You know how good I am at picking Party and Presidential Nominees. So I’ll defer that to you!
One point, though; people need to be careful in thinking that Newt would “automatically” crush the President in a debate.
Mufasa [/quote]Yeah this. Newt is an invincible debater
Mufasa, it’s not even a question. Newt would crush the man. The longer the time to answer, the more Newt begins to stand out. But, for the sake of argument, if Newt couldn’t? Romney would have to be carried home by an ambulance. This is Newt’s bread and butter.
[/quote]Yeah this. It would be shock n awe and Romney has not the cyclopedic political knowledge, the killer instinct nor the cerebral agility to handle Obama. Not the same way.
Zeb, I gotta go get some pork rinds. I’ll be back.
I find it amusing that you guys actually believe that if Gingrich “beats” Obama in a debate that he will automatically be voted in to office. My gosh…my gosh do you realize how many nominees lost the debate and went on to win the Presidency? We can start with GW Bush and work backwards.
Please stop drinking the Newt Koolaide. According to a recent national poll guess who has the higest negatives of any candidate currently in the race?
You guessed, Newt Gingrich at 56%!
I’m telling you guys what plays well in a primary DOES NOT necessarily play well in the general election. The republican party is headed for a huge loss should Newt become the nominee.
[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< Then you too have been sucked into the Gingrich spin. >>>[/quote] I don’t know what that is ZEB. I haven’t seen a TV in six months, literally. I have not seen one debate and I haven;t seen the apparently tremendous reporter incident. I read here and there when I can. I’m going by history. I’ve seen Gingrich since the 94 election. [quote]ZEB wrote:<<< Did you know that in a general election (unlike a primary) that most people think their candidate won even if he didn’t? >>>[/quote]I think you mean a general election DEBATE here. If so I’m not getting the point to be honest. [quote]ZEB wrote:<<< Gingrich can spout every fact available and those who like Obama will not be impressed. >>>[/quote]Agreed of course. [quote]ZEB wrote:<<< And the independents will NEVER be swayed by a right wing candidate. >>>[/quote]Disagree that that is necessarily so. [quote]ZEB wrote:<<< He’ll lose women, independents, minorities, the youth vote and just about every other major demographic. >>>[/quote] I again don’t believe in this and his case that this is necessarily so. Minority and youth vote probably, but I can see large numbers of women and especially independents indeed being swayed as the campaign progresses. Maybe even some Hispanics and Jews, but not many blacks. The lobotomized youth vote is long lost. [quote]ZEB wrote:<<< As I’ve said he’d need the charm of a Ronald Reagan to pull this off and as we both know he doesn’t have that. >>>[/quote]Point well taken, but charm is not the only persuader. Gingrich is an atomic weapon as a public speaker and debater. I’ve seen him in action many times. He IS that good. Where charm fails, raw charismatic (not the same as charm) and intellectual force can make up that difference, especially when contrasted with the teleprompter in chief. [quote]ZEB wrote:<<< But as I said let’s let this Gingrich thing play out. If he’s the party’s choice my wife and I will write checks to his campaign and I’ll support him any way that I can. I am no fair weather republican. But… there’s no doubt in my mind that the general (with Newt leading the way) will not have a happy ending.
On to Florida and we’ll see if the Gingrich magic continues.
Elections truly are the best show on earth![/quote]Fair enough. I’m not some kinda political prophet though I have a pretty decent track record over the years. We’ll see. And yes, U.S. presidential campaigns are fascinating AND ulcer inducing.
Never said I’m voting for Gingrich in the GE, by the way. But, if Santorum has to bow out, I’ll go so far as to cast a primary vote for Newt here in Fl. Just to tweak National Romney Online and all the other Republican big-wigs for the early Romney water-carrying.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I find it amusing that you guys actually believe that if Gingrich “beats” Obama in a debate that he will automatically be voted in to office. My gosh…my gosh do you realize how many nominees lost the debate and went on to win the Presidency? We can start with GW Bush and work backwards.
Please stop drinking the Newt Koolaide. According to a recent national poll guess who has the higest negatives of any candidate currently in the race?
You guessed, Newt Gingrich at 56%!
I’m telling you guys what plays well in a primary DOES NOT necessarily play well in the general election. The republican party is headed for a huge loss should Newt become the nominee.
[/quote]
This wouldn’t be a loss in a debate. This would be devastation and the country was still reeling from 911 in 04 and Kerry was the wrong candidate for that campaign. Besides, I didn’t think Bush did that badly anyway. Nobody is saying automatic anything. I’m saying that if Obama is to go back to his picket lines, Newt is the only one who can do it. And Obama is consistently between 16 and 22% in the red at Rasmussen for like ever with a 27% approval rating and could very well be reelected.
Look I’m not trying to be a contrarian here, but I just see it differently.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Never said I’m voting for Gingrich in the GE, by the way. But, if Santorum has to bow out, I’ll go so far as to cast a primary vote for Newt here in Fl. Just to tweak National Romney Online and all the other Republican big-wigs for the early Romney water-carrying.[/quote]
Good point, it’s far more important to “tweak” the Romney people than to actually pick a candidate who can remove Obama from the White House.
Talk about game playing–wow! It’s just that you’re playing the wrong game.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ll vote for ALMOST whoever I have to to get this ultra leftist socialist hippie outta my whitehouse.[/quote]
No one has ever won the Presidency with negatives higher than mid 40’s. Gingrich is now at 56%. His debate performace is based on psyching up the base. That stuff won’t work in a debate with Obama. Nor will there be 8 three hour “Lincoln style” debates".
Newt is in fantasy land and some of you are joining him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I find it amusing that you guys actually believe that if Gingrich “beats” Obama in a debate that he will automatically be voted in to office. My gosh…my gosh do you realize how many nominees lost the debate and went on to win the Presidency? We can start with GW Bush and work backwards.
Please stop drinking the Newt Koolaide. According to a recent national poll guess who has the higest negatives of any candidate currently in the race?
You guessed, Newt Gingrich at 56%!
I’m telling you guys what plays well in a primary DOES NOT necessarily play well in the general election. The republican party is headed for a huge loss should Newt become the nominee.
[/quote]
This wouldn’t be a loss in a debate. This would be devastation and the country was still reeling from 911 in 04 and Kerry was the wrong candidate for that campaign. Besides, I didn’t think Bush did that badly anyway. Nobody is saying automatic anything. I’m saying that if Obama is to go back to his picket lines, Newt is the only one who can do it. And Obama is consistently between 16 and 22% in the red at Rasmussen for like ever with a 27% approval rating and could very well be reelected.
Look I’m not trying to be a contrarian here, but I just see it differently.[/quote]
You just proved my point (well it’s not just my point - it’s factual)
You just said Bush did pretty well in your opinion. But those who score these things said he got his clock cleaned.
There you go!
The person you ended up voting for won the debate in your eyes.
I think something needs to be clear. (And it’s just my opinion).
This was a “FUCK, YEAH! Take-it-to-the MSLM/Damn Obama” vote.
In other words, I think that this had VERY little to do with whom people felt would make a good President; and EVERYTHING to do with whom they felt could “stick-it-to” the President and the Media.
Newt is an Attack Dog of the highest order; and will come out spitting, growling and baring fangs if backed into a corner.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think something needs to be clear. (And it’s just my opinion).
This was a “FUCK, YEAH! Take-it-to-the MSLM/Damn Obama” vote.
In other words, I think that this had VERY little to do with whom people felt would make a good President; and EVERYTHING to do with whom they felt could “stick-it-to” the President and the Media.
Newt is an Attack Dog of the highest order; and will come out spitting, growling and baring fangs if backed into a corner.
Mufasa [/quote]
Well said my friend I couldn’t agree more. And back in the day the same thing was said of Bob Dole. In the 1976 Presidential election Gerald Ford picked Bob Dole to be his VP because what Ford lacked in pure aggression could be made up by Bob Dole the “attack dog”. VP’s are chosen for a number of reasons. But often they can say and do things which may not seem Presidential but need to be done. In fact, they called Dole “the hatchet man” for his sharp tongue and cutting attacks on Jimmy Carter
What impressed right win conservatives in South Carolina will absolutely NOT play well in a general election coming from a Presidential candidate.
As a side not Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter in a squeaker some blame Dole. And to follow up Bob Dole went on to run for President against Bill Clinton in 1996 losing once again. But, like Gingrich he sure could take it to the opposition and give his followers red meat. Unfortunately, for both Dole and now Gingrich, that never works on the big stage.
[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< The person you ended up voting for won the debate in your eyes.[/quote]I didn’t say he won the debates. I said I didn’t think he did that badly. I also said, outright in the past and by implication yesterday, that the debates are usually meaningless. What I said was “Gingrich will splatter him in a debate to the point where the debates may actually matter this time.” I stand by that. This would be carnage the likes of which hasn’t been seen in modern times. Even if Gingrich whispered the whole time. That is one difference. The other is that Obama is at a “strongly disapprove” rating of 39 at Rasmussen as I type this though he does still beat Gingrich right now too. Dole ran a boring campaign in 96. I don’t Remember any kind of fireworks from him to speak of.
The bottom line is I think, but could be wrong, that this election will at least bend some of the old long established axioms from the previous ones.
[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< The person you ended up voting for won the debate in your eyes.[/quote]I didn’t say he won the debates. I said I didn’t think he did that badly. I also said, outright in the past and by implication yesterday, that the debates are usually meaningless. What I said was “Gingrich will splatter him in a debate to the point where the debates may actually matter this time.” I stand by that. This would be carnage the likes of which hasn’t been seen in modern times. Even if Gingrich whispered the whole time. That is one difference. The other is that Obama is at a “strongly disapprove” rating of 39 at Rasmussen as I type this though he does still beat Gingrich right now too. Dole ran a boring campaign in 96. I don’t Remember any kind of fireworks from him to speak of.
The bottom line is I think, but could be wrong, that this election will at least bend some of the old long established axioms from the previous ones.
[/quote]
And why is that, because Newt Gingrich is such a great debater? Sorry pal…ain’t happening. It will be the same old same old since the media age began. And since people actually understood why and how people vote. A fat gray haired 70 year old man is NOT taking out Barack Obama. And the reason is that most don’t pay attention. And when they start paying attention they look superficially at the candidates. We get the leadership that we deserve as a people. And we deserve Obama.
Obama beats Gingrich, beats Santorum and probably beats Romney as well, although I feel Romney has the best chance.
Four more years of the chosen one. And that’s exactly who we deserve!
Because of the vast contrast between the 2 of them on every level combined with the precise societal/political/historical times this season in our history represents. Many things are different than ever before. Also I should be clear that believing someone has the best chance of achieving something isn’t the same as saying they will. I think Obama will likely be reelected. I only said if there is any chance of dethroning this guy Newt is it. You are correct that this nation, which is down spiraling into a pathetic debauched caricature of herself certainly deserves Obama.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< (Oh, man…why do I get myself into these things…?) >>>[/quote]Because ya can’t help yerself? =] [quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< And if we get either Newt, Romney of Santorum…the nation suddenly stops it’s spiral downward and is thrust into a New Renaissance? >>>[/quote]Nope. Like I’ve said, (think of a really big number) times, the solution to our problems has nothing primarily to do with politics at all. I said WE deserve HIM. I didn’t say HE caused US.[quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< Or are you saying we don’t “deserve” any of the three? Mufasa [/quote]Of course we would. Don’t you think it’s killin me to say that an adulterous whoremonger is our best prospect to get an enemy combatant out of our highest office? Wadda fabulous choice. This nation was great because of the privately held Christian convictions of the citizenry at it’s founding. We no longer have those beliefs. Take a look around for the result. Yes. It really is in the end that simple.
