Handicapping the 2012 GOP presidential nomination [Archive]

BrainGlutton

02-12-2011, 03:14 PM

Heard on NPR that it is a recent Republican tradition that the presidential nominating season begins at first the CPAC conference after the midterm elections, which is going on now.

Wikipedia sez: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republican)

None of the following has formally announced his or her candidacy for the Republican Party nomination. The following individuals are currently speculated about as possible candidates.

* Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota[43][44]
* Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi[45][46][47]
* Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton of Maryland[48][49][50][51]
* Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana [47][52][53][54]
* Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich of Georgia[47][55][56]
* Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York[57][58][59]
* Former Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire[60][61]
* Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas[47][62][63]
* U.S. Ambassador to China and former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman, Jr.[64][65][66]
* Former Governor Gary E. Johnson of New Mexico[67][68]
* Representative Steve King of Iowa[69][70]
* Former Governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska[47][71][72]
* Former Governor George Pataki of New York[73][74][75][76]
* Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky [77][78][79]
* Representative Ron Paul of Texas [80][81] (Draft movement)
* Former Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota[47][82][83]
* Former Governor Bob Riley of Alabama[84][85]
* Former Governor Buddy Roemer of Louisiana[86][87][88]
* Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts[47][89][90]
* Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin[91]
* Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania[92][93]
* Senator John Thune of South Dakota[47][94][95]
* Businessman Donald Trump of New York[96][97]

Start your engines!

Saw on CNN that Huckabee and Romney led the straw poll at CPAC, FWIW.

Zakalwe

02-12-2011, 05:54 PM

Hmmmm....let's see. It might be easiest to break this down by categories:

No Intention of actually running…
Michele Bachmann
John R. Bolton
Sarah Palin
Donald Trump
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Might form an exploratory committee and/or do a few straw polls, but not serious…*
Rand Paul
Rudy Giuliani
Newt Gingrich
Judd Gregg
Steve King
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum
Haley Barbour
Gary E. Johnson
George Pataki
John Thune
Bob Riley
Buddy Roemer

Probably in it for the long haul…
Mitch Daniels
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee

* Absent some watershed moment and/or sea change in American politics.

BrainGlutton

02-12-2011, 06:05 PM

Saw on CNN that Huckabee and Romney led the straw poll at CPAC, FWIW.

That must have been some other straw poll. Just saw on CNN, the CPAC straw poll was for Ron Paul, with Romney a distant second.

Simplicio

02-12-2011, 06:20 PM

I came by to more or less recreate Zawalke's list, so I guess I don't have much to add. I think John Huntsman will actually run, but with the intention of getting his name know for 2016, not because he thinks he'll win.

Cisco

02-12-2011, 06:51 PM

That must have been some other straw poll. Just saw on CNN, the CPAC straw poll was for Ron Paul, with Romney a distant second.

And wasn't Sarah Palin winning them a few months back, only to finally have her support start crumbling underneath her recently? It should be illegal to talk about presidential races until . . . let's say . . . April of election year.

Edit: And I seem to recall that Ron Paul won a shit ton of straw polls in 2007/2008, which tells you all you need to know about them.

Chronos

02-12-2011, 07:23 PM

I'll amend Zakalwe's post to say that some of his "no intention of running" folks will in fact officially run, for the first few primaries at least. Sarah Palin, for one, I think is a lock for throwing her hat into the ring.

And Tim Pawlenty certainly seems to be serious about running, but there's no chance in Hell of him getting the nomination. I would predict exactly how many votes he's going to get, but I don't know how large his immediate family is.

Cisco

02-12-2011, 07:48 PM

I'll amend Zakalwe's post to say that some of his "no intention of running" folks will in fact officially run, for the first few primaries at least. Sarah Palin, for one, I think is a lock for throwing her hat into the ring.

I'm willing to wager that Sarah Palin is going to do whatever has the best chance of bringing Sarah Palin more money and power. If an exploratory committee finds that she has a fart's chance in a blizzard (which it will), she will find some sort of profitable support role to play in the whole circus. And don't be surprised if her narrative is "you had your chance at me in 2008 and I'm just too old and wise to want that now."

Simplicio

02-12-2011, 07:49 PM

Edit: And I seem to recall that Ron Paul won a shit ton of straw polls in 2007/2008, which tells you all you need to know about them.

Here's the winners of the previous CPAC straw polls from wikipedia. As you say, they're not terribly good predictors of future candidate success:

1976 Ronald Reagan[25][26]
1980 Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan
1986 Jack Kemp[27][28]
1987 Jack Kemp[29]
1993 Jack Kemp[30]
1995 Phil Gramm[31]
1998 Steve Forbes[32]
1999 Gary Bauer [33]
2000 George W. Bush [34]
2005 Rudy Giuliani [35]
2006 George Allen
2007 Mitt Romney
2008 Mitt Romney
2009 Mitt Romney
2010 Ron Paul
2011 Ron Paul

Indeed, they seem to often go for candidates, like Pau, I'd say were pretty unlikely to ever have a chance of actually being nominated.

Zakalwe

02-12-2011, 07:52 PM

Sarah Palin, for one, I think is a lock for throwing her hat into the ring.Nah. Sarah's not going to put herself into position to be a loser. Unless she's a dead lock to win the nomination, she ain't running.

Cisco

02-12-2011, 08:02 PM

Nah. Sarah's not going to put herself into position to be a loser. Unless she's a dead lock to win the nomination, she ain't running.

It's not that she's unwilling to make herself look like a fool, she's just unwilling to do it for free (see: Sarah Palin's Alaska). And in the primaries, she'd be paying to do it. Not her style.

Frank

02-13-2011, 02:16 PM

I think it'll be Romney this time. I don't think his Mormonism is really an issue.

I agree that some of the "might" on Zakalwe's list will run with no real expectation of winning, but to start building name recognition, connections, and donor lists for the future. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are on my short list for that role.

BobLibDem

02-14-2011, 07:10 AM

Romney has two fatal flaws, his health care plan and his religion. The backwater rube elephants who jump on stools shrieking "Eeek! Muslims!" aren't about to embrace someone they consider to be a heretic. Nor are they likely to give Romney a pass on his state health care plan.

Sarah Palin isn't interested in running for president, she's too busy running for billionaire. As long as the chumps keep throwing money at her, she'll happily rake it in. Running for president will only hurt her long term earning potential, so I don't see her doing it.

Out of an extraordinarily weak field, I'm going with Huckabee for lack of an alternative. He's right wing enough to win the Iowa caucus and South Carolina primaries. Not sure how he'll do in New Hampshire but I like his positioning, given the primary calendar.

Nametag

02-14-2011, 10:02 AM

Am I the only guy who looks at thread titles like that and thinks of Tonya Harding?

RTFirefly

02-14-2011, 10:04 AM

As in the last go-around, the GOP field is so problematic that one wonders how any of these bozos can win the nomination.

My WAG is that the nomination will go to whichever of the Establishment empty suits (Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Thune) can do the best job of convincing the wingnuts that he's one of them.

Palin will run (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/sarah-palin-makes-chief-of-sta.html), if only to keep her name in play so she can make more money off her fan club. But she won't win the nomination.

Gingrich has made a career out of considering throwing his hat into the Presidential ring. He won't actually DO it, because his base (which is the same base as McCain used to have - the DC press/pundit corps) would have to admit that nobody gives a shit about this guy out in the real world.

Huckabee's in a lousy position this time - not establishment enough to please the GOP's corporatist base, but not crazy enough for the Teahadists. He'll run, he may win a number of primaries, but he's not winning the nomination.

Huntsman's all about 2016.

Giuliani won't run if he's got half a brain - what makes him think he could do better this time than last?

What makes Santorum think he can do better nationally than he did in his own state last time?

Haley Barbour: even the GOP's got the smarts not to nominate Boss Hogg.

George Pataki: he's got nothing else to do with himself these days, so he might as well run for President. Damned if I know who's going to vote for him.

BobLibDem

02-14-2011, 10:11 AM

Haley Barbour: even the GOP's got the smarts not to nominate Boss Hogg.

Now I'm picturing a Barbour-Palin ticket as Boss and Daisy.

BrainGlutton

02-14-2011, 10:33 AM

Now I'm picturing a Barbour-Palin ticket as Boss and Daisy.

Somehow that seems entirely too highbrow an image to fit Barbour or Palin.

Cisco

02-14-2011, 11:26 AM

Am I the only guy who looks at thread titles like that and thinks of Tonya Harding?

[Wait, which thread is this? I opened a bunch of them in background tabs]

[Looks up. Handicapping the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.]

[Huh? What does Tonya Harding have to do with the G.O.-- spit take]

furt

02-14-2011, 12:45 PM

RTFirefly

02-14-2011, 12:49 PM

In all likelihood (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448570), the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary will, between them, either settle the nomination or determine the two finalists. So in discussing any GOP hopeful, a good question to ask is: which of those primaries are they going to try to win, and what are their chances?

Gotta like Romney's chances in NH. Hard to tell who's going to win Iowa; the Huckster won it last time, but that's no guarantee of a repeat. And any Midwesterners in the race (e.g. Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune, or whichever of them decide to run) would undoubtedly try hard to win it.

Chronos

02-14-2011, 02:03 PM

The reason Palin will run (for the first couple of primaries) is that it'll put her name back in the spotlight, where it's currently already fading. She won't have to actually spend any significant amount of money on it, and will probably actually make more from her speakers' fees than she spends on any advertising. Then, when she's forced out by the candidates who actually stand a snowball's chance in Hell, she'll have yet another victimization she can whine about.

I still think that, at the present moment, Romney is the best bet, but Mitch Daniels is getting in the news enough lately (in nonnegative ways) that he's perfectly plausible, too. It seems like the establishment might be grooming him as a more electable alternative.

Simplicio

02-14-2011, 02:32 PM

I really can't see Romeny winning, though he's obviously going to try (indeed he's pretty much the only person listed who 100% certainly will run in the primaries). The Mormon thing is surmountable, but his administration in Mass. being the origin of the Obamacare legislation isn't. The GOP has gone all in on demonizing the ACA, there's not really any way for Romney to plausibly distance himself enough from it to survive a GOP primary.

RTFirefly

02-14-2011, 03:12 PM

Mitch Daniels is getting in the news enough lately (in nonnegative ways) that he's perfectly plausible, too. It seems like the establishment might be grooming him as a more electable alternative.Quite possibly, though I think the big-money boys haven't settled on anyone yet.

I remember how, in early 1999 when the papers no longer had Lewinsky and impeachment to cover so they could turn their attention to the 2000 race, George W. Bush had already raised a pile of money and had all the tailwinds on the GOP side. But at this point, nobody even has an exploratory committee to be the recipient of the sort of early giving Bush received 12 years ago. Wonder when (or if) the big money will settle on a particular candidate this time.

Hell, they might just decide the best play is to let Obama remain President, hamstrung by a GOP Congress, but still responsible (in voters' minds, at least) for how things are turning out, which would give people a reason to keep on voting Republican. Then win big in 2016, including the White House, and relive the Bush years, only with bigger Congressional majorities.

Chronos

02-14-2011, 03:38 PM

Simplicio

02-14-2011, 03:45 PM

Well, there is the argument that government health care is OK for a state to implement but not OK for the federal government, and I'm sure that's the argument that Romney will make (plus probably something about abortion, despite the fact that the affordable care act was the biggest anti-abortion legislation Congress has ever passed). But it will certainly be amusing to watch him defending his position.

That's certainly Romney's argument, but I don't think he'll get far. Putting aside whether the constitutional argument has merit or not, I think its pretty clear that the vast bulk of Conservative animosity for the bill is not based on the Constitutionality of the mandate. In the unlikely event the SCOTUS makes the gov't throw out the mandate and replace it with something else, or in the much more likely case that they decide that it is in fact Constitutional before the 2012 primaries, I doubt it will abate much of the GOP's anger against the ACA

foolsguinea

02-14-2011, 04:06 PM

Paul/Paul 2012!

That's R. Paul on the top, & R. Paul in the 2nd slot. It's poifect!

Tom Scud

02-14-2011, 04:28 PM

Paul/Paul 2012!

That's R. Paul on the top, & R. Paul in the 2nd slot. It's poifect!

Which one is Ru?

River Hippie

02-14-2011, 05:48 PM

Whatever happened to Jindal? Wasn't he the rising star not so long ago?

Cyberhwk

02-14-2011, 11:46 PM

Whatever happened to Jindal? Wasn't he the rising star not so long ago?
I don't think I've heard him seriously mentioned since he had a poor performance doing the Republican Response at the SOTU a year or two ago.

AWB

02-15-2011, 06:17 AM

Am I the only guy who looks at thread titles like that and thinks of Tonya Harding?

Exactly what I thought! "Who do they want to whack in the knee?"

Or a worse handicap: "Who do we force to put Sarah Palin on their ticket?" :p

AWB

02-15-2011, 06:20 AM

Which one is Ru?

On top. :p:p

RTFirefly

02-15-2011, 12:01 PM

WMUR/UNH poll (http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary/26859973/detail.html): Romney's the NH primary frontrunner, by a mile.

The poll shows 40 percent of likely Republican primary voters would vote for Romney, 10 percent would vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 7 percent favor former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and 7 percent support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Another 6 percent prefer former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, 6 percent favor 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, 5 percent support U.S. Rep. and 2008 candidate Ron Paul, 3 percent support businessman Donald Trump, 1 percent favor former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and 1 percent prefer Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

The poll of 757 randomly selected New Hampshire adults was conducted from Jan. 28 through Feb. 7 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The poll includes a subsample of 357 likely Republican voters that has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

Kolak of Twilo

02-16-2011, 12:42 AM

WMUR/UNH poll (http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary/26859973/detail.html): Romney's the NH primary frontrunner, by a mile.

I saw this early Tuesday and I really don't know what to think of it. I grew up in Texas and was reared in the Southern Baptist church. It was a common thing to hear people talk about how Mormans are "lost" and members of a cult. In the last 40 years I have been in attendance at numerous church services where the guest speaker was there to talk about "the cult of Mormanism" and to instruct those in attendance about how to witness to their Morman friends and lead them to Christ. I don't know if people who live outside the South realize how much influence the Southern Baptists exert there. If Romney is the nominee the degree of cognitive dissonance that will ensue throughout the Bible Belt will be staggering. I'm not saying these folks will vote Obama if Romney is the nominee; I'm saying their heads will explode if they have no choice but to put a Morman in the White House over a socialist Kenyan Muslim.

As for the rest of the field:
Palin has no interest in governing. Her only interest is enriching herself. If she thinks running for a while serves that purpose she will. Otherwise, nope.
Huckabee, Paul, Giuliani, Barbour or Gingrich; I can't imagine a scenario where any of them come even close to the prize.
Trump. This just makes me laugh.
And Pawlenty or the wall of hair called Paul Ryan? Please.

Maybe someone like Mitch Daniels will catch the fancy of the public, but I don't really know enough about the guy to even guess. Frankly, at this point my money would be on somebody who isn't even on the radar yet or Romney.

We are about a year away from the first primary and at least 18 months away from the nominating conventions. At this point anything could happen.

Monty

02-16-2011, 04:03 AM

Kolak: It's Mormon, not Morman. Plus, the idea of idiots' heads exploding just might be a very good reason to vote for the man!

Question here for everyone: Why is the religion an issue for Romney but not for Huntsman?

Simplicio

02-16-2011, 04:09 AM

Question here for everyone: Why is the religion an issue for Romney but not for Huntsman?

Because nobody thinks Huntsman will get anywhere close to the nomination irregardless of his religion.

Steve MB

02-16-2011, 09:10 AM

Kolak: It's Mormon, not Morman.

In context (referencing speakers who described Mormonism as a "cult"), it might be a swipe at the speakers' ignorance. It's also possible that they publish literature with the religion's name deliberately misspelled (a la the Republican habit of referring to the "Democrat" Party).

RTFirefly

02-16-2011, 09:16 AM

I don't know if people who live outside the South realize how much influence the Southern Baptists exert there. If Romney is the nominee the degree of cognitive dissonance that will ensue throughout the Bible Belt will be staggering. I'm not saying these folks will vote Obama if Romney is the nominee; I'm saying their heads will explode if they have no choice but to put a Morman in the White House over a socialist Kenyan Muslim. As someone who's all too familiar with the role of Southern Baptists in the deep South, I think they'll get over it pretty easily.

1) Remember when they all thought the Pope was the Antichrist? Now conservative Catholics (including the five conservative SCOTUS Justices) are their allies on all sorts of issues. You notice that this bothers them hardly at all anymore.

2) The ultimate enemy, for them, is still the Democrats and liberals and leftists and academics and bureaucrats and whatnot. If Romney's the GOP nominee, then just like Oceania no longer being at war with Eurasia, the Southern Baptists will no longer be at war with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Or they'll just overlook Romney's association with the LDS. Or something.

These are people who are convinced that drinking alcohol is wrong, wrong, wrong, despite their belief in Biblical inerrancy, and the Bible being full of verses that have very positive things to say about wine. If they're told their heads aren't supposed to explode over supporting Romney against Obama, their heads won't explode.

Jonathan Chance

02-16-2011, 10:23 AM

Speaking of fundraising Gingrich has apparently built a money raising machine down there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506344.html

gonzomax

02-16-2011, 10:59 AM

There is only one, the repubs will nominate another spoiled rich kid, Romney. The rest have no chance. They have rapid followers that will bite anybody that tells them the truth about their heroes, but they get traction in small sectors only.
Sheriff Joe is getting attention for high office in Arizona. Does that mean the rest of the country should take him seriously? Hell. Angle is trying to get back in. There must be 10 or 12 people who think she is a good choice.
On the national stage, there is Romney. The Repubs might turn on him. It should be fun.

Kolak of Twilo

02-16-2011, 11:23 AM

If they're told their heads aren't supposed to explode over supporting Romney against Obama, their heads won't explode.
I acknowledge given the choice between Romney and Obama they will undoubtedly vote for Romney. I wonder though about during the primaries. I have already had family members express concern over this issue. They have stated to me how uncomfortable they would be electing someone President who they don't consider to be a Christian. When I was visiting over Thanksgiving this was a topic of conversation I overheard at their church. (I told my cousin if that was a real concern for him he might as well go ahead and vote for the Muslim.:D)

Monty and any other posters who are LDS - my bad in misspelling Mormon. When you pointed it out I realized I knew better and completely missed it. Sorry about that.

Cisco

02-16-2011, 11:56 AM

Sheriff Joe is getting attention for high office in Arizona.
LOL WUT (http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/lol_wut1.jpg).

Joe always makes noise about running for higher office. He's a publicity whore. It will never, ever happen. He spends all his time dodging scandals as Sheriff. If he ran for national office, they'd catch up to him. Plus the old windbag will be 80 by the time of the election. It's a miracle he keeps getting elected Sheriff (by a lower margin each time); he's less serious about giving that up than Sarah Palin is about running for President.

Duke

02-16-2011, 12:00 PM

Predictions:

Palin will not run.

Gary Johnson will run and make noise, pulling ~10% in New Hampshire.

Romneycare will prove too much to overcome.

Mike Huckabee will do worse than the media expects.

Mitch Daniels will be the nominee.

I'd agree with all of this, although given that it's early days yet. Daniels is by no means a perfect Presidential candidate (although who is?), but he seems a solid one. Lack of name recognition would seem to be his biggest mountain to climb right now.

Of course all this is moot if he decides not to run. I wouldn't take that as a given.

Jophiel

02-16-2011, 12:08 PM

I don't think I've heard him seriously mentioned since he had a poor performance doing the Republican Response at the SOTU a year or two ago.
People were trying to puff him up again this past summer as the Voice Of Competence during the Gulf oil leak. But, since then, most people are treating the oil leak as a distant memory and the Coast Guard has issued a variety of findings that Jindal's vaunted (and expensive) sand barriers were either worthless (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013698835_oil17.html?syndication=rss) or an actual liability and Jindal was reduced to calling the Coast Guard liars (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Jindal_pushes_back_on_oil_spill_claims.html) when they reported that Jindal was keeping a section of the coast dirty for PR purposes.
"Coast Guard responders watched Governor Jindal -- and the TV cameras following him -- return to what appeared to be the same spot of oiled marsh day after day to complain about the inadequacy of the federal response, even though only a small amount of marsh was then oiled. When the Coast Guard sought to clean up that piece of affected marsh, Governor Jindal refused to confirm its location," charges the report in Chapter 5.

gonzomax

02-16-2011, 12:33 PM

LOL WUT (http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/lol_wut1.jpg).

Joe always makes noise about running for higher office. He's a publicity whore. It will never, ever happen. He spends all his time dodging scandals as Sheriff. If he ran for national office, they'd catch up to him. Plus the old windbag will be 80 by the time of the election. It's a miracle he keeps getting elected Sheriff (by a lower margin each time); he's less serious about giving that up than Sarah Palin is about running for President.

Guliani pulled it off.

Cisco

02-16-2011, 12:43 PM

Guliani pulled it off.

What'll a cup of tea run me in China this morning?

Captain Lance Murdoch

02-16-2011, 02:03 PM

I still think it will be Pawlenty.

Palin will run. She's making it obvious. She could do quite well In IA too. This is not the Iowa election after all, it is the Republican caucuses. Sure she would get creamed in a state-wide contest, but her rabid followers will surely show up for these meetings. Caucuses can skew the importance of rather small, but devoted groups of followers. And remember this is the state where Pat Robertson beat George Bush. The Republicans here are very right wing.

Tim Pawlenty will also likely make a good showing in Iowa with the corn farmers and traditional Republicans.

If Huckabee runs (and I think that is not as likely as others seem too) He will need to win again in IA or he will be out early.

Romney will get his ass handed to him in IA.

NH is another matter. Romney MUST win here. He will get a fight from Pawlenty who can appeal to the anti-tax, country club faction of the party. I see no way Romney can defend his health care record here, however. Palin disappears in NH.

SC look for whatever southerner who's in the race to do well here. Palin could resurface if she is still bothering. Tim Pawlenty is an evangelical Southern Baptist and could hold his own here. Romney may as well skip this state.

So it all sets up well for Pawlenty from my viewpoint. Team Elephant is simply loaded with high profile candidates who are so badly damaged that they can't win. It will be one of the lesser-knowns who will take this thing. Thune seems unlikely to run. Daniels may or may not. Pawlenty is running hard. He has built up organization in the early states. He has arranged a solid campaign team. He has his fund raising organization together. I think he will be the one who takes it.

Lamar Mundane

02-16-2011, 02:44 PM

Palin will run. She's making it obvious. She could do quite well In IA too. This is not the Iowa election after all, it is the Republican caucuses. Sure she would get creamed in a state-wide contest, but her rabid followers will surely show up for these meetings. Caucuses can skew the importance of rather small, but devoted groups of followers. And remember this is the state where Pat Robertson beat George Bush. The Republicans here are very right wing.

She may well run, but once she realizes that her campaign has to pay for everything, she'll change her mind. Caucuses mean a lot of bus rides through Iowa in the winter, no first class plane tickets. It's meeting thirty or forty people in someone's living room and shaking hands at the feed store, and all for nothing. No $150,000 in the bank account just for showing up. Some of the hotels they stay in make a Hampton Inn look like the Ritz-Carlton in comparison.

And then she's going to realize she's got to do the same thing in New Hampshire, and that's when she checks out mentally. Her staff and national support will keep her in for a few more states, but then will come the speech where she says she has been threatened and bullied and the media is being mean to her, and that'll be the end of it.

Steve MB

02-16-2011, 03:27 PM

Caucuses mean a lot of bus rides through Iowa in the winter, no first class plane tickets.

It's not her practice to actually ride the bus (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/palin-plane-tour-using-pr_n_374084.html) (except right at the beginning and end of each leg of the tour):
Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" bus has logged thousands of miles as it crosses the country, promoting her memoir. But Palin herself has been traveling by private jet, using the bus only for brief stops and media appearances....

Kolak of Twilo

02-16-2011, 05:55 PM

It's not her practice to actually ride the bus (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/palin-plane-tour-using-pr_n_374084.html) (except right at the beginning and end of each leg of the tour):

I'm not suprised by that. Running for election is hard work. Governing is hard work. Being a celebrity and getting big sacks of money is easy (at least comparatively). I just don't see what she gains by jumping in the race.

Really Not All That Bright

02-16-2011, 06:20 PM

She keeps herself relevant. Or she maintains the appearance of relevance, at any rate.

Steve MB

02-17-2011, 09:50 AM

I'm not suprised by that. Running for election is hard work. Governing is hard work. Being a celebrity and getting big sacks of money is easy (at least comparatively). I just don't see what she gains by jumping in the race.

Also, repeating her tactic of riding Air Head One while catching the bus just before each stop (and rendezvousing with the staffers who were actually stuck on the bus the whole way) would probably draw more attention during an actual political campaign where she has opponents looking for a way to get an edge on her.

gonzomax

02-17-2011, 10:41 AM

Great, Palin could be the first person elected to the presidency and the first to quit. Does anyone think the press will give her a pass . Governing is hard. She is a spoiled pretty bitch that thinks the world owes her a living. So far she has been right.

BobLibDem

02-17-2011, 10:49 AM

Palin can't run, a loss would drive down her value and a win lowers her salary. By staying out, she can be Miss Will She Or Won't She in 2012, 2016, and 2020. Once she dives in and loses, she won't have that same star appeal and the box office goes down.

42fish

02-17-2011, 12:04 PM

Great, Palin could be the first person elected to the presidency and the first to quit.

Actually, she'd be the second to quit.

As Bowie asked, "Do you remember your President Nixon?"

RTFirefly

02-17-2011, 12:42 PM

She keeps herself relevant. Or she maintains the appearance of relevance, at any rate.Exactly. If she doesn't run in 2012, she'll be ancient history by 2014.

I remember being in a similar discussion when Dan Quayle skipped the 1996 campaign, with the notion that he was going to keep his powder dry for 2000. That's silly, I said - eight years is a long time in Presidential politics, and someone else is going to fill his niche by 2000. Who, I was asked. Hell if I know, I said (the thought of GWB as a Presidential aspirant hadn't remotely crossed my mind at the time), but there's always new faces coming up. Somebody will.

Same with Palin. If she doesn't run, someone else will claim her political niche. Might be Michelle Bachmann, or it might be someone most of us have never heard of yet.

RTFirefly

02-17-2011, 12:47 PM

Speaking of fundraising Gingrich has apparently built a money raising machine down there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506344.htmlQuite a story - what a sleazebag.

Two predictions:

1) He isn't running. Like I said earlier, if he was, his 'base' in the court at Versailles-on-the-Potomac might be forced to notice that nobody outside their little clique gives a good goddamn about Newt.

2) This story won't significantly change the attitudes of the Broderists towards Newt. They'll still think he's full of brilliant ideas, and that people should pay more attention to him. They'll still flatter him in their columns and Sunday political show appearances. And he'll still be a regular on those shows.

Lantern

02-17-2011, 02:18 PM

I agree that Palin's options aren't great. If she runs, she will lose heavily and early in the primaries because above all else Republicans want to beat Obama and they can read the poll numbers as well as anyone else. If she sits out she becomes yesterday's story and will be overshadowed by rising stars like Christie and Rubio. Her best hope is to endorse the eventual winner in return for a cabinet position and hope he goes on to beat Obama. Realistically the chances of that are slim even assuming she wants to go through the grind of managing a cabinet department. Palin has been savvy about using her moment in the spotlight to become very rich but I don't think she has much of a future within the conservative movement.

Chronos

02-18-2011, 12:13 AM

Why would losing be a problem for her? She thrives on losing. Because it's all someone else's fault, dontcha know.

Kolak of Twilo

02-18-2011, 12:31 AM

I would imagine there are only so many loses allowed until you start to see damage to the brand.

Maus Magill

02-18-2011, 08:06 AM

I think Palin will be in for one or two primaries, then she'll drop out... because she's a winner.

BobLibDem

02-18-2011, 08:24 AM

I think Palin will be in for one or two primaries, then she'll drop out... because she's a winner.

She'll say something like "Only dead hamsters stay on the wheel" and then drop out, IF she runs, which I think is doubtful.

RTFirefly

02-18-2011, 09:04 AM

I would imagine there are only so many loses allowed until you start to see damage to the brand.Ditto no-shows, and that's her dilemma.

Some people can stay in the limelight for years without doing anything of note. Newt Gingrich comes to mind. But Newt has the advantage of a D.C. pundit corps that adores him for no apparent reason. Palin doesn't have that advantage.

Her fan club wants and expects her to run in 2012. If she doesn't, she'll lose her luster in their eyes.

I don't think she'll do terribly in the primaries. If Sharron Angle can win a GOP primary in Nevada, then so can Sarah Palin. And she should do reasonably well in Iowa and SC, though if I were running her campaign, I'd have her skip NH, just as Huckabee should have done in 2008.

What's really going to matter for her is how many candidates there are with a chance to pick up a nontrivial chunk of the Religious Right/Tea Party vote. If it's just her and the Huckster, she could win Iowa, Nevada, and SC in the early going, and be in good shape going into Super Tuesday, though I expect she'd ultimately lose to whichever of the empty suits survives the winnowing-out on the establishment side.

Tom Scud

02-18-2011, 09:12 AM

Palin is basically a right-wing version of Jesse Jackson (c. 1984) - it wouldn't surprise me if her career follows roughly the same track.

Saint Cad

02-18-2011, 11:40 AM

If Palin runs, it'll be really important who the VP candidate is considering they'll be president when she quits.

Jonathan Chance

02-18-2011, 11:45 AM

More fun with Sarah Palin that's relevant to the thread.

GOP activists in Iowa divided on whether Palin can carry 2012 banner (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021707335.html?hpid=topnews)

RTFirefly

02-18-2011, 11:49 AM

Palin is basically a right-wing version of Jesse Jackson (c. 1984) - it wouldn't surprise me if her career follows roughly the same track.That's a serious slam on Jesse Jackson, who was of far more substance than Palin will ever be. By the mid-1990s he had turned into a caricature of his old self, but in the 1980s he had a better grasp on the issues than most Senators do now. He wasn't aiming to run a campaign that would just appeal to blacks, either in 1984 or 1988, although due to the color of his skin that's who most of his supporters were. He was limited by the times and his color, much more than what sort of issues and campaigns he ran.

Tom Scud

02-18-2011, 11:55 AM

I was thinking of saying (that's unfair to Jackson) in my post, but I think from a pure electoral-prospects calculus ignoring the value of the issues the 2 represent, there's a lot of similarity - both have the capability to mobilize an important part of the party's base, and one that scares the piss out of the members of the other party; neither of them is likely to beat the establishment candidate, whoever that turns out to be.

BrainGlutton

02-22-2011, 11:19 AM

Just saw on CNN: Thune announced he will not run.

Really Not All That Bright

02-22-2011, 11:35 AM

He was limited by the times and his color, much more than what sort of issues and campaigns he ran.
Well, that and the Hymietown thing.

Cisco

02-22-2011, 12:10 PM

Well, that and the Hymietown thing.

Ehh . . . it's not like deriding Jews is taboo in this country. Especially not 25 years ago.

furt

02-22-2011, 12:41 PM

I'd agree with all of this, although given that it's early days yet. Daniels is by no means a perfect Presidential candidate (although who is?), but he seems a solid one. Lack of name recognition would seem to be his biggest mountain to climb right now.I actually see that as an asset.

I think presidential politics is headed to a place like supreme court nominees already are, where long tenure and experience hurt as much as they help. Especially with the information/communication explosion, it's much easier to find a record of candidate X saying something or making some poor decision 10 years ago, or dredging up some disgruntled staffer to make accusations.

Conversely, the speed of information means it also doesn't take long for someone to become well-known. At this point, marketing a national politician has a lot of resemblances to marketing a pop star -- at least when we're talking about marketing to the kind of plugged-in voters who pay attention to primaries -- and they can explode onto the national scene at the same speed.

Captain Lance Murdoch

02-22-2011, 02:24 PM

Just saw on CNN: Thune announced he will not run.

And there were... um, well fewer than there were before.

Zakalwe

02-22-2011, 06:07 PM

I think presidential politics is headed to a place like supreme court nominees already are, where long tenure and experience hurt as much as they help. Especially with the information/communication explosion, it's much easier to find a record of candidate X saying something or making some poor decision 10 years ago, or dredging up some disgruntled staffer to make accusations.

Conversely, the speed of information means it also doesn't take long for someone to become well-known. At this point, marketing a national politician has a lot of resemblances to marketing a pop star -- at least when we're talking about marketing to the kind of plugged-in voters who pay attention to primaries -- and they can explode onto the national scene at the same speed.Insightful. That aspect of the modern wide-media culture had not occured to me in that respect, but I think your analysis is spot-on.

Lantern

02-22-2011, 11:39 PM

I actually see that as an asset.

I think presidential politics is headed to a place like supreme court nominees already are, where long tenure and experience hurt as much as they help. Especially with the information/communication explosion, it's much easier to find a record of candidate X saying something or making some poor decision 10 years ago, or dredging up some disgruntled staffer to make accusations.

Conversely, the speed of information means it also doesn't take long for someone to become well-known. At this point, marketing a national politician has a lot of resemblances to marketing a pop star -- at least when we're talking about marketing to the kind of plugged-in voters who pay attention to primaries -- and they can explode onto the national scene at the same speed.
This may be true but it doesn't really apply to Daniels because because his low name recognition doesn't come from a lack of experience. He has a long track record which could bite him in both the primaries and the general: for example his record as Bush's budget director.

Besides Daniels is operating in a similar space to Romney , i.e. relatively moderate establishment candidate. It will be hard to displace Romney from his formidable position within that space. As I argued in the other thread, Romney's biggest challenge will probably come from the more conservative, outsider wing and from someone who can draw Tea Party support without being completely wacko. IMO Pawlenty is in the best position to do this.

Pawlenty's problem is he faces two formidable rivals in Huckabee and Palin who occupy that space. I am pretty sure Palin won't win and am skeptical that Huckabee can but they may still hang around for some time splitting the activist vote. In that case I think Romney will win easily. Pawlenty's best shot is to do well enough in the early primaries to persuade Palin and/or Huckabee to withdraw and endorse him. Of course if one or both don't enter the race in the first place his job will be a lot easier.

furt

02-23-2011, 07:24 AM

This may be true but it doesn't really apply to Daniels because because his low name recognition doesn't come from a lack of experience. He has a long track record which could bite him in both the primaries and the general: for example his record as Bush's budget director.True. Especially for primary voters, he's really going to have to explain his role in Bush's spending; the best play is "I didn't like it myself; I was just following orders" (which might even be true).

Besides Daniels is operating in a similar space to Romney , i.e. relatively moderate establishment candidate. It will be hard to displace Romney from his formidable position within that space. As I argued in the other thread, Romney's biggest challenge will probably come from the more conservative, outsider wing and from someone who can draw Tea Party support without being completely wacko. IMO Pawlenty is in the best position to do this.

Pawlenty's problem is he faces two formidable rivals in Huckabee and Palin who occupy that space. I am pretty sure Palin won't win and am skeptical that Huckabee can but they may still hang around for some time splitting the activist vote. In that case I think Romney will win easily. Pawlenty's best shot is to do well enough in the early primaries to persuade Palin and/or Huckabee to withdraw and endorse him. Of course if one or both don't enter the race in the first place his job will be a lot easier.And see, I just can't see Romney overcoming Health Care. That's still likely going to be one of the top 3 issues in 2012, and there's no way his views or history is going to square with what GOP primary voters want. I agree with you that Daniels and Romney are fighting the "moderate establishment candidate" role -- I just can't see Romney winning that fight.

And I agree with you that there's going to be a challenge from the conservative, outsider wing, and I suppose Pawlenty is as good a choice as any; but I also think there will be more noise from the libertarian wing. Granted, I'm wish-fulfilling here, but if Ron Paul opts not to run and puts his support behind Gary Johnson, I can see Johnson finishing third in New Hampshire and getting ink. If that happens, it will just make the establishment guys all that much more appealing.

RTFirefly

02-23-2011, 08:48 AM

Well, that and the Hymietown thing.He shouldn't have said it, but I'd be hard pressed to show its effect on his political fortunes. He made that remark in January 1984, just to help with the timeline in case you're interested in making the case yourself.

Lantern

02-23-2011, 11:52 AM

And see, I just can't see Romney overcoming Health Care. That's still likely going to be one of the top 3 issues in 2012, and there's no way his views or history is going to square with what GOP primary voters want. I agree with you that Daniels and Romney are fighting the "moderate establishment candidate" role -- I just can't see Romney winning that fight.
I agree that healthcare is Romney's biggest challenge but while it may stop him from winning the nomination I don't think it will stop him from being the establishment candidate. In fact I am not sure there will even be much of a fight between him and Daniels; everything I have read suggests that he is already a big front-runner in terms of insider support which suggests those insiders don't consider healthcare a fatal hurdle. I think Daniels has a chance only if there is a major stumble on Romney's part.

I would compare Romneycare with Iraq in the 2004 and 2008 Democratic primaries. This was an issue that the Democratic base cared about passionately and in both cases the front-runners were on the opposite side. In 2004 Kerry managed to overcome that and win the nomination and even in 2008 it didn't stop Clinton from being a front-runner for a long time though eventually it probably cost her the nomination.

Similarly I don't think Romneycare will stop Romney from becoming the front-runner and establishment candidate though it could stop him from winning the nomination if ,say, Pawlenty manages to unite the activist wing.

Celidin

02-23-2011, 12:07 PM

WMUR/UNH poll (http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary/26859973/detail.html): Romney's the NH primary frontrunner, by a mile.

Here's an interesting observation ... one I'm not sure we've seen before (or at least recently) - virtually every one of the potentials called out in RTFirefly's quote have one thing in common: the word former.

...former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani...
...former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty...
...former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee...
...former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich...
...2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin...
...former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum...

Note that it wasn't in the quote, but Palin (as we all know) is a former Governor in addition to former VP candidate.

Only Donald Trump, Ron Paul and Gov Barbour don't fall into the "former" group - and combined they're less than 10% of the vote in that poll.

We haven't seen this before - in 2008 you had current-Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden and McCain, not to mention then-current Governor Palin.

In 2004 it was then-President Bush vs. then (and still) Senator Kerry. 2000 had VP Gore vs Gov Bush.

You have to go back to 1996 to find a major candidate who wasn't sitting in another government office (Dole) at the time, but even that example had Sen Dole retiring from his senate seat about 6 months before the election - meaning he was still a Senator through all the primaries.

(FTR - 1992 was Gov Clinton vs President Bush, 1988 had VP Bush vs Gov Dukakis, 1984 was really the last time - Pres Reagan vs. former VP Mondale - and that was almost 30 years ago)

It kind of makes you think when the top 6 or so Republican contenders are "former" this or that - does the country want to elect someone who's "sat out" (so to speak) the last X years?

jsgoddess

02-23-2011, 12:28 PM

Neat find Celidin.

I have no idea what it means, but it's interesting. It appears the right is drawing from that professional pundit class of players rather than from working pols.

furt

02-23-2011, 03:11 PM

Similarly I don't think Romneycare will stop Romney from becoming the front-runner and establishment candidate though it could stop him from winning the nomination if ,say, Pawlenty manages to unite the activist wing.We'll see. There are certainly a lot worse options than Romney.

It kind of makes you think when the top 6 or so Republican contenders are "former" this or that - does the country want to elect someone who's "sat out" (so to speak) the last X years?I think it means the media focus on who the main candidates were last cycle.

Captain Lance Murdoch

02-24-2011, 11:56 AM

Maybe its time to start talking about Scott Walker. I think he has risen to hero status on the right in the last few weeks.

----

About Pawlenty, it seems a lot of folks have him pegged as a candidate for the religious right. This is not the case. He can appeal to that group, but mostly he is in the fiscal conservative camp with Romney except that he has been a relentless foe of heath care. Many Minnesotans would not even be aware of Pawlenty's evangelical faith as he never played it up in his 8 years as governor. The thing that makes him so strong in my opinion is that he can go into the corporate boardroom, a tea party convention or a religious revival meeting and be perfectly at home in any of them.

Really Not All That Bright

02-24-2011, 12:02 PM

So can Ed Koch...

ETA: I don't think it signifies that the front runners are mostly out of their previous offices. I happen to think that's a good ting; why should they be getting paid by the taxpayers to interview for a promotion?

waterj2

02-24-2011, 08:11 PM

It kind of makes you think when the top 6 or so Republican contenders are "former" this or that - does the country want to elect someone who's "sat out" (so to speak) the last X years?How many of them are on Fox News' payroll?

reallyconservative

02-26-2011, 07:46 AM

waterj2

02-26-2011, 06:15 PM

Whether or not they are qualified, Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, Palin, have NO chance of being elected. Period. Romney and that's a slight maybe. I'll add Haley Barbout, Donald Trump, and John Bolton to the list of people that have no business being treated as serious contenders. I don't know what people are thinking when they write up some of these people as having any chance whatsoever.

Rudy Giuliani, for example, was a disaster in 2008. His primary problem, as far as I can tell, is that any campaigning he does makes him less popular. People like the idea of Rudy in the abstract, but seeing more of him makes them think twice. That's not really an issue you can overcome.

Palin? She's got a net favorability of -23, I think. And it's not like there's people out there still making up their minds.

Haley Barbour is a former lobbyist with a Confederate flag signed by Jefferson Davis in his office. And, fairly or not, the rest of the country isn't asking itself how to emulate Mississippi's stunning success.

Gingrich? The media love talking about the possibility of him running every four years, but that really seems to be because the Washington press corps live in their own little bubble where he counts as an "ideas guy." Out here in the real world, Gingrich simply isn't actually at all popular. I figure he must know this, and that's why he never actually runs.

Huckabee's actually got decent popularity, but the only reason to vote for him over Obama is if you're a member of the religious right. And that's not a majority of the country by a long shot. At some point he'd need to convert people from kinda liking him to going to a polling station and pulling a lever for him to be elected to the most powerful position on earth. And that's going to take more than being a genial guest on Stewart and Colbert's shows.

John Bolton is the ideal candidate for the fringe anti-UN crowd. Normal people either don't know who he is or are scared at the prospect of putting him in charge of anything. Also, that mustache looks ridiculous.

And Donald Trump, I think we're all at least kind of laughing at even if we watch his show or whatever. And it's not like we're in awe of his riches-to-even-bigger-riches-by-way-of-a-couple-bankruptcies life story.

Seriously, the Republican Party ought to be afraid of any of these people actually getting the nomination. Let Romney lose to Obama, at least the party looks like its trying and is serious about things. Figure out who looks good for 2016 and get them some exposure in the primaries. Someone like Huntsman, perhaps. A couple others to be prepared for various scenarios when the time comes.

jsgoddess

02-26-2011, 06:35 PM

Rudy Giuliani, for example, was a disaster in 2008. His primary problem, as far as I can tell, is that any campaigning he does makes him less popular.

So, his primary problem is his primary problem?

Maus Magill

02-26-2011, 06:40 PM

So, his primary problem is his primary problem?

Brava.

Arnold Winkelried

03-04-2011, 06:32 PM

The Los Angeles Times today is saying that Newt Gingrich is going after the evangelical christian constituents.
Gingrich woos evangelicals as he eyes presidential bid (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-newt-gingrich-20110303,0,3442550,full.story)
By Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, Washington Bureau
March 3, 2011

He definitely sounds like he is ready to run.

Maus Magill

03-05-2011, 08:43 AM

Doubt it. He knows he couldn't win the general election. More likely, he's drumming up book sales.

gonzomax

03-05-2011, 11:11 PM

I read Newt filed paper work for running today. This is the guy who had sex with his secretaries. Had 3 wives. Asked one for a divorce while she was in the hospital so he could marry another secretary , meanwhile he stood in front of congress and excoriated Clinton for reckless sexual behavior.

Chronos

03-06-2011, 12:48 AM

Yeah, but he's asked for forgiveness, so that's OK.

gravitycrash

03-06-2011, 09:38 AM

Gingrich can't be serious about running. He's a smart dude and I agree with him on a lot of issues but he's got to be about the least likable guy in politics. Plus he's a womanizer and a cheat.

Unless he's surrounded himself with people who only tell him what he wants to hear or he's delusional. Surely he knows this, right?

beartato

03-06-2011, 09:50 AM

I'd agree with all of this, although given that it's early days yet. Daniels is by no means a perfect Presidential candidate (although who is?), but he seems a solid one. Lack of name recognition would seem to be his biggest mountain to climb right now.

Of course all this is moot if he decides not to run. I wouldn't take that as a given.

I wonder how much his image problem will affect his run. And I literally mean image problem - he kind of resembles a cartoon turtle, he's on the short side, balding... he's not entirely presidential looking. This isn't always a problem - the potential list of Repub candidates has only one pageant walker - but to be fairly unknown and unattractive is a tough combo. Can you imagine Daniels up on stage during a debate, the Nixon to Obama's JFK?

River Hippie

03-06-2011, 12:37 PM

Michelle Bachman was on Meet The Press this morning and I must admit, I was kind of impressed. I had never seen her interviewed before. She was not the incoherent loon I expected. She stayed on message, not matter what she was asked she answered with some variation of what a failure Obama is. She was articulate and calm. I didn't hear anything I agreed with and I think she's a despicable person for her willingness to make up stuff to whip up hatred for Obama and the Democrats. I could not imagine a circumstance in which I would even consider voting for her for anything but she seemed smarter than I would have thought.
In an honest debate she would shred Palin's ass.

a35362

03-06-2011, 01:07 PM

gonzomax

03-06-2011, 09:04 PM

Mm, I don't know -- I picture them just reciting their talking points at each other. That's not a debate. I don't think either of them has any great understanding of the issues.

Palin isn't really dumb -- she just isn't interested in the real issues behind the talking points. She could have learned them, at least superficially, by now if she were.
You mean if she wasn't stupid. She is.
McClain's campaign staff tried like hell to get her ready for the press and failed. She showed no intellectual curiosity and had no intention of putting any effort in it. Things have fallen in her lap. But like other beauty queens, she thinks she deserves it.
There are people on this board who think she is qualified for president. It is amazing.

a35362

03-06-2011, 09:24 PM

Regallag_The_Axe

03-06-2011, 11:39 PM

McClain's campaign...[snip]

Yippie kai ay 2012?

Jophiel

03-07-2011, 05:23 PM

Via Politicalwire.com
"Just the idea of whether the American electorate is ready for someone a bit unconventional, who is willing to tell it as she sees it, not be beholden to special interest or such obsessive partisanship as to let a political machine get in the way of doing what's right for the voters."

-- Sarah Palin, quoted by the BBC, on what she needed to think about before making a decision on a presidential bid.
There ya go. If she doesn't run, it's the American electorate's fault for not being ready for such an amazing person.

a35362

03-07-2011, 05:34 PM

I wonder what Palin would score on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm).

Really Not All That Bright

03-08-2011, 08:04 AM

Error. Does not compute.

beartato

03-08-2011, 10:51 AM

She really, really wants to hear you all beg for her, doesn't she? She always did seem like that kind of girl.

That Don Guy

03-08-2011, 02:25 PM

Right now, there's a wild card in the primary process. The RNC recently passed rules saying that only the "first four" (Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada) can have primaries in February, yet pretty much every "Super Tuesday" state still has state laws saying that their primaries are (still) in February. Since the RNC rules on dates pretty much match the DNC's new rules, the February states "should" get their acts together and this "shouldn't" be a problem...but that's what they said when California switched to an open primary (in 2000?) despite the RNC rules saying that a primary doesn't count if non-Republicans can vote in it. (Eventually, they found a loophole that allowed only votes by registered Republicans to count in the Presidential primary.)

-- Don

Tom Scud

03-08-2011, 03:05 PM

There ya go. If she doesn't run, it's the American electorate's fault for not being ready for such an amazing person.

She's got tiger blood.

Chronos

03-08-2011, 05:49 PM

Personally, I think that if a political party is going to have the nerve to make the government pay for the costs of running their primary, they should just sit back and accept whatever rules the government comes up with.

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-17-2011, 11:08 PM

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-17-2011, 11:28 PM

No, I really think Palin does have the intellectual capacity to learn about policy issues if she wanted to. She just doesn't care. That's her problem -- that she doesn't seem to think her ignorance would be a problem down the road. She's all ego -- "I deserve this" and "How dare you question me?" Maybe she figures there will be lots of nice people waiting for her in the White House who will tell her what to say and do, and that'll be good enough. She's like Lina Lamont in Singin' in the Rain -- "Oh, everybody's pickin' on me!"

Bachmann, on the other hand, is just a loony. A high-functioning loony, but still barking mad. But she's attractive and can speak in complete sentences, so people give her a pass.

The two of the are indistinguishable on the issues. And they both talk funny.

"I knew that we'd be buddies when I met her when she said, 'Drill here, drill now,'" Palin said. "And then I replied, 'Drill baby drill,' and then we both said, 'You betcha!'"

The difference is that Palin has a rabid following of goofs who will wait in line for hours to get her signature on their copy of Going Rogue. Bachmann is by far the second banana in this comedy team. Her widely rumored to be gay husband wouldn't boost her odds either. Bachmann is a non-starter in this thing.

Crane

03-22-2011, 07:00 AM

Captain,

You are missing the point. Neither Palin or Bachmann is a loon, goof or whatever. They have both been elected to public office and both understand that you get elected by speaking to your base, not to your competition. Their inane and often incorrect views are shared by their constituency.

Palin and Bachmann will draw the primary crowds. Pawlenty et al will stand by and watch.

Crane

Really Not All That Bright

03-22-2011, 09:26 AM

You get nominated by speaking to your base. You get elected by speaking to everyone else.

Crane

03-22-2011, 10:26 AM

Really,

Correct, and that is the way I believe it will play out - strong nomination - disastrous election..

Crane

Really Not All That Bright

03-22-2011, 11:29 AM

From your lips to god's ears...

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-22-2011, 12:15 PM

Chronos

03-22-2011, 02:48 PM

Their inane and often incorrect views are shared by their constituency.
The interesting thing about Bachmann is that she's not restricted to partisan loonery. Didn't she have something about wanting to give Obama a big hug and a kiss, or some such?

jsgoddess

03-24-2011, 08:45 PM

This article (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/the-first-2012-debate-approaches-or-does-it/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema2) suggests this year's campaigning is off to a slow start.

So far, with only about five weeks until the debate, most of the big-name potential candidates have not even said whether they are running. Most are remaining coy about their timing, but operatives regularly suggest that they could wait until later this spring to announce their candidacies...

<snip>

But the race was much further along by early May 2007. By April 15, Mr. McCain reported raising $18 million in the first quarter. Mr. Romney, who announced his candidacy in February, reported having raised $20.6 million in the first quarter.

By contrast, the April 15 fund-raising reports this year are likely to show almost no official campaign fund-raising, with the exception of Newt Gingrich, who announced the formation of an I.R.S. committee that allows him to start collecting money for a potential campaign. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/the-first-2012-debate-approaches-or-does-it/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema2)

2007's first debate was in early May with 10 candidates.

Is that just a function of having an incumbent or is there something a bit odd about it?

Simplicio

03-24-2011, 09:21 PM

Is that just a function of having an incumbent or is there something a bit odd about it?

Basically all the serious Dem candidates were in by January of '03 for the '04 race, and many only waited that long to see what Gore would do (he announced he wasn't running at the end of '02).

Things started even earlier for the GOP for '96, since they didn't have someone with right of first refusal like Gore to wait on, and because Clinton looked like he was going down after the '94 mid-terms.

So yea, its unusual.

BrainGlutton

03-27-2011, 03:44 PM

Simplicio

03-27-2011, 03:54 PM

Michele Bachmann says she's "in for 2012" but hasn't actually announced. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/26/bachmann-in-2012/?iref=allsearch)

Democracy is the one truly amusing form of government humanity has ever devised.

"The president has us engaged it yet another, third Middle Eastern war, talk about March Madness, can anyone say Jimmy Carter?" Bachmann said.

This is like a sentence produced by one of those Spambots where it just takes a bunch of words that come up frequently on google and cram them into a possibly syntactically correct sentence.

AbloyProtec

03-27-2011, 05:47 PM

OttoDaFe

03-27-2011, 05:59 PM

3 pages and no mention of Herman Cain? This guy has been holding almost monthly rallies/speeches to relatively large crowds in the Iowa for the past year. If he keeps this up, he's going to have a very solid base come primary time. The networks are just now starting to pick up on him.And I'm eagerly awaiting the gyrations the KDFs* will go through to justify voting for someone named "Cain."

*Knuckle-dragging fundamentalists (as opposed to the garden variety).

AbloyProtec

03-27-2011, 06:24 PM

And I'm eagerly awaiting the gyrations the KDFs* will go through to justify voting for someone named "Cain."

*Knuckle-dragging fundamentalists (as opposed to the garden variety).

Yes because he, or any other GOP candidate, is incapable of attracting voters through ideas, policies, and other aspects devout of color, race, creed, gender, and even name.

Troll?

Cisco

03-27-2011, 07:44 PM

Chronos

03-27-2011, 08:00 PM

OttoDaFe

03-27-2011, 08:08 PM

Yes because he, or any other GOP candidate, is incapable of attracting voters through ideas, policies, and other aspects devout of color, race, creed, gender, and even name.Umm . . . care to point out where I said only KDFs would be voting for Cain?Troll?I guess I've been royally put in my place.

ElvisL1ves

03-27-2011, 09:00 PM

(scrolling up ...) Phew. I thought KDF meant Kraft Durch Freude.

Cisco

03-27-2011, 09:14 PM

The fact that the dude has no mention over three pages is, in fact, an indication that he does not have a very solid base. Has anyone other than the same folks who keep coming to all his rallies ever heard of him? What's he done before? What big ideas is he bringing to the table? How much money has he raised? Yes, yes, I could no doubt look him up on Wikipedia and learn the answers to all those questions, but the fact that I even have to ask is a very bad sign for him as a candidate.

There were plenty of people, even a lot of future Obama voters, who had never heard of Obama at this point in the last Presidential election cycle. However, there are other things that are very bad signs for Herman Cain as a candidate. For one, he's a Teabagger, and that ship seems to be sailing at about the same rate that the 112th congress is diarrheaing on their campaign promises of fiscal restraint in favor of spending money on social conservatism.

Oh, and he's black. And I will unabashedly state that a significant number of people who would otherwise like what he says will have a hard time getting worked up about voting for a black man. You're living in a fantasy world if you don't realize that this would hurt/kill his (extremely hypothetical) run at office.

Not that I think people will be thrilled with the Democrats next year, but I'm fairly sure that the label "Tea Party" will rightfully be seen as the joke it's always been by then. It served its purpose for the Republican party and they're just about done with it.

Simplicio

03-27-2011, 09:38 PM

There were plenty of people, even a lot of future Obama voters, who had never heard of Obama at this point in the last Presidential election cycle..

Most politically interested people were aware of Obama at this point in the '08 cycle. I don't think you can say the same for Herman Cain.

I guess its possible that Cain and other marginal candidates might gain a boost if the 'real' candidates go much longer without actually starting to run for the nomination. After all, the media is eventually going to want to start talking people up as actual candidates, and say what you will about Cain, he's at least pretty straightforward about running for Prez.

That said, I agree he won't actually win.

jsgoddess

03-27-2011, 10:04 PM

There were plenty of people, even a lot of future Obama voters, who had never heard of Obama at this point in the last Presidential election cycle.

Obama wasn't polling badly at all by this point in 2007. Cain doesn't appear to be polling at all.

jsgoddess

03-27-2011, 10:10 PM

Missed my edit window:

I guess its possible that Cain and other marginal candidates might gain a boost if the 'real' candidates go much longer without actually starting to run for the nomination. After all, the media is eventually going to want to start talking people up as actual candidates, and say what you will about Cain, he's at least pretty straightforward about running for Prez.

Last time, there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for anyone the Republicans were running, which led a bunch of people (especially Freepers) to latch on to their great savior... Fred Thompson.

I'm not really contradicting you but I think people desperate for a candidate would look elsewhere than Herman Cain. St. Sarah would be a likely one to want to ride to the rescue and claim that she simply HAD to enter the race (then pull out early claiming she was being threatened).

Tom Scud

03-28-2011, 09:16 AM

Aside from everything else, Cain's only experience as a candidate (from his Wikipedia page, possibly they are omitting something) was a failed primary run for a Senate seat; he didn't even get his party's nomination.

Rhythmdvl

03-28-2011, 11:11 AM

Not that I think people will be thrilled with the Democrats next year, but I'm fairly sure that the label "Tea Party" will rightfully be seen as the joke it's always been by then. It served its purpose for the Republican party and they're just about done with it.

Wishful thinking.

I mean that in both senses of the word. "Wishful," as in I wish conservatives would gear up and present more in-depth ideas and rhetoric than that designed to appeal to the tea party mass. Some of the goals may be the same, but the vehicle and manner of implementation coming from a ditto head versus, say, a Buckley-ite are two different things.

And wishful thinking in the sardonic sense. Between Fox, talk radio, and the Koch brothers, there is a lot of media and money to be spent propping up tea party candidates. All three know they it will be easier to get what they want (money, power) by appealing to the tea party's base instincts.

No one is laughing. :(

Really Not All That Bright

03-28-2011, 11:19 AM

Apparently he won the Redstate.com reader poll. But I'd never heard of him, Godfather's Pizza, the National Restaurant Association or basically anything else he's ever been associated with.

Simplicio

03-28-2011, 11:30 AM

Pawlenty is picking up steam.

The Colbert Report dedicated an entire segment to making fun of him and the NY Times did a high profile piece on how he is all things to all people. True, these things could be seen as negatives, but I think it's seen as a badge of honor to be nicked in the liberul media. Besides, it's got to boost his name recognition.

He also gained a lot of attention for taking on a fake Southern accent recently. This is just bizarre and has made him something of a laughingstock round these parts. He might want to can that from now on.

Its kinda weird how little attention Pawlenty has been getting. He seems the obvious pick to me. He's pretty obviously running, unlike Palin and Huckabee who seem to be just keeping a toe in the water, he isn't insane like Bachmann, he actually has a political office unlike, well, most of the GOP field, he's from an area that will likely be a battleground in the general election, he isn't hated by most of the country like Newt and Palin. He's bascially Romney, but without the baggage of having invented Obama-care or thinking Jesus came to America.

But he always seems to comeup as an afterthought when people are considering GOP primary candidates.

Really Not All That Bright

03-28-2011, 11:35 AM

Apparently he won the Redstate.com reader poll. But I'd never heard of him, Godfather's Pizza, the National Restaurant Association or basically anything else he's ever been associated with.
Thread had moved on a bit by the time I posted. This was in reference to Cain.

Chronos

03-28-2011, 11:57 AM

[Pawlenty] isn't hated by most of the country like Newt and Palin.That's entirely due to his low name recognition: He is hated by most folks who have heard of him.

RTFirefly

03-28-2011, 12:03 PM

But [Pawlenty] always seems to comeup as an afterthought when people are considering GOP primary candidates.He's currently running second to Romney in the Intrade markets (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?searchQuery=Republican+Presidential+Nominee+in+2012).

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-29-2011, 12:07 PM

With Palin apparently out, Bachmann will be the new darling of the Tea Soirée. She could do well in Iowa. The Republican party primaries last year showed that the tea bagger element must be taken seriously at that level and less so at the general election level. That said, Bachmann is still Palin-lite. She is just as nuts as Palin, if not more so, but she doesn't have the same rabid following of fans behind her. Not yet anyway.

Ultimately, I think the party will try to pick someone they think can actually oust the foreign-born, socialist in the White House and to me that comes down to T-Paw and Daniels (if he decides to run.)

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-29-2011, 03:27 PM

Ooh! Roy "10 Commandments" Moore is throwing his hat into the ring! This is just the most pathetic roster of candidates (well, sort of - maybe - someday candidates) ever.

a35362

03-29-2011, 04:14 PM

Do you think this is how it will be? Most of the serious candidates don't want to burn money on a tough campaign cycle, so they'll sit it out until 2016, leaving mostly the unknowns to go at it in 2012.

Sorta like the Dems in 1992: everybody knew Cuomo was gonna get in eventually, and nobody wanted to go up against him. Even Clinton was (supposedly) just in it to raise some money and get some name recognition before he dropped out.

AbloyProtec

03-29-2011, 04:40 PM

There were no posts for Cain, now there are 8 and counting. Played like a fiddle. Thanks for the press.

-Regards.

Tom Scud

03-29-2011, 04:59 PM

OMG how can Cain lose now that he's got ten whole posts on a rarely-updated thread in the SDMB!

AbloyProtec

03-29-2011, 05:14 PM

OMG how can Cain lose now that he's got ten whole posts on a rarely-updated thread in the SDMB!

Google still follows it, rarely-updated or not.

jsgoddess

03-29-2011, 05:58 PM

I've got the slogan now!

"Cain Ain't Able."

Marley23

03-29-2011, 06:22 PM

Played like a fiddle. Thanks for the press.
Are you connected with the campaign?

And you are not allowed to insult other posters (calling them trolls, for example) in this forum. So don't do it again.

AbloyProtec

03-29-2011, 06:40 PM

Are you connected with the campaign?

Nope.

Marley23

03-29-2011, 06:48 PM

So you're actually that excited that your candidate was mentioned a couple of times in this thread?

AbloyProtec

03-29-2011, 07:05 PM

So you're actually that excited that your candidate was mentioned a couple of times in this thread?

Fighting ignorance everyday!

Qin Shi Huangdi

03-29-2011, 10:15 PM

Who will become the Republican nominee for President in 2012?

I would say it will be either Mitt Romney (if he runs) or Tim Pawlenty (if the former doesn't run).

Diogenes the Cynic

03-29-2011, 10:32 PM

Probably Romney, though I predict one of the flamethrowers (Gingrich, Palin, Bachmann or the like) will win the Iowa Caucus and cause some early excitement. We've seen similar phenomena with red meat candidates like Pat Buchanan or Pat Roberston doing well in Iowa or New Hampshire with appeals to the most hardcore of the conservative base, but the party always corrects itself and ends up with some safe default. There are so many dipshits this time around - more than usual, that it will be hard for any one of them to coalesce the teabaggers, and once the Primaries get to Super Tuesday, the Party will correct like it always does and Romney will be a fait accompli Pawlenty has a shot at the VP spot, but, he will be hampered by the fact that he's boring and can't deliver his own state. He's definitely mean enough, though, even though he tries to work a "nice guy" persona. Don't be fooled. Pawlenty is driven completely by soulless ambition and has neither principle nor conscience. He can play a bomb thrower if need be.

Onomatopoeia

03-29-2011, 10:33 PM

If Romney's able to convincingly ratchet up the crazy and appeal to the birthers and Tea Party, he could be the nominee. I don't think Pawlenty has a shot no matter what he does, unless he's simply the last man standing.

At this point, I think it'll be someone no one's thinking about right now.

Simplicio

03-30-2011, 12:00 AM

I would say it will be either Mitt Romney (if he runs) or Tim Pawlenty (if the former doesn't run).

Romney has been preping to run since 2006. He's about as likely to run in 2012 as Obama is.

But I think he'll loose to Pawlenty. The GOP hatred of the ACA is too strong to let Romney get nominated after passing Romneycare in Massachusetts.

Also, we already have this same basic thread going already. here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=596908)

AbloyProtec

03-30-2011, 06:31 AM

FWIW: http://www.gallup.com/poll/146864/Huckabee-Continues-Lead-GOP-Positive-Intensity-Tracking.aspx

Rhythmdvl

03-30-2011, 06:47 AM

Ah, that guy who AbloyProtec is shilling for sounds like a winner:

AbloyProtec's candidate: Many American Muslims 'Not Dedicated' To U.S., Constitution

In an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto on Monday, [he] sought to clarify remarks he made over the weekend to a Think Progress reporter, when he said that he would not appoint any Muslims to his cabinet or federal judgeships were he President. In defending that statement, [he] said that his concern is not with Muslims per se, but with Sharia law, and that he would need a "commitment" from prospective Muslim appointees that they would remain loyal to the Constitution before he would consider giving them a job.

Sounds like OttoDaFe was wrong--only knuckle-dragging fundamentalists are likely to vote for him.

Maus Magill

03-30-2011, 07:29 AM

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-30-2011, 09:20 AM

I wonder who Cain will pick for his VP. For balance I would suggest he take someone who people outside of his immediate family have heard of.

Simplicio

03-30-2011, 10:54 AM

I wonder who Cain will pick for his VP.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess "not a muslim".

Really Not All That Bright

03-30-2011, 11:27 AM

I wonder who Cain will pick for his VP. For balance I would suggest he take someone who people outside of his immediate family have heard of.
Maybe that's what AblyProtec is angling for.

AbloyProtec

03-30-2011, 05:51 PM

jsgoddess

03-30-2011, 06:29 PM

Did Herman Cain help Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

appleciders

03-30-2011, 06:31 PM

I would imagine there are only so many loses allowed until you start to see damage to the brand.

Tell that to the Chicago Cubs!

Seriously, though, being a persecuted underdog can be a successful strategy. Some people love scrappy losers; Hollywood has sure made enough movies about them. She could run a dozen campaigns over the rest of her life, lose them all, and maintain her image as someone worth listening to.

Really Not All That Bright

03-30-2011, 06:35 PM

More Cain talk? I love it!

But really, discussing VP choices at this point is kind of far fetched considering most, including Cain, are only at exploratory stages. It seems as if Newt has been courting Rubio as of late, however - that'd be an interesting ticket.
Allowing the man who almost single-handedly ruined Florida's economy to ruin the nation's? Doubtful. Rubio is way too shallow to handle a national campaign right now.

AbloyProtec

03-30-2011, 08:36 PM

Allowing the man who almost single-handedly ruined Florida's economy to ruin the nation's? Doubtful. Rubio is way too shallow to handle a national campaign right now.

With Gingrich expected to announce candidacy in May and Rubio publicly stating he has no intentions to run, I think it's safe to deduce a VP spot for Rubio on such a ticket given current circumstances.

Did Herman Cain help Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?

Personal attack?

Fighting ignorance everyday, huh?

Marley23

03-30-2011, 08:48 PM

AbloyProtec

03-30-2011, 08:59 PM

AbloyProtec, I don't think you're violating any rules here, but what you've said so far (nothing positive about your candidate - just glee that his name has been mentioned) is not going to encourage people to take him seriously. Perhaps you'd like to give some reasons to explain your enthusiasm?

The point was to put his name in the thread so that anyone seriously considering candidates would at least have one more avenue to research. Anyone seriously researching candidates won't end their journey on the offhand comments by members of the Straight Dope.

jsgoddess

03-30-2011, 09:31 PM

If you genuinely hope people will want to take a serious look at Cain, you probably want to stop with the "Under there!" "Under where?" "Tee hee, I made you say underwear!" style of political discussion.

Chronos

03-30-2011, 09:41 PM

And when people do seriously research Cain, one of the things they'll find about him is that even his supporters can't find anything better to say about him than "He's running".

AbloyProtec

03-30-2011, 10:05 PM

And when people do seriously research Cain, one of the things they'll find about him is that even his supporters can't find anything better to say about him than "He's running".

Ok? I'd hope they'd rely on his stances instead of the promotion techniques of his supporters. Then again, you, and the rest of the U.S., may pick your candidate(s) differently from me so I may be wrong.

Press is press, Google/Yahoo trends are heavily dependent on links. I've just generated 2 and counting and you're all now aware that the man exists months before the first debate. All I had to do was type a few small responses.

Ain't technology great?

jsgoddess

03-30-2011, 10:07 PM

Press is press

Ask Rick Santorum about that.

Chronos

03-30-2011, 10:47 PM

Again, if you're so eager to get the word out, and you consider his stances so important, why not tell us about them?

Cisco

03-30-2011, 11:53 PM

Press is press

Ask Rick Santorum about that.

Or George Allen

Or Michael Dukakis

Or Howard Dean

Or Richard Nixon

. . . but then again, for someone as low on the totem pole as Cain (pretty sure he's just above that one popular kid at the high school down the street), maybe press is press.

Zakalwe

03-31-2011, 12:46 AM

Press is press, Google/Yahoo trends are heavily dependent on links. I've just generated 2 and counting and you're all now aware that the man exists months before the first debate. All I had to do was type a few small responses.Mods, seriously, how is this any different than Viagra spam?

AbloyProtec

03-31-2011, 06:11 AM

Again, if you're so eager to get the word out, and you consider his stances so important, why not tell us about them?

Because I'm not about to get drawn into a massive debate over the issues on a predominantly liberal board. I mean this as no insult but, by and large, this board is mainly comprised of liberals

but then again, for someone as low on the totem pole as Cain (pretty sure he's just above that one popular kid at the high school down the street), maybe press is press.

He's actually not that low on the totem pole. Going by most of the polls, he's anywhere from 2nd to 4th from the top of it. I realize it's entirely too early but to write him off as a nobody at this point is blatantly ignorant. He's polling very, very well.

Mods, seriously, how is this any different than Viagra spam?

You know, rather than making them do the work, why don't you cite specific rules you believe I am breaking?

Marley23

03-31-2011, 09:35 AM

Mods, seriously, how is this any different than Viagra spam?
Because he's not really doing anything (other than embarrassing himself and his candidate). But it's getting on my nerves. So here are your options, AbloyProtec: you can attempt a serious discussion of the issues and the candidate you say you support, or you can stop posting in this thread. We're not here to boost your guy's Q rating.

Really Not All That Bright

03-31-2011, 09:37 AM

Well, most of us aren't. ;)

Marley23

03-31-2011, 10:58 AM

Merged thread by Qin Shi Huangdi (and three responses) into this thread.

Really Not All That Bright

03-31-2011, 12:26 PM

Captain Lance Murdoch

03-31-2011, 12:51 PM

Yes, but he also just described his past environmental actions as "stupid" "clunkers." So he is getting right with the party there.

AbloyProtec

03-31-2011, 04:52 PM

I'd love to hear your criticisms of the Fair Tax Act that Governor Huckabee and Herman Cain have been highlighting on their respective campaigns.

Also, please no 30% figure - that's been thoroughly debunked.

jsgoddess

03-31-2011, 05:08 PM

Tim Pawlenty is now publicly telling the Birthers to shut up (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/pawlenty-obamas-birth-certificate-no-issue/1). So now, he'll be getting an equal share of "who?" and "RINO!" reactions.

I was curious, so I checked out the Freepers. This is golden:

I wish I knew where I could write to Trump to add my support of what he is doing. I sort of hope that his running is just to be a voice in the wilderness, so to speak, and bring to the front this constitutional issue, then once he has done that, to back off and allow someone like Palin to run and win. If anyone could do it.... he can!

If he did that, I bet his legacy would be that of a savior of our country. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2696801/posts?page=20#20)

Onomatopoeia

03-31-2011, 06:37 PM

I was curious, so I checked out the Freepers. This is golden:

Don't you feel all dirty and sticky now?

jsgoddess

03-31-2011, 06:41 PM

Don't you feel all dirty and sticky now?

It's all educational and stuff!

Rhythmdvl

03-31-2011, 06:53 PM

Don't you feel all dirty and sticky now?
It's all educational and stuff!
That's what she said!

Chronos

04-01-2011, 04:34 PM

I'd love to hear your criticisms of the Fair Tax Act that Governor Huckabee and Herman Cain have been highlighting on their respective campaigns. OK, now we have an actual issue to discuss. As with any proposed change to taxation, the first question one must always ask is, whose taxes will go up? If the change is to be revenue-neutral, and somebody will pay less, then someone else must necessarily pay more.

Really Not All That Bright

04-01-2011, 05:54 PM

The Fair Tax concept is pointless. It's a means to fix a problem- the complexity of the tax code- which can be fixed in much easier ways. Like simplifying the existing tax code.

Captain Amazing

04-03-2011, 01:31 AM

OK, now we have an actual issue to discuss. As with any proposed change to taxation, the first question one must always ask is, whose taxes will go up? If the change is to be revenue-neutral, and somebody will pay less, then someone else must necessarily pay more.

I assume it would lower taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor and middle class? Isn't that the whole problem that it's trying to fix? That the rich shoulder an inordinate amount of the tax burden?

AbloyProtec

04-03-2011, 10:31 AM

I assume it would lower taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor and middle class? Isn't that the whole problem that it's trying to fix? That the rich shoulder an inordinate amount of the tax burden?

Hardly.

The Fair Tax replaces the current income tax system with a 23% national sales tax. Your income isn't taxed, only what you spend at the retail level. Considering that what you pay at the retail level is just at 22% of embedded taxes, you're looking at an extra 1 percent.

The working poor are protected under the Fair Tax plan. Each month, prebates are administered according to your annual income as well as household size. If you have low income, the prebates will cover the taxes on all commodity items (food, toilet paper, soap, etc.) at the retail level. In other words, the working poor won't be paying tax on the necessities.

It's not simply a flat tax because it has measures like mentioned above to offset any financial impact to a group susceptible to a tax increase, even if only 1%.

Easily the most researched tax solution in the history of the United States, the Fair Tax conducted survey of 500 foreign companies. Bill Archer asked CEOs what impact the FairTax would have on their future business decisions. Four hundred of the CEOs said they would build their next manufacturing plant in the US if the FairTax was passed. The other 100 said they would move their whole corporation to America.

The Fair Tax concept is pointless. It's a means to fix a problem- the complexity of the tax code- which can be fixed in much easier ways. Like simplifying the existing tax code.

That's hardly the scope of the Fair Tax plan. It aims to replace the current tax code with a solution that doens't punish productivity or hard work - if you've ever been an hourly employee and worked overtime in this country you know what I mean. It doesn't want to burden businesses with tax compliance costs or individuals who spend an estimated 27 hours annually to file their income tax returns. It aims to get companies back in the U.S. by not forcing them to pay inordinate amounts of taxes just to operate in the U.S. - it's the same reason DailmerChrysler went to Stuttgart instead of Detroit after the merger.

Do some research before you offer criticism. There are many goals to the Fair Tax plan. Simply replacing the complexity of the current tax code doesn't even crack the Fair Tax's top 10.

Try again, sir.

Chronos

04-03-2011, 10:54 AM

OK, so again, whose taxes go up under the Fair Tax plan?

AbloyProtec

04-03-2011, 11:04 AM

OK, so again, whose taxes go up under the Fair Tax plan?

Depends how much you spend on a non-necessity basis per year. If you don't buy brand new TV's, cars, computers, clothes, etc. you won't pay any taxes. If you buy some of that, you'll pay some taxes - which is about 1% more than what you pay on items right now due to the current 22% embedded taxes. If you buy a lot of that, you'll pay more taxes.

Do you see the correlation?

Very, very conducive to helping the working poor get out of their situations because it a) won't punish their paychecks or productivity - thus allowing them to save without losing a single cent to anyone when they get their paychecks and b) prebates cover all taxes for necessity items. They basically don't pay taxes.

Will rich people pay more taxes? Probably. They seem to purchase a lot more than the rest. No?

AbloyProtec

04-03-2011, 11:12 AM

Maybe I didn't do a good enough job of explaining that the Fair Tax is revenue neutral - no one is required to contribute anymore because of what they earn or what they own. Now, as I noted, are rich people more inclined to buy new cars, tvs, homes, etc.? Yes, research corroborates that all day.

So, rich people will spend more and thus contribute more taxes but is it setup to require them to do such? No, it's entirely voluntary.

appleciders

04-03-2011, 11:35 AM

I'd worry that the Fair Tax would set up a large black market-- it gives a large (23%) incentive to keep things off the books in order to avoid paying taxes.

Simplicio

04-03-2011, 11:52 AM

Maybe I didn't do a good enough job of explaining that the Fair Tax is revenue neutral - no one is required to contribute anymore because of what they earn or what they own..

Thats not what revenue neutral means.

I'd worry that the Fair Tax would set up a large black market-- it gives a large (23%) incentive to keep things off the books in order to avoid paying taxes.

23% is a pretty low-ball estimate of what would be needed. Total retail sales in the US in 2010 was ~4.5 trillion (http://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/timeseries.html). US federal revenue was north of ~2.5 trillion. So more like 50%. Plus if you want to give rebates to lower class people, you'll need the tax to be higher on everyone else. Plus the tax will suppress retail sales, so you'll need to increase the tax futher to make up the difference. Plus many states already have sales tax, so the total sales tax will be even higher. So even 50% is probably a conservative estimate.

Plus the US economy is pretty consumption reliant. Adding a huge disincentive to consumers would be a poor idea for the US economy as a whole.

Jonathan Chance

04-03-2011, 12:02 PM

I always saw two jokers in the debt on Fair Tax.

1. The emphasis on 'retail' sales. So would that mean that if I, a business owner (as I am) purchased say, 10 new PCs I wouldn't pay tax on them?

2. I always see exemptions for some things that I don't think should be. What about stocks and bonds? Does the tax apply to them? (I mentioned that to my broker a few years ago and he was adamantly against it) Houses? What about for services? If I arrange a trip for my staff to a trade show do we pay it on air/travel/rental car?

I have my doubts.

AbloyProtec

04-03-2011, 12:05 PM

Thats not what revenue neutral means.

I never attempted to define it? Sorry I didn't do a better job of specifying that. Apologies.

23% is a pretty low-ball estimate of what would be needed. Total retail sales in the US in 2010 was ~4.5 trillion (http://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/timeseries.html). US federal revenue was north of ~2.5 trillion. So more like 50%. Plus if you want to give rebates to lower class people, you'll need the tax to be higher on everyone else. Plus the tax will suppress retail sales, so you'll need to increase the tax futher to make up the difference. Plus many states already have sales tax, so the total sales tax will be even higher. So even 50% is probably a conservative estimate.

Plus the US economy is pretty consumption reliant. Adding a huge disincentive to consumers would be a poor idea for the US economy as a whole.

From FairTax.org:

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces.

The study for the above figures can be found here (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Tax%20Notes%20article%20on%20FT%20rate.pdf).

AbloyProtec

04-03-2011, 12:10 PM

I always saw two jokers in the debt on Fair Tax.

1. The emphasis on 'retail' sales. So would that mean that if I, a business owner (as I am) purchased say, 10 new PCs I wouldn't pay tax on them?

Of course you would pay taxes on them. You'd have to purchase them from a retailer, would you not?

2. I always see exemptions for some things that I don't think should be. What about stocks and bonds? Does the tax apply to them? (I mentioned that to my broker a few years ago and he was adamantly against it) Houses? What about for services? If I arrange a trip for my staff to a trade show do we pay it on air/travel/rental car?

I have my doubts.

The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax.

Depends on the services.

You'd pay taxes on the plane ticket, just as you would now. What do you mean by travel? Gas? Rental car has applicable taxes applied to it just as it does now.

Crane

04-03-2011, 02:28 PM

The "Fair Tax" sounds good as a sound byte, but it is not practical. It taxes 'retail sales', right there it lets rich folks off the hook. My purchase of food is more of an investment in the future than your purchase of a stock. My purchase of an automobile enables me to carry on my business as an engineer even though I work for a salary. My house is an investment that provides shelter so I am available to my employer. "Fair Tax" is actually a selective tax system that lets the wealthy skate by free.

If it's really a fair tax then it applies to all purchases equally: stocks, bonds, incremental derivative orders, food, shelter, transportation, company acquisitions and a bet placed on a Vegas Roulette wheel. Corporations could be allowed to deduct costs below the gross operating profit line.

Crane

Crane

04-03-2011, 02:45 PM

Meanwhile, back on topic, I'm not sure why Palin is being dismissed as a contender. From Palin's point of view she has an ideal political environment. She has the strongest name recognition and strong base support. Her goal is to build her celebrity, not to be President. The polls indicate that she will not win the general election so it all fits her need.

Add to that her ability to use the web (very low cost) and the enthusiasm of the Tea Party base, and you have a good potential for a Primary win.

Mormonism will be a minor issue in the general election but it is a show stopper in the Primary. I doubt that Palin will use it directly, but her swiftboaters will have a field day. A Palin/Romney primary battle will be far more fun to watch than Obama/Clinton.

Crane

Chronos

04-03-2011, 03:02 PM

Meanwhile, back on topic, I'm not sure why Palin is being dismissed as a contender ... Her goal is to build her celebrity, not to be President.Didn't you just answer your own question?

AbloyProtec

04-03-2011, 03:17 PM

The "Fair Tax" sounds good as a sound byte, but it is not practical. It taxes 'retail sales', right there it lets rich folks off the hook. My purchase of food is more of an investment in the future than your purchase of a stock.

I love that a majority of all the criticisms of the Fair Tax come from lack of comprehension of what it actually does and does not do.

From FairTax.org:

"Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs."

Second, you would receive a monthly prebate to offset any tax incursions on the necessities. You wouldn't be paying tax on food, toilet paper, soap, etc. and all other of life's necessities. The prebate size is set in relation to where you are in regards to the poverty line. The wealthy, obviously receive the lowest prebates; the poor the most.

Furthermore,

"The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending under the Fair Tax. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending. "

My purchase of an automobile enables me to carry on my business as an engineer even though I work for a salary. My house is an investment that provides shelter so I am available to my employer. "Fair Tax" is actually a selective tax system that lets the wealthy skate by free.

So don't buy a new automobile if you don't want to pay the extra 1% tax?

Sigh, you really don't know what the Fair Tax has in plan for you, huh?

Again, from FairTax.org:

"The FairTax has positive effects on residential real estate far beyond this narrow question. Today’s homeowners, if they itemize (and 70 percent do not), pay their interest with post-Social Security/pre-income tax dollars. They then pay their principal with post-SS/post-income tax dollars. Those who do not itemize get no advantages at all. Under the FairTax, all homeowners make their entire house payment with pre-tax dollars.

With the FairTax, mortgage interest rates fall by about 25 percent (about 1.75 points) as bank overhead falls; this is a huge savings for consumers. For example, on a $150,000, thirty-year home mortgage at an interest rate of 7.00 percent, the monthly mortgage payment is $999.12 for principal and interest. On that same mortgage at a 5.25 percent interest rate, the monthly payment is $830.01. Over 30 years, the 1.75-percent decrease in interest rates in this instance results in a $60,879 cost savings to the consumer. Finally, first-time buyers save for that down payment much faster, as savings are not taxed.

Under the FairTax, home ownership is a possibility for many who have never had that option under the income tax system. Lower interest rates, the repeal of the income tax, the repeal of all payroll taxes, and the prebate mean that people have more money to spend and have an increased opportunity to become homeowners. "

Looks like what you'd save on your mortgage would help you cover that 1% and then some, huh?

If it's really a fair tax then it applies to all purchases equally: stocks, bonds, incremental derivative orders, food, shelter, transportation, company acquisitions and a bet placed on a Vegas Roulette wheel. Corporations could be allowed to deduct costs below the gross operating profit line.

Crane

Most of those items are taxed by the Fair Tax - you should really research it.

Corporations, businesses, etc. are all given incentives to spur job growth and development under the Fair Tax. For example, under the Fair Tax, money retained in the business and reinvested to create jobs, build factories, or develop new technologies, pays no tax. Many, many, many more examples of this.

Please, read before you comment.

Crane

04-03-2011, 03:32 PM

Chronos,

Sorry, I should have said:

Meanwhile, back on topic, I'm not sure why Palin is being dismissed as a primary contender ... Her goal is to build her celebrity, not to be President.

Crane

Crane

04-03-2011, 03:53 PM

Abloy,

I have read the Fair Tax site.

1. "Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor."

That statement is true, but ridiculous in this context. The wealthy spend a small amount of their disposable income on food, clothing, housing and medical care. The Fair Tax would significantly decrease disposable income for the middle class, but have a negligible impact on the wealthy.

2. Prebate is a bandaid on the failure of the Fair Tax scheme. If the system requires a prebate, then admit that your 'point' in 1. above is absurd.

3. The point on the automobile is that your definition of investment is arbitrary.

4. What mechanism will cause bank interest rates to fall under a flat tax? There's no connection except wishful 'thinking'.

5. Specifics get fuzzy on the Fair Tax page. Your comments on encouraging job growth are fluff. Corporations get those deductions today - what's new?

If you really want a fair tax then impose a small tax on gross income for individuals and corporations.

Crane

Really Not All That Bright

04-03-2011, 10:38 PM

Do some research before you offer criticism. There are many goals to the Fair Tax plan. Simply replacing the complexity of the current tax code doesn't even crack the Fair Tax's top 10.
Really?
Imagine a tax system that:
• Allows you to keep 100 percent of your paycheck, pension, and Social Security
payments.
• Frees up the time wasted on filling out cumbersome IRS forms.
• Wipes out the income tax code and shuts down the IRS.
• Makes taxation of income unconstitutional by repealing the 16th Amendment.
• Exempts all taxpayers from federal taxation up to the poverty level, through a monthly
rebate.
• Ensures that all Americans pay their fair share of taxes.
• Dramatically lowers tax rates for low-income and middle-income Americans.
• Makes taxes visible by eliminating hidden income and payroll taxes in consumer prices.
• Enables families to save more for home ownership, education, and retirement.
• Protects and ensures the funding of Social Security and Medicare.
• Leaves unchanged the amount of money raised by the federal government.
• Makes American products more competitive overseas. (http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxTalkingPoints.pdf)
It's 3 of their 12 talking points. Do some research before you... do whatever it is you're doing.

In the interests of avoiding a total hijack, I won't respond to any more flat tax posts in this particular thread, but I'll be happy to participate if you wish to start a separate one.

Cisco

04-05-2011, 12:05 AM

Fair Tax conducted survey of 500 foreign companies. Bill Archer asked CEOs what impact the FairTax would have on their future business decisions. Four hundred of the CEOs said they would build their next manufacturing plant in the US if the FairTax was passed. The other 100 said they would move their whole corporation to America.
Four out of 5 companies have manufacturing plants? I don't have any figures that contradict you, but just off the top of my ass, that sounds dubious.

And 100% of CEOs find this plan to be corporate-friendly, huh? Interesting.

jsgoddess

04-05-2011, 12:08 AM

Four out of 5 companies have manufacturing plants? I don't have any figures that contradict you, but just off the top of my ass, that sounds dubious.

And 100% of CEOs find this plan to be corporate-friendly, huh? Interesting.

If that doesn't set alarum bells to clangin', I don't know what will.

Maus Magill

04-05-2011, 07:55 AM

Good Idea alarms, that is.

After all, everyone knows that what's good for CEOs is what's good for America.

BobLibDem

04-05-2011, 08:03 AM

The trouble with all the tax theories is that they presume that taxes are the sole driving force for business expansion and contraction. They aren't. Nobody died and made taxes king. There aren't business execs shaking in their beds worrying about whether they should try to make another billion dollars if they can only keep 72% of it rather than 75%. We keep hearing that only if this oppressive tax burden were lifted, all these jobs will magically appear. Bullocks. Businesses will expand when they foresee market growth for their product. Taxes are but one of many factors to weigh.

Crane

04-05-2011, 10:14 AM

This thread done been hijacked!

Crane

Crane

04-05-2011, 03:33 PM

Once again on topic, recent polls put Huckabee at the top of the Republican primary heap. The top 4 are Huckabee, Romney, Palin and Gingrich.

In spite of this brief spurt of zeal, Huckabee is a non-starter. When he drops out his fan club will go to Palin, moving her even with Romney.

Crane

Zakalwe

04-05-2011, 07:40 PM

In spite of this brief spurt of zeal, Huckabee is a non-starter. When he drops out his fan club will go to Palin, moving her even with Romney.If Palin is the nominee, there is a 100% chance that Obama is a two-term President. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama gets down on his knees every night before bed and prays, "Please God, let Sarah win it."

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-06-2011, 12:03 PM

Palin seems to be out. She and Bachmann are pretty tight and it's doubtful that crazy eyes would enter the race if she thought Palin was in. She is obviously in, so I think she has been tipped off by Palin that she won't run.

Diogenes the Cynic

04-06-2011, 12:09 PM

Palin would actually have to answer questions if she ran. No way she's ever going to do that.

Maus Magill

04-06-2011, 02:20 PM

Palin would actually have to answer questions if she ran. No way she's ever going to do that.

I'm of two minds of this. I think Palin is making too much money by playing the "I think I might run if the country really, really needs me" game. BUT, I get the impression that her ego is too big for her to not run.

I think she believes her own hype.

Crane

04-08-2011, 11:01 AM

I agree that she believes her own press, but she also needs to sustain her public presence (for income purposes). To do that she has to run.

She can even gain by refusing interviews and even debates. Her base will love it.

Crane

Damuri Ajashi

04-08-2011, 05:05 PM

If Palin is the nominee, there is a 100% chance that Obama is a two-term President. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama gets down on his knees every night before bed and prays, "Please God, let Sarah win it."

I can only think of a couple of republican candidates for whom this is not true.

Sam Stone

04-10-2011, 09:52 PM

I'm beginning to think that there's a real possibility that Michelle Bachmann will get an early endorsement from Palin, which will focus a lot of the tea party on her and make her an early front-runner.

I wouldn't underestimate her, either. I've completely discounted her up until now, thinking of her as 'Palin-lite'. But from what I'm hearing, she's more like "Palin with brains and an education". At least, that's the way she comes across to people who speak with her off-camera. She can apparently work a room pretty well and can be very charming in person - which could explain why she's managed to raise so much money.

This says nothing about her policies or her beliefs - I haven't followed her enough to know exactly what to think about that. But there's certainly a lot of buzz starting to pick up about her in the Republican party.

Diogenes the Cynic

04-10-2011, 10:46 PM

What brains? What education? She has a fake law degree from Oral Roberts University.

I'm from her state. I can assure you she's a moron.

Sam Stone

04-11-2011, 12:12 AM

Aside from her law degree from Oral Roberts, she has an LL.M in tax law from William and Mary law school, which is a highly ranked law school in the U.S. (ranked #10 by U.S. News and World Report's law school ranking guide). She's not an idiot.

By the way, she does not have a 'fake' law degree. Oral Roberts is a reasonably well-regarded university with full accreditation. She would never have gotten into W&M if her law degree was 'fake'. She also spent five years as a practicing tax attorney, working for the commisioner of the IRS. Fake law degree indeed.

Once again, you skip any kind of reasonable debate over her qualifications and ideas, and instead toss out nonsense that's easily discredited. You're doing your side no favors. It's baseless, bigoted arguments like that which make people defend Bachmann (and Palin) who otherwise would have no interest in doing so. You should stop doing that.

Really Not All That Bright

04-11-2011, 08:42 AM

What brains? What education? She has a fake law degree from Oral Roberts University.
Oral Roberts has transcended the crazy Christian school thing and is, as Sam points out, a very good school. It's been one of the Princeton Review's top colleges in the Western region (http://www.oru.edu/news/oru_news/20100804_bestinthewest.php) 3 of the last 4 years.

That being said, the law school never progressed beyond provisional ABA accreditation (and had its provisional accreditation pulled for a while because it required students to declare that they would practice only Christ's law, or somesuch).

So it's not a fake law degree, but it's not a very good one either. Her LLM is much more impressive.

All that said, she is an idiot, and anyone arguing otherwise does himself a disservice.

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-11-2011, 10:01 AM

She has an almost limitless ability to say ridiculous things whenever she starts talking. Remember how she called for investigations of the anti-American members of congress? This can be helpful with the Tea Party base, but gives her zero chance of being successful on a wider stage.

Pawlenty, on the other hand just scored a coup by hiring Nick Ayers to his staff. He is gathering a formidable campaign team.

smithsb

04-11-2011, 10:39 AM

For more reading in regard to Michelle Bachmann's statements and intellect, you can go to factcheck.org or politicalfact.org and key on her name.

Another site which may have a political bias is dumpbachmann.com

Diogenes the Cynic

04-11-2011, 11:40 AM

Aside from her law degree from Oral Roberts, she has an LL.M in tax law from William and Mary law school
William and Mary doesn't offer an LL.M program (well it does, but only for foreign students). One thing you have to understand about Bachmann is that she is a pathological liar. Don't believe everything you read on her wiki page. For the record, her official bio on her Congressional sute (http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography/) lists only Anoka high school and Winona University.
By the way, she does not have a 'fake' law degree. Oral Roberts is a reasonably well-regarded university with full accreditation.
The Law school at Oral Roberts was unaccredited at the time Bachmann went there.

Her education is unimpressive, but that's not the reason I call her a dummy. The reason I call her a dummy is because, as a resident of her state, I am all too familair with her propensity to say and do incredibly stupid things.

She said that FEMA was going to set up "reducation camps."

She tried to force Minnesota public schools to teach creationism.

She belongs to a church that says the Pope is the antichrist.

She believes that homosexuality can be cured by prayer.

She thinks her husband, a flaming "pray away the gay" Christian "therapist, is straight. (you can see how not-gay he is right here (http://wonkette.com/419132/heres-video-of-michelle-bachmanns-very-not-gay-flaming-husband)).

She has repeatedly said that GLBT people "target children," and that public schools teach children that "they should try homosexuality."

I could go on all day. Practically everything she says is stupid. Just a week or two ago she told a crowd in Concord, New Hampshire that their town was the site of "the shot heard 'round the world." A little while before that, she totally fabricated some hyperbolic allegatuions that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to india, bring 2000 guests with him, put them up at "5 star hotel rooms" at the taxpayers' expense and also bring a number of warships with him. The allegations had no basis in truth whatsoever. As I said, she is a pathological liar who doesn't know or care what the truth is.

It would be impossible to either underestimate this dummy's intellect or to overestimate her mendacity. She is a mental and moral midget.

Really Not All That Bright

04-11-2011, 12:10 PM

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-11-2011, 12:19 PM

But she's not a witch.

gonzomax

04-11-2011, 12:55 PM

But she's not a witch.

Yes she is.

a35362

04-11-2011, 12:59 PM

Hermione would be insulted by that.

Sam Stone

04-11-2011, 01:00 PM

William and Mary doesn't offer an LL.M program (well it does, but only for foreign students). One thing you have to understand about Bachmann is that she is a pathological liar. Don't believe everything you read on her wiki page. For the record, her official bio on her Congressional sute (http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography/) lists only Anoka high school and Winona University.

She practiced tax law for the IRS. I'm assuming that means she got an LL.M from somewhere, and that her law degree was recognized. If not, then you'd think by now her opponents would have dug up the dirt on this and raked her over the coals on it, and she'd be facing disbarment and possible legal charges.

I think you're approaching 'truther' territory when you start asserting fake degrees, absent any evidence that this is the case. Why go there?

Her education is unimpressive, but that's not the reason I call her a dummy. The reason I call her a dummy is because, as a resident of her state, I am all too familair with her propensity to say and do incredibly stupid things.

See, now this is totally fair, assuming your summary of her statements is correct. Although I wouldn't say that making crazy/extreme statements that pander to her base is a sign of stupidity - it could be coldly calculated bullshit that she's spewing in order to gain the kind of support and financing she obviously enjoys. That would make her unethical, not stupid.

She's obviously a very hardcore Christian Fundamentalist, which in my book is enough right there to dismiss her as a viable candidate. A politician who wants creationism taught in schools already has a big strike against her.

If Bachmann is a smarter, more educated Palin, but one who is also more militant about advancing a socially conservative Christian agenda, then I'd rather see Palin as President. But then, I'd also rather have needles stuck in my eyes.

Diogenes the Cynic

04-11-2011, 01:05 PM

It doesn't offer one now, but that doesn't mean it didn't offer one then. You'd have to find a copy of their 1988 catalogue to prove that.

Not true; the J.D. Coburn School of Law was unaccredited from 1981 to 1983. It was provisionally accredited from 1983 to 1985, when it was shut down due to lack of funding, and its assets transferred to what is now Regent University.

What is interesting is that she supposedly graduated from Oral Roberts law in 1986. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/B001256)
Looks like I botched my link (http://minnesotaindependent.com/5746/oral-roberts-u-grad-bachmann-says-harvard-grad-obama-%E2%80%98isn%E2%80%99t-well-schooled%E2%80%99) above.

Bachmann got her undergraduate degree from Winona State University in 1978. She graduated from O.W. Coburn School of Law at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Okla., in 1986.

The ABA yanked Coburn’s accreditation in 1981 over its Christian litmus tests for students and faculty but later reinstated it. However, the law school closed in 1986 and donated its library to Pat Robertson’s Regent University in Virginia. Regent then started its own law school but didn’t receive ABA accreditation until 1996.

So Coburn lost its accreditidation in '81, and was shut down in '86. Sometime before '86, it was apparently reinstated, but it doesn't say exactly when. Maybe it had some kind of ABA accreditidation back by the time Bachmann graduated, but I would still say it's not a very impressive credential, especially for someone who has alleged that Obama is not educated enough (with his Harvard Law degree) to be POTUS.

Sam Stone

04-11-2011, 04:51 PM

So Coburn lost its accreditidation in '81, and was shut down in '86. Sometime before '86, it was apparently reinstated, but it doesn't say exactly when. Maybe it had some kind of ABA accreditidation back by the time Bachmann graduated, but I would still say it's not a very impressive credential, especially for someone who has alleged that Obama is not educated enough (with his Harvard Law degree) to be POTUS.

Okay, first of all, they lost their accreditation not because of weak curriculum, but because of the Christian requirement. So this actually says nothing about the quality of her legal education. Second, your link says Oral Roberts law school got its accreditation back, and then it closed in 1986 - which is consistent with Bachmann's bio, where it says she was in the last graduating class of the law school before it moved to Regent University. Therefore, she graduated from an accredited law school with a valid degree.

Bachmann has an LL.M from William and Mary, which is a very highly regarded law school. So either her prep from Oral Roberts was bad, in which case that would suggest she's even smarter since she managed to make it through despite that. Or, Oral Roberts actually had a decent law program, in which case she's got fine academic credentials. Either way, I don't think the smear of her having a lousy education sticks. An LL.M from W&M is nothing to sneeze at.

Also, just who said that Obama wasn' t educated enough to be POTUS? This smells like a straw man you've invented. If anything, the knock against Obama is that he's an academic with no real-world experience. I haven't heard anyone criticize his educational credentials. What they have criticized is whether his life experience AFTER university qualified him to be POTUS. In particular, his lack of executive experience.

And by the way, it looks to me like that criticism is dead-on - Obama's lack of executive experience is showing daily - to the detriment of both the kinds of policies I would want and the kind that you would want. It seems to me that the progressive criticism of Obama is that he's in over his head, that he keeps getting rolled by the opposition, and that he doesn't know how to lead. That all stems from lack of executive experience.

Diogenes the Cynic

04-11-2011, 07:24 PM

Okay, first of all, they lost their accreditation not because of weak curriculum, but because of the Christian requirement.
You say this like there's a difference.
So this actually says nothing about the quality of her legal education. Second, your link says Oral Roberts law school got its accreditation back, and then it closed in 1986 - which is consistent with Bachmann's bio, where it says she was in the last graduating class of the law school before it moved to Regent University. Therefore, she graduated from an accredited law school with a valid degree.
We don't know when it got it's accreditidation back orhow many of Bachmann's credits were post-dated that accreditidation.
Bachmann has an LL.M from William and Mary, which is a very highly regarded law school.
William and Mary doesn't offer an LL.M., and she doesn't list that credential on her dot gov bio, so I'm skeptical.
Also, just who said that Obama wasn' t educated enough to be POTUS?
Michele Bachmann said it. It's in the Minnesota Independent article linked above.
And by the way, it looks to me like that criticism is dead-on - Obama's lack of executive experience is showing daily
Sorry, but this is just hectoreing, partsan tripe.

I notice you ignored all of the cited examples of stupid things Bachmann has said. How do you defend her saying that FEMA is setting up "reeducation camps," or inventing the India story about Obama? How do you defend her saying that GLBT people "are targeting our children," and that schools are telling kids that "tehy should try it." Those are exact quotes. I am not paraphrasing or misrepresenting her. Those quotes are undeniable evidence that she is either stupid, psychotic pr a clinically pathological liar. . Most Minnesotamns regard her as an embarrassment and she would never be able to win a state-wide election.

Sam Stone

04-11-2011, 10:13 PM

You say this like there's a difference.

Of course there is. If the best law school in the nation said that it wouldn't accept persons of a certain color or a certain faith, it would lose accreditation, but that wouldn't mean the quality of the actual teaching is bad.

We don't know when it got it's accreditidation back orhow many of Bachmann's credits were post-dated that accreditidation.

Really Not All That Bright's link says it was provisionally accredited from 1983 until it shut down.

William and Mary doesn't offer an LL.M., and she doesn't list that credential on her dot gov bio, so I'm skeptical.

Interesting that when I Googled this, the top of the list is full of lefty sites 'calling into question' her LL.M, using the same weird argument that you're using (that William and Mary doesn't currently offer an LL.M).

Of course, none of these lefty rocket scientists apparently checked by the difficult task of, you know, actually going to William and Mary's web site. I did, and Here's the LL.M Program Information (http://law.wm.edu/admissions/howtoapply/llmprogram/) for you.

The Washington Post (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/B001256) says in its bio of her that she graduated with an LL.M from William and Mary in 1988.

Upon further investigation, it appears that this particular slur originated at Daily Kos, that bastion of journalistic accuracy. What a surprise. That original post actually makes the claim that the LLM at William and Mary is not in Tax Law, and also that they only accept foreign students. That is certainly true today from what I can tell, but has no bearing on what W&M offered in 1988.

Of course, if you read the comments in the Daily Kos thread, you'd see that the comment thread is full of links to various American Professors and tax lawyers who also claim they have an LL.M in tax law from William and Mary. Are they all liars?

Furthermore, someone in that same thread posts this from W&M's history:

In 1953, the Department of Jurisprudence split from the School of Government and Citizenship, and, under the leadership of Dean Dudley Warner Woodbridge, became the Marshall-Wythe School of Law. The establishment of an endowed chair in taxation reflected the addition to the curriculum of a Master of Law and Taxation, the first degree of its kind.

There you go. William and Mary DID offer an LLM in taxation. Since it would be weird to offer an LLM in tax law to non-American students only, one must assume that this was a program available to American students.

When I did a search on William and Mary's site, I turned up PDF's of scholarly papers whose authors also claimed to have an LLM in tax law from W&M.

You want to keep going down this particular bunny hole?

I notice you ignored all of the cited examples of stupid things Bachmann has said. How do you defend her saying...

I DIDN'T defend her. You don't even bother to read most of the posts you respond to, do you? I specifically said that if she said the things you claimed, then those are GOOD reasons to oppose her. I'm not defending Bachmann at all. I specifically pointed out to you that the only reason I spoke up at all is because, as usual you ignored valid criticisms of her and went way over the top with accusations of stupidity and academic fraud, without having anything to back those accusations up.

Did you miss the part where I said that if Bachmann is a strident fundy Christian who wants to use government to promote her values I'd actually prefer Palin, but I'd even more prefer to have needles stuck in my eyes? Does that sound like a ringing endorsement to you?

DSeid

04-11-2011, 10:33 PM

... But from what I'm hearing, she's more like "Palin with brains and an education". ...More like she makes Palin look like she has brains and education. You really cannot be serious about that statement.

Really Not All That Bright

04-12-2011, 08:49 AM

She practiced tax law for the IRS. I'm assuming that means she got an LL.M from somewhere, and that her law degree was recognized.
It means her law degree was recognized. She wouldn't have needed an LL.M to practice tax law. In the US, the primary purpose of LL.M programs is to allow foreign graduates to "domesticate" their degrees. Otherwise, they're mostly sought by people who want to teach.

I agree that this is all kind of far-fetched, and there has been a trend over the last 20-odd years away from LL.M programs as a sort of grad school for law students (meaning it's not at all unlikely that W&M did have a tax law LLM program and dropped it).

On the other hand, we're just asking questions. ;)

Crane

04-12-2011, 12:48 PM

None of this makes any difference to Bachmanns' base. These are folks who believe that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a phrase in the US Conststution, and if it isnt, it should be. Reason and credentials are negatives.

A Palin endorsement of Bachmann is interesting, but what would be in it for Palin?

Crane

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-14-2011, 11:07 PM

Right now Mitt Romney has an ad at the top of this page and a number of dubious law schools are featured in the Google ads at the bottom.

Simplicio

04-25-2011, 02:37 PM

Haley Barbour (http://www.governorbarbour.com/news/2011/apr/4.25barbourstatement.html) is not running. That leaves Bachmann, Pawlenty, Romney and maybe Daniels as the remaining "real" candidates.

Diogenes the Cynic

04-25-2011, 02:40 PM

Obama must be feeling very comfortable right now.

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-25-2011, 07:58 PM

I think you have to count Newt in with the real candidates. It's mostly by default, however.

Kolak of Twilo

04-25-2011, 09:23 PM

Haley Barbour (http://www.governorbarbour.com/news/2011/apr/4.25barbourstatement.html) is not running. That leaves Bachmann, Pawlenty, Romney and maybe Daniels as the remaining "real" candidates.

Why don't you have The Donald in that group? Are you implying he isn't real?

Not his hair.

Him.
As a person and actual candidate.

Simplicio

04-26-2011, 02:28 AM

Sam Stone

04-26-2011, 03:05 AM

Ron Paul (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-launches-presidential-campaign-20110425) is running.

He won't win the nomination, but I'll bet he pulls some pretty good numbers in early going.

Maus Magill

04-26-2011, 07:18 AM

Well, I'll grant Trump is a real person, with a circulatory system and everything. But he's pretty clearly a vanity candidate, he'll never get close to winning the nomination.

I'd put Newt in the same category, but admittedly that's probably more debatable.

No, you're right. Gingrich knows he has no shot in hell at winning a general election, but if he makes noises like he's planning on running, he can sell more books.

Trump is even more transparently drumming up ratings for Celebrity Apprentice.

Chronos

04-26-2011, 02:41 PM

I'd put Newt in the same category, but admittedly that's probably more debatable.Well, Gingrich is, at least, actually a politician, with some experience in significant elected office. I'd say that he's high up enough that if he says he's running, he has to be treated as a "real candidate". He's still not going to win, but he's not a total joke.

Onomatopoeia

04-26-2011, 08:13 PM

Well, Gingrich is, at least, actually a politician, with some experience in significant elected office. I'd say that he's high up enough that if he says he's running, he has to be treated as a "real candidate". He's still not going to win, but he's not a total joke.Oh yes, yes he is.

It should be Romney. In saner times it would be Romney. I just don't see how he gets there without courting the nuts and racists.

gonzomax

04-26-2011, 08:50 PM

Palin would actually have to answer questions if she ran. No way she's ever going to do that.

She would only appear on Fox. No uncomfortable questions would be asked.

Diogenes the Cynic

04-26-2011, 09:10 PM

Oh yes, yes he is.

It should be Romney. In saner times it would be Romney. I just don't see how he gets there without courting the nuts and racists.
Somehow McCain did it and Dole did it before him. Pat Buchanan got a lot of early heat in '96 as a red meat candidate, but the GOP then adjusted to a safe candidate in Dole (kind of Ironic that Dole looks like a lefty now...I always kind of liked dOle, actually). The GOP generally tends to get some red meat candidates getting heat early on (Pat Roberston once came in 2nd in Iowa), but then adjusting to something more sane and adult after New Hampshire. There are so many dipshits in the field this year that I think think they'll splinter the dipshit vote and Romney will become the safety valve for non-crazy Republicans. Pawlenty is also a possibility, but I think he's too bland and boring to get the nomination. He's a definite VP possibility, but I think Romney might be forced to pick a wingnut to pacify the base. Obviously, complete nutters like Bachmann, Palin and Trump will be out of the question, but I could see him picking somebody like Gingrich, who would fall into the Cheney/Biden trend of an experienced veteran who can appeal to the base without being too much of a joke to the middle

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-26-2011, 11:35 PM

Every one of the candidates will hammer Romney over health care. I have no idea how he is going to get out from under that shadow. He hasn't shown any sign that he has a strategy deflect that bullet and I don't know how he can spin it to his favor. Plus he seems to be blowing off IA and SC thereby making a big victory in NH absolutely essential for him to have any chance. I just don't see him pulling out the nomination.

Least Original User Name Ever

04-27-2011, 08:16 AM

Romney is dead meat, specifically for the reasons the previous posted mentioned. Trump isn't serious. Someone's going to come out from left (okay, right) field. Think more of a Governor Christie or Governor Perry. Maybe Pawlenty will get some traction.

Chronos

04-27-2011, 03:38 PM

Every one of the candidates will hammer Romney over health care. I have no idea how he is going to get out from under that shadow. He hasn't shown any sign that he has a strategy deflect that bullet and I don't know how he can spin it to his favor.He'll certainly say that it's OK for a state to do it, just not for the federal government, and he'll probably also claim that the federal version supports abortion but his didn't. Still, though, it will be interesting to see how well that plays out.

Captain Lance Murdoch

04-27-2011, 04:13 PM

He can try, but the main gist of the Republican outrage over health care is that it's socialist and the mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional (or so they say.) Romney is a sitting duck here as far as I can see.

Sam Stone

04-27-2011, 04:50 PM

I think it's going to be one the governors - Christie, Pawlenty, Perry, or Daniels. My money is on Mitch Daniels, if he announces a run. Christie would be an early leader if he ran, but I don't think he will.

Mitch Daniels is smart, he's fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He's not flashy, but I think that might be an asset in a year when people are looking for serious people who can just get the job done.

Plus, governors are generally the minor leagues for Presidential candidates. It's very rare for someone from the House, Senate, or outsiders from politics to win.

Simplicio

04-27-2011, 05:08 PM

he's fiscally conservative

He was Bush IIs budget director. So he's "fiscally conservative" in the sense of "likes funding tax cuts and new social programs by running large deficits and is really bad at estimating the likely cost of foreign military interventions".

Agree the nomination will probably go to him or Pawlenty though. Romney is doomed for the reason Original Username gives, and the rest of the field is nuts or vanity candidates.

Perry just cockblocked Hutchson to get a third five-year term as TX governor. I kinda doubt he'd do that to go chasing the Presidency a year later.

Sam Stone

04-27-2011, 05:35 PM

The budget director can make recommendations, but ultimately Congress decides and the President signs. You can't blame Bush's deficits on Daniels without more data about what Daniels actually advised the president to do. Read David Stockman's book about his years as budget director for Reagan to see how frustrating and impotent that job can be.

But the reason he has fiscal conservative bona fides is because of what he did in Indiana - he came into power facing a 600 million dollar deficit, and turned it into a $300 million surplus - in one year. He did it by cutting spending AND by raising taxes. He has maintained fiscal discipline in Indiana since 2004, and was re-elected in 2008 with 57% of the vote. Not bad for a cost-cutting Republican in a blue state.

He gets high marks from both libertarians like Nick Gillespie, and from centrist Republicans like David Brooks. George Will also speaks highly of him (read this: Mitch Daniel's Case for a Less Strident Conservatism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021605102.html)). He's well-liked by the traditional conservatives at National Review. So he's got broad appeal within the Republican party.

The guy was awarded the President's Medal for being the top student in his state when he graduated from high school, and had his pick of Ivy League schools. He went to Princeton, and graduated with honors. He then went to Georgetown and got his J.D - also with honors. He's a serious guy, and he'd be a formidable debate opponent for Obama.

He's probably the best candidate the Republicans could put forward.