter who wins. Long term, our national health revolves around winning the cultural argument, not the economic argument.
[/quote]
No Politician can effect the change they want; good or bad; liberal or conservative;if they don’t get elected.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If I were the GOP nominee the words “abortion” and “gay marriage” would never be mentioned unless I was pushed.
[/quote]
Which would be often, and at length. When you don’t want to talk about it, they will make you talk about it. And, if you stonewall, and hem-and-haw, you’ll look like a man who doesn’t even believe in what he supposedly believes in. Ultimately, if republicans can’t win with those issues out front, then it doesn’t matter who wins. Long term, our national health revolves around winning the cultural argument, not the economic argument.
[/quote]
No Politician can effect the change they want; good or bad; liberal or conservative;if they don’t get elected.
Mufasa[/quote]
And they can’t get elected until the people accept the message, and change. For now, what fiscal conservatisms exist among the people is akin to, “Fight fraud and waste, don’t touch my SS and Medicare.” Laughable. You’ve got a population that will grow old without a spouse (even if they’d have a few in their younger years), maybe 1 if any children (though often not local to themselves), and demanding 6-12 months of additional life, cost be damned. Fiscal conservatism is dead. We’ve got maybe a few more years of fiscal conservatism equaling no more than cutting fraud and waste, before the term becomes a dirty word. The people need to respect marriage, marry, stay married, have children, accept aging and death, stop chasing consumer goods and save. All the while rebuilding those old local family-communal ties and institutions.
Otherwise, it doesn’t really matter who gets elected. Politics isn’t a sporting event to me. I could give two craps about getting the guy on my team elected, just to watch him turn into a lame duck president as the people realize he intends to mess with the modern family (Their individual government entitlements), turn on him, and elect the other party. Put out the only realistic message, win or lose on it. Otherwise it’s a bunch of clown shoes fighting over who’ll bankrupt this nation a bit slower, or a bit faster.
I agree with you, and sadly, you are right Sloth.
Savings has been the backbone of all investment and spending from households to governments until the US fucked the savings rate… basically one of the most asinine economic undertaking ever.