Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brentai]

You mean like a maverick?

[François]

A rogue!

[Thad]

I dunno, I can't be the only person who's looking back and thinking we tossed Clinton aside for being the exact thing the Democrats need most right now (read: an uncompromising total bitch.)

I tossed her aside because she compromises entirely too goddamn much, actually.

Not saying Obama doesn't, of course.

[Brentai]

I think it's less that Hillary compromises and more that she doesn't agree with anybody as much as they would like.

[Classic]

the GOP is actually imploding under the mass of it's Tea Party core.

Everything is fixed now!

To be honest, my asinine replacement makes the whole thing seem more interesting.
It makes me take the story, the narrative a little more seriously. Talking about a party of exploiters being destroyed by the lack of ideological integrity causing what once gave it support to buckle and betray its original foundations.

...
No. It still doesn't sound good when I do it though.


(THAD EDIT: Added quote of now-moved post for context.)

[Thad]

I've given it a lot of thought and I think the only Republican ticket that has a shot is Romney/Huckabee.

Romney's got an image as a moderate who's willing to cross the aisle, and a fiscal pragmatist who can help fix the economy.  (I am, of course, assuming that the economy won't be all better in two years.  If it is, then yeah Obama's unstoppable.)

But the base hates him as a flip-flopper who's supported abortion and gay rights.  And fundamentalists do not like Mormons.

Which is where Huckabee comes in.  He's got all Sarah Palin's strengths (now that we've got that "Oh my God the Republicans ran a woman!" novelty out of the way) and none of her weaknesses.  He's got just as much appeal to the religious right as she does, and he's not dumb or mean.  He's not polarizing -- hell, I disagree with most everything the guy stands for, but he's LIKEABLE.  He seems genuine and warm and he's a good speaker.

So anyway, that's the theory I've been rolling around in my head.  (And it has the added benefit of only being disprovable if a different Republican ticket wins!)  Thoughts?

[Mongrel]

I think I've told the story, but a watershed moment in my understanding of where this world is going occurred back in 1992. Or well, perhaps that's overstating things, but I suppose I learned a lesson or two anyway.

I was reading about the American primaries and saw that McCain (at the time) had far and away the best shot of any of the potential candidates, based on polling at the time (yeah, I know polls are always suspect, but I digress). In spite of his huge advantage in electability among the various Republican candidates, the GOP chose to go with Bush (who, I might add was being derided even then for being noticeably dumber than Quayle).

Sure, history doesn't ALWAYS repeat itself, and 1992 was a helluva different time, to be sure. But among the lessons learned, electability being secondary to all kind of silly nonsense is one that has endured.

And the Republicans have gotten about a thousand times more ridiculous since then, believe you me.

[TA]

I don't think that Romney, a Mormon, has the religious right appeal you think he does.

[Classic]

TA, are you talking about this?

And fundamentalists do not like Mormons.

Really? Because amongst all (non-LDS) protestants I know they're bigger bogeymen than Catholics.

...Granted, this is looking at a pretty small set.

[Cthulhu-chan]

The impression I always got was that all the other christians see mormons as only a step or two removed from scientology.

[Classic]

The thing is, they're similar to outside observers in a way it took me a while to put my finger on.

It's that they're both young enough for the crazy excesses of their founders to be matters of public record.

If I were an anthropologist (I'm not, though I've been called an anthroapologist before) I'd be one of the ones that studies the foibles of religions and religious organizations.

[Pacobird]

The problem with Romney is that Obamacare is almost totally his brainchild.  I don't know the numbers of how he polls against Obama though I'm sure they are easily-attainable by someone less lazy than I, but if the primary is tomorrow or even a year from now I just don't see him carrying it.

Comparisons are probably not fair (Romney can just say "the MA legislature was going to pass it anyway and I made it more conservative than it would have been") but it's just too much of a liability with how confrontational the GOP primary's going to be.

EDIT: Put another way, who in the GOP establishment is going to endorse Romney over another equally-conservative candidate who doesn't have this kind of liability?  What could they possibly stand to gain with their base by doing so?

[Shinra]

TA, are you talking about this?

And fundamentalists do not like Mormons.

Really? Because amongst all (non-LDS) protestants I know they're bigger bogeymen than Catholics.

...Granted, this is looking at a pretty small set.

Generally speaking, no sect of Christianity gets along with Mormons except Mormons, and divisions of the church of Mormon fucking hate each other, on top of that. Catholics, all the protestants, even Jehovah's witnesses think that Mormons are fucking weird, and the fact that he is a Mormon would be a major liability in a republican presidential primary. That, and he's a Massachusetts republican, who as Paco pointed out, pioneered the health care bill that was more or less the template for nationwide reform.

Right now, according to the popularity rankings, the only person with a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama (were the election held today) would be Romney, but I just don't see this being the match up. Palin is also becoming increasingly less likely, as every time she gets in front of a camera she shoves her foot in her mouth. (it wasn't a rifle scope - it was a surveyor's scope, blood libel, i don't want to take away dessert like Michelle Obama, etc) At this point, I think what we're really looking at is a repeat of '96. A charismatic, popular incumbent vs a sea of mediocrity. This isn't a race to see who gets to challenge Obama, this is a race to see who gets to fall on their sword in front of him. If the GOP has half a brain between them they're going to spend a pittance on the presidential - enough to make a show of it, but not enough to have a shot at winning because they have to fucking know better - and spend the real money on challenging every weak democratic house and senate seat they can, and reinforcing every weak republican house and senate seat they can. With this recession coming to an end, we are rapidly reaching the point where they can't blame national misery on Obama and company and will need to work pretty hard to maintain a house majority and get somewhere meaningful in the senate.

[Saturn]

A Obama Vs Palin debate would be a fucking massacre and the GOP knows it.

Bachmann is another option for screeching idiot harpy candidate

[Ted Belmont]

A Palin/Bachmann 2012 ticket would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it will never happen.

[Thad]

I think I've told the story, but a watershed moment in my understanding of where this world is going occurred back in 1992.

[...]

I was reading about the American primaries and saw that McCain (at the time) had far and away the best shot of any of the potential candidates, based on polling at the time (yeah, I know polls are always suspect, but I digress). In spite of his huge advantage in electability among the various Republican candidates, the GOP chose to go with Bush (who, I might add was being derided even then for being noticeably dumber than Quayle).

Huh?  We talking '92 or '00?  Daddy or Junior Bush?

I would certainly not describe Poppy as dumber than Quayle, whatever else was wrong with him.  And when's the last time an incumbent lost the primaries?

(EDIT: Truman.)

The problem with Romney is that Obamacare is almost totally his brainchild.

So you're saying that nominating him would require Republican voters to have some sort of cognitive dissonance?

Put another way, who in the GOP establishment is going to endorse Romney over another equally-conservative candidate who doesn't have this kind of liability?  What could they possibly stand to gain with their base by doing so?

The possibility of winning a general election.

For all they dumped on McCain in '08 (and '00 -- and, hell, I had a boss with a "John McCain, RINO" bumper sticker in '06, in ARIZONA), they were all set to close ranks behind him once he got the nomination.

...anyhow, that's not what I said.  I didn't say he'd win the nom, I just said his winning the nom and picking Huckabee as a running-mate was the GOP's only shot in '12.

Primaries are hard to predict.  Remember when it looked like McCain didn't have a prayer?  Hell, did anyone think Ron Paul would do better than Rudy Giuliani?

And even if the Tea Party continues to be a major force in the '12 primaries, they're not exactly a unified movement either.  You've got as many Ayn Randers as religious fundies.  Not that Romney's likely to be the choice of either faction, but he could come out on top after a split Tea Party vote in the first couple primaries.

A Palin/Bachmann 2012 ticket would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it will never happen.

Palin never had a shot at the nom, and now she's at her absolute lowest ebb.  The only way she'll have a shot at it now is if she shuts the hell up for the next eight months.

So, like you say, never happen.

[Brentai]

The Mormons seem pretty fucking weird to anybody who gets a decent amount of exposure to them (read: actually attending a sermon).  Getting one out in the public eye might be the worst thing that could happen to them.  Or best, depending on how far-reaching your views are.

[Mongrel]

I think I've told the story, but a watershed moment in my understanding of where this world is going occurred back in 1992.

[...]

I was reading about the American primaries and saw that McCain (at the time) had far and away the best shot of any of the potential candidates, based on polling at the time (yeah, I know polls are always suspect, but I digress). In spite of his huge advantage in electability among the various Republican candidates, the GOP chose to go with Bush (who, I might add was being derided even then for being noticeably dumber than Quayle).

Huh?  We talking '92 or '00?  Daddy or Junior Bush?

I would certainly not describe Poppy as dumber than Quayle, whatever else was wrong with him.  And when's the last time an incumbent lost the primaries?

(EDIT: Truman.)

The problem with Romney is that Obamacare is almost totally his brainchild.

So you're saying that nominating him would require Republican voters to have some sort of cognitive dissonance?

Put another way, who in the GOP establishment is going to endorse Romney over another equally-conservative candidate who doesn't have this kind of liability?  What could they possibly stand to gain with their base by doing so?

The possibility of winning a general election.

For all they dumped on McCain in '08 (and '00 -- and, hell, I had a boss with a "John McCain, RINO" bumper sticker in '06, in ARIZONA), they were all set to close ranks behind him once he got the nomination.

...anyhow, that's not what I said.  I didn't say he'd win the nom, I just said his winning the nom and picking Huckabee as a running-mate was the GOP's only shot in '12.

Primaries are hard to predict.  Remember when it looked like McCain didn't have a prayer?  Hell, did anyone think Ron Paul would do better than Rudy Giuliani?

And even if the Tea Party continues to be a major force in the '12 primaries, they're not exactly a unified movement either.  You've got as many Ayn Randers as religious fundies.  Not that Romney's likely to be the choice of either faction, but he could come out on top after a split Tea Party vote in the first couple primaries.

A Palin/Bachmann 2012 ticket would be fantastic. Unfortunately, it will never happen.

Palin never had a shot at the nom, and now she's at her absolute lowest ebb.  The only way she'll have a shot at it now is if she shuts the hell up for the next eight months.

So, like you say, never happen.

Man, that was a complete brain fart - yes I meant 00 (it's not like there was any other year McCain fought a Bush of any stripe in a primary). Why did I type 1992? HERP DERP.

[Thad]

Yeah, given that '92 was the first election I was really aware of, and I'm from Arizona, seems like I'd have remembered McCain running.

Bush 1 DID have primary challengers in '92, though; I remember passing a Pat Buchanan rally in the Prescott town square.

[Mongrel]

I remember that too, but very dimly. I was probably JUST starting to follow international politics back then (in all likelihood, I remembered it because Buchanan was a joke in MAD at the time or something).