What is the possibility of a Romney-Bachmann ticket?

[JimH52]

It would appeal to the establishment GOP and it would appeal to the Tea Party. Would it win the WH?

[Elmer J. Fudd]

A little to close to the GOP's failed 2008 strategy.

[JimH52]

I must disagree. Bachmann is heads and shoulders above Palin in intellecct and in experience. I think it could happen and the ticket could be very formidable, IMHO.

[Belowjob2.0]

I think it'd be an excellent choice for the GOP. If the economy stays in the pits, they're in.

Intellect wise, credentials and experience wise, Romney is way ahead of McCain.

The same with Bachmann and Palin. Bachmann, in spite of all the right wing, fundamentalist crazy she brings, is intelligent enough, and well educated enough, to run a large business or organization. She's a credible manager in a way that Palin never could be.

[Elmer J. Fudd]

I think you lose more independents than you gain otherwise disaffected social conservatives. The only reason to pick someone like Bachmann is to energize the base, and that only makes sense if the base outnumbers the independents you might alienate by picking an extremist. After the primaries, it's a race for the middle.

[JimH52]

Originally Posted by Elmer J. Fudd

I think you lose more independents than you gain otherwise disaffected social conservatives. The only reason to pick someone like Bachmann is to energize the base, and that only makes sense if the base outnumbers the independents you might alienate by picking an extremist. After the primaries, it's a race for the middle.

Well Bachmann is anywhere but the middle.

[Elmer J. Fudd]

Originally Posted by JimH52

Well Bachmann is anywhere but the middle.

My point, exactly.

[Chimera]

But if Romney woke up and stopped bashing his own health care stuff and started to move toward the center, then Bachmann is a possibility (as much as it terrifies me) to bring the base back into the race.

Personally, I hope they never let this woman anywhere near the White House, not even as a guest, let alone 'one heartbeat away'.

[Chronos]

You play to the base during the primaries, then shift towards the middle for the general election. This is the conventional wisdom, and there's good reason for it. The fact that the Maverick tried to buck this wisdom, and got soundly defeated, is just one more reason to trust it.

It's not completely illogical, all things being equal, to try to motivate your base during the general election. The problem is that all things aren't equal. Two points in particular: First, each member of your base only counts for one vote: They might vote for you, and they might sit out or vote for an irrelevant third-party candidate, but they're never going to vote for your rival. But the folks in the center are effectively worth two votes each: If you alienate one of them, you lose one vote and your rival gains one vote. So you need to energize twice as many voters in your base as you alienate in the middle, to break even.

Second, energizing your base will also, to some extent, energize the other side's base, since they'll turn out to vote against you. In fact, a first-order approximation would be that the other side will be just as energized as yours by a move to the extremes. Between this and the undecided middle, it's really, really hard to get any benefit out of extremism in the general election.

[dalej42]

I'd be very hesitant to pick Bachmann as my running mate. If they're down in the polls, I'd wonder if Bachmann might have already conceded the election in her mind and she'd be planning her career as a Fox commentator after the election. Bachmann might wander a bit more off message and get more attention than Romney.

[Chimera]

But there is also something of a tried and true of picking someone closer to the base, or the existing order, when picking a running mate.

But as per what you've said, Chronos, it will be interesting to watch Romney eat his legacy for breakfast trying to pander to the base. Then should he win the nomination, he's kinda boned if he ever wants to push the same plan in any way, shape or form.

Beyond him, I don't see any of these people who can successfully 'play to the middle' given their records and their rhetoric.

Hell, the propaganda is overwhelming. Everyone of their base screams about Obama the Socialist, wrecking the country, when the man damn near governs as a Republican. I kinda wonder how boxed in they'll find themselves with their own base if any one of them attempts to act more centrist during the final push.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Well, after last night's debate I'd say a Romney/Bachman ticket is more likely than a Republican ticket with the work "Pawlenty" anywhere on it.

[Chimera]

And that is a good thing.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by JimH52

I must disagree. Bachmann is heads and shoulders above Palin in intellecct and in experience.

So is the average Realtor.

[tnetennba]

Michelle Bachmann says the most serious issue facing our country is gay marriage. She thinks the answer to economic issues is to abolish the EPA. And of course she's a creationist, denies global warming, and is even tied up with the cranks who think immunizations cause autism.

Anyone who thinks she's a creditable candidate is in the same state of deep denial as she is about real problems and real solutions.

I guess if she's a serious candidate it shows how far the GOP has fallen and how much their base has fallen, to the point where they don't even want somebody who talks sense.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Romney can't pick her. He'll need a winger to pacify the base, but it can't be her. She has too many negatives. She's batshit crazy, for one and she's a pathological liar for another. This is a woman who said that FEMA was setting up "re-education camps." That's all fun and games when she's just a bomb throwing Congresswoman, but she's too much of a liability to attach to a Presidential ticket, Too much risk she'll say something batshit crazy and swallow news cycles. She makes Biden look thoughtful and reserved.

Romney will need a winger to pacify the base, but it won't be Bachmann. I'm thinking somebody like T-Paw would be more likely. Pawlenty has no actual ideology or principles or sincere religious beliefs to get in his way. He's a pure careerist (like Romney), and will play whatever role he's asked without risk of going off the reservation and talking about the rapture or the birth certificate or something the way that Bachmann is likely to do.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by JimH52

It would appeal to the establishment GOP and it would appeal to the Tea Party. Would it win the WH?

Unlikely.

The only way I see it happening is if you have a brokered convention. Romney has more delegates, but needs Bachman's support to go over the top. Unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have "Superdelegates" that can break ties.

And at that point, if you're Bachmann, you don't want to spoil your brand name by tying yourself to Romney and he loses.

Of course, if we are still in Double Dip territory, she might jump because Obama is going down.

If we make something of a recovery, then Romney will lose, and the crazy wing of the GOP can insist it was because he wasn't a "real" conservative.

[Bryan Ekers]

Bachmann will be too easy to bait. All it takes is for reporters to ask "What did you mean when you said [crazy statement]?" to elicit an even crazier statement from her. And since crazy is always entertaining, she'll get lots of coverage.

[Locrian]

Michelle Bachmann is the dumbest woman alive. Besides, Yahweh himself told her to run for president! VP wouldn't satisfy her ego, but it would give her the chance to read the constitution and the bible for the very first time.

[Tugboater1970]

If history is any indicator (& this might sound sexist), America will not vote for a ticket with a woman running as VP (ex. Mondale/Ferraro & McCain/Palin). JMO

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by Tugboater1970

If history is any indicator (& this might sound sexist), America will not vote for a ticket with a woman running as VP (ex. Mondale/Ferraro & McCain/Palin). JMO

Is it you opinion that (a) the principle deciding factor in either of those elections was the vice presidential candidate, and (b) the principle deciding factor in America rejecting those veep candidates was their gender?

If memory serves well, America loved Reagan. He would have beat Jesus Christ at that point. And while there was plenty of spite for Palin, it wasn't because of her gender.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Are there 29 bedrooms in the VP's official residence?

[JimH52]

I don't think you can underestimate Bachmann. She is a force, but when the general populace understands some of the positions that she holds, she will be am albatross around the GOP's neck. I expect Romney understands that and would hesitate to chose her as a running mate.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The smirk on Romney's face while Pawlenty backpedaled on his Obomneycare comments was too precious for words: "this guy's going to be a great VP for me".

[Tugboater1970]

Originally Posted by tnetennba

Is it you opinion that (a) the principle deciding factor in either of those elections was the vice presidential candidate, and (b) the principle deciding factor in America rejecting those veep candidates was their gender?

If memory serves well, America loved Reagan. He would have beat Jesus Christ at that point. And while there was plenty of spite for Palin, it wasn't because of her gender.

I am going with answer (b).

Yes, Reagan was at his best. But still I don't think America will elect a woman. Which is unfortunate.

As far as Palin, well we seen how the media & McCain's campaign destroyed her.

[tnetennba]

Originally Posted by Tugboater1970

As far as Palin, well we seen how the media & McCain's campaign destroyed her.

LOL.

[JimH52]

[quote=Tugboater1970;13933631]I am going with answer (b).

Yes, Reagan was at his best. But still I don't think America will elect a woman. Which is unfortunate.

As far as Palin, well we seen how the media & McCain's campaign destroyed her.[/QUOTE]

So, you don't think Palin had anything to do with her demise? I think she was a disaster from day one.

[Starving Artist]

Originally Posted by Tugboater1970

But still I don't think America will elect a woman. Which is unfortunate.

Palin had so much trouble with the media and the left because her inexperience and lack of polish made her an easy target (well, that and the fact the media was utterly determined that Obama should be elected). But if you'll recall, Dan Quayle didn't fare much better. Palin and Quayle both were crucified in the news and entertainment media for comments that would be chuckled over and hand-waved away if made by Joe Biden.

And I think the nation's right would elect a woman in a heartbeat. Just like they've had no problem whatsoever with a black Supreme Court justice, a Hispanic Attorney General, a National Security Advisor and Secretary of State who happend to be both female and black, and a black presidential candidate today who is drawing support from some of the staunchest areas of conservative politics, the fact that these people are black and/or female has been a total non-starter amongst the country's conservative population. I realize of course that being conservative these people don't count as genuine blacks and females here on this board, but the fact remains that minorities and women have done very well in conservative politics and I see no reason whatsoever to think they won't do even better in the future.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What have they done very well compared to?

[Sam Stone]

They've done very well compared to the left-wing caricature of Republicans as being sexist, racist pigs.

Anyway, Bachmann's most likely path to being the VP nominee is if she manages to pick up a whole bunch of delegates as a third-place contender for the nomination and a deal is struck to get her to join the front-runner, or something like that. Because otherwise, I'm not sure what she brings to the table that other candidates couldn't bring, without dragging along her significant liabilities.

That said, I wouldn't underestimate her. She was the clear winner of the last debate, and she has sharpened her message and toned down the over-the-top rhetoric. She's got top people on her campaign staff, and she's very smart and very motivated. She can also raise money from the grassroots better than anyone other than Sarah Palin.

Looking at the conventional wisdom, the VP candidate is supposed to fill holes in the candidate's resume or geographic support. Look for a VP candidate that could seal Florida, for example, which would put Marco Rubio fairly high on the list. He'd also bring the Tea Party vote. But Rubio only works if the candidate has enough personal gravitas to avoid being upstaged by him, and so far the only person in the race who has that kind of stature is Romney. I think a Romney/Rubio ticket could be quite formidable. Rubio could also cut into the hispanic vote in other states.

I have to think the VP candidate will have to be a Tea Party favorite, since the presidential candidate will necessarily have to run towards the center in a general election. A Tea Party VP will help keep the base engaged. Looking at the candidates out there now, the most favored by the Tea Party are Bachmann, Palin, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and non-candidate possibilities like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan.

Looking at that list, Bachmann doesn't seem out of the question.

The other conventional wisdom about a VP candidate is that if the presidential candidate doesn't have foreign policy experience, the VP candidate is supposed to bring it. That could pull John Huntsman into the list of contenders, or some wildcard like General Petraeus or some other ex military or ex state department type.

One problem a lot of these candidates have is inexperience. Rubio is in his first term as Senator. Bachmann and Ryan are members of the House of Representatives, which has never been a springboard to the White House. Only Romney has the kind of extensive experience in government and industry that would make experience a non-issue in the campaign.

If one of the lesser stars like Bachmann or Ryan became the presidential nominee, look for them to pick an old warhorse as a running mate, like Obama did with Biden.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by tnetennba

Michelle Bachmann says the most serious issue facing our country is gay marriage. She thinks the answer to economic issues is to abolish the EPA. And of course she's a creationist, denies global warming, and is even tied up with the cranks who think immunizations cause autism.

This is indeed her biggest weakness. People claim that Sarah Palin is a social conservative, but she's a bleemin' liberal compared to Bachmann.

The Republicans had better figure out that their only path to the White House is to focus on economics. Every time a Republican opens his or her mouth to talk about abortion or creationism or other social issues, Obama does a little happy dance.

This is going to be very hard for the Republicans, because the media knows that this is where they part ways with moderates and independents, and so they're going to hammer them on social conservative issues. It started in the last debate when John King kept pushing questions on social issues even though the candidates were pretty much all there to talk about the economy. They're going to be forced to either denounce their own social positions or have their economic message muddied or overshadowed.

That's why Mitch Daniels was totally correct when he begged Republicans to pledge to put aside social issues for this election cycle. They all need to get on board with that, and respond to questions about social issues with, "We're going to leave the status quo exactly the way it is. The economic problems facing the country are too great to allow us to be distracted by issues which are not causing the current problems and for which there is wide disagreement in the country."

The problem with Bachmann is that she just believes it too much to let it go.

I guess if she's a serious candidate it shows how far the GOP has fallen and how much their base has fallen, to the point where they don't even want somebody who talks sense.

Or, it shows that the Democrats have moved so far to the left that the country is willing to support Republicans even if they have 'extreme' social views.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Or, it shows that the Democrats have moved so far to the left that the country is willing to support Republicans even if they have 'extreme' social views.

Republican primary voters invariably think the Democrats have moved to the extreme left. His point is quite valid; if GOP voters think Bachmann is one of their more electable candidates, it means they've gone off the deep end.

[Chronos]

Quoth Sam Stone:

I have to think the VP candidate will have to be a Tea Party favorite, since the presidential candidate will necessarily have to run towards the center in a general election.

Isn't that contradictory? Picking a Tea Party VP would, itself, be a run towards the right, not towards the center. That's a large part of what sunk McCain.

And the Democrats have moved so far to the left, that they're now about as far left as Ronald Reagan.

[Sam Stone]

Oh, give that chestnut a rest. I know the Democrats are valiantly trying to claim the Reagan mantle now, but it won't wash. Reagan would have been appalled at the regulatory overreach of this administration. He was no fan of public unions, nor of demagoguing the rich and CEOs. Hell, Reagan wanted to shut down the Department of Education. Reagan cut the top marginal rate all the way to 28%. And he would have ripped Obama a new one for the way he's handled the U.S.'s relationship with Britain and Israel. The Obama administration is way to the left of what Reagan was all about.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Oh, give that chestnut a rest. I know the Democrats are valiantly trying to claim the Reagan mantle now, but it won't wash. Reagan would have been appalled at the regulatory overreach of this administration. He was no fan of public unions, nor of demagoguing the rich and CEOs. Hell, Reagan wanted to shut down the Department of Education. Reagan cut the top marginal rate all the way to 28%. And he would have ripped Obama a new one for the way he's handled the U.S.'s relationship with Britain and Israel. The Obama administration is way to the left of what Reagan was all about.

Yeah, current Democrats are about as far left as Prime Minister Bush.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Who's trying to claim Reagan's mantle/ Reagan was a piece of shit President who destroyed the middle class, precipitated the rise of the religious right, and ass fucked the environment.

It's just ironic that Reagan was STILL to the left of Obama on taxes, but Obama gets called a socialist.

"Overreach of the administration?" I fucking WISH Obama would exert some adminstrative control.

Reagan was a union boss, by the way (of one of the most liberal unions in the US). He loved unions. Here's a quote for you, "withour free unions and collective bargaining, freedom is lost.' Of course, that didn't stop him from firing the Air Traffic Controllers, which is a strike against him, not for him. That's one of the many ways that Obama is a better POTUS and a better human being than Reagan ever was.

The idea that he would be in any moral position to "rip Obama a new one" is laughable. I haven't seen Obama selling weapons to the enemy lately.

[Chronos]

Oh, but it's OK, Reagan was selling weapons to raise money for negotiating with terrorists.

[Tom Scud]

To be fair, some of that money was to SUPPORT terrorists.

[Locrian]

As far as Bachmann for any major WH office, I seriously doubt anyone would risk this. Here's the Rolling Stone bio on Bachmann.

From the article:
"Since arriving in Congress, she has been a human tabloid-copy machine, spouting one copy-worthy lunacy after another. She launched a fierce campaign against compact fluorescent lights, claiming that the energy-saving bulbs contain mercury and pose a "very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens." She blasted the 2010 census as a government plot and told people not to comply because the U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to participate, when in fact it does. She told her constituents to be "armed and dangerous" in their resistance to cap-and-trade limits on climate-warming pollution. She insisted that Obama's trip to India cost taxpayers $200 million a day, and claimed that Nancy Pelosi had spent $100,000 on booze on state-paid flights aboard military jets."

I also find it VERY interesting that in 2008 she said she still grocery shops for all of her 28 children; she hasn't had any foster children for over 10 years at the time.

Another good one is how she has a lesbian step-sister but she claims that teen-gay suicides is due not to discrimination but to "the fact of what they're doing."

This woman is a born bullshitter. She's a religious fanatic who wants the world the way she imagines it and has no concern for what any of us think. One debate would guarantee the lowest GOP votes in history, IMO.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They also should have mentioned the time she said that FEMA was setting up "reeducation camps."

Her husband is an activist and therapist in the "ex-gay" movement. He's basically flaming.

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by tnetennba

Is it you opinion that (a) the principle deciding factor in either of those elections was the vice presidential candidate, and (b) the principle deciding factor in America rejecting those veep candidates was their gender?

If memory serves well, America loved Reagan. He would have beat Jesus Christ at that point. And while there was plenty of spite for Palin, it wasn't because of her gender.

In fact what it shows is that when the Presidential candidate is particularly down and out they look to a female VP choice as a means of trying to jack up their chances. And they choose poorly. They choose as a gimmick.

Obama would have won with HRC at least as well as with Biden and if Biden stepped down and HRC reneged on her statement of no future ambition, they would win just as solidly as they will against any of this crowd.

A female VP candidate does not work as a gimmick is all. A female of substance, who people could actually see in the job, such as HRC, would be something different.

[DoctorJ]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

This is going to be very hard for the Republicans, because the media knows that this is where they part ways with moderates and independents, and so they're going to hammer them on social conservative issues. It started in the last debate when John King kept pushing questions on social issues even though the candidates were pretty much all there to talk about the economy. They're going to be forced to either denounce their own social positions or have their economic message muddied or overshadowed.

When the Republicans were swept in last year in a wave of Tea Party enthusiasm focused on jobs and the economy, it took them about ten minutes to start trying to make sweeping changes to abortion policy. It was HR3--the third resolution taken up by the House--that at first attempted to limit Medicaid funding of abortion to victims of "forcible" rape, instead of just regular old rape. And we nearly saw the government shut down over funding for Planned Parenthood.

All evidence suggests that no matter how much these candidates want to focus on the economy, if one of them gets elected he or she will push for big changes in social policy. So the media wouldn't be doing us any favors by staying away from those subjects.

That's why Mitch Daniels was totally correct when he begged Republicans to pledge to put aside social issues for this election cycle. They all need to get on board with that, and respond to questions about social issues with, "We're going to leave the status quo exactly the way it is. The economic problems facing the country are too great to allow us to be distracted by issues which are not causing the current problems and for which there is wide disagreement in the country."

They'd be just as well off saying "Please go vote for Barack Obama." Like it or not, the Republican base is all about social issues. Even if the single-issue types don't make up a majority of GOP votes, they're the ones who are organizing in church basements and powering the ground game. They won't vote Dem, but if the Republicans all promised to maintain the status quo on abortion/gay rights/whatever they'd stay home or vote third party.

This is the dilemma for the Republicans--the social views that their base requires are increasingly distasteful to more moderate voters. But just refusing to talk about them won't make those views go away.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Reagan was a union boss, by the way (of one of the most liberal unions in the US). He loved unions. Here's a quote for you, "withour free unions and collective bargaining, freedom is lost.' Of course, that didn't stop him from firing the Air Traffic Controllers, which is a strike against him, not for him.

Hijack for the point here.

Back about 15 years ago, I worked with a former ATC turned programmer. One day we were talking about it at lunch and I said "Well, I'm sorry, but at the time I thought you guys deserved to be fired". The whole table paused. He looked at me for a second, and then said "Yup, we probably did."

They were, like a lot of other unions at the time (the entire Steel Industry for one example), out of control. Demanding way too much money for far too little work. And he, after the fact, admitted the same. That they were just pushing their luck with wage demands and special conditions in a bad economy where they were not going to get any sympathy from the public.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Starving Artist

And I think the nation's right would elect a woman in a heartbeat. Just like they've had no problem whatsoever with a black Supreme Court justice,

Thurgood Marshall was no conservative, not even a little. The present holder of the "black seat" was chosen to avoid turning the court all-white again. The fact that Judge Thomas was basically the furthest-right Negro on a federal bench anyone could find might indicate that they were afraid a more moderate black man would lose votes from the base.

a Hispanic Attorney General, a National Security Advisor and Secretary of State who happend to be both female and black,

George W. Bush is unusually racially progressive for the current GOP. He also favored guest worker visas; how much support did that get?

and a black presidential candidate today who is drawing support from some of the staunchest areas of conservative politics,

...in a vanity campaign that would be just as meaningless if he were white.

I guess we've forgotten about the black head of the RNC already?

But I guess you're right. A lot of the base would love to elect a black or female candidate who's, "one of theirs." I wonder how many still insist that conservatives don't need to be progressive, because conservative is not the same as progressive!

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

I have to think the VP candidate will have to be a Tea Party favorite, since the presidential candidate will necessarily have to run towards the center in a general election. A Tea Party VP will help keep the base engaged.

This plan's too foolproof to fail twice!

[Sam Stone]

I didn't say it was a great plan.

The Republicans' best chance against Obama is to run a fiscal hawk who's at least socially inoffensive to the independents and libertarians. This is one time when they'd be right to ignore their social conservative base. They stand to gain a lot more by running a candidate that can hold the middle, because the 'base' has nowhere to go anyway. They wouldn't vote for Obama if Republicans put up a drunk raccoon for a candidate.

But what will really kill Republicans is if they run someone who's a fiscal moderate and a social conservative. In other words, one of the Paleo Republicans in the mold of Pat Buchanan, or another 'compassionate conservative' like Bush. Huckabee comes to mind.

The Tea Party is all about the economy. Give them the kind of economic conservatism they're looking for, and they won't care if you're socially liberal. Or at least, they won't care enough that it will keep them home. But if someone comes along who's an 'establishment' type who's squishy on deficit cutting and curtailing the growth of government, he could pray to baby Jesus every night and the Tea Party will still sit on its hands.

Mitch Daniels was their perfect candidate. They need to find someone else like him, pronto. Paul Ryan would be good, but he's not doing it. Chris Christie is still a contender if they can convince him to run. Hell, even Jeb Bush might be welcome given the field so far.

This should not be hard. The Republicans are in a great position to win the next election with the right candidate, so they should have people coming out of the woodwork. Where are the business leaders, right-wing economists, military generals, and other usual sources of Republican candidates? They've got Herman Cain from business, I suppose.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Obama is already a fiscal conservative.

[foolsguinea]

Sam, you're just describing your ideal candidate.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Sam, you're just describing your ideal candidate.

This seems to be completely correct. Despite Sam's assertions, the evidence points to the Tea Party as being the social conservative base of the party.

Tea Party members significantly more conservative than GOP as a whole

For the GOP, the Tea Party is a mixed bag, according to political scientist Angie Maxwell of the University of Arkansas in a new report issued by the Blair-Rockefeller Poll....

The Blair-Rockefeller Poll found that Tea Party members are predominantly white, middle class, educated, Christian males over the age of 45 and that 37.4 percent of Tea Party members believe that “the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.” In contrast, 29.7 percent of other respondents, who were not Tea Party members, shared that belief.

Although Tea Party members tend to have a higher income, more education and lower unemployment rates than non-Tea Party members, they are more pessimistic about the future. When asked about their personal situations, 36.9 percent of Tea Party members reported they expect things to be worse or much worse in the coming year, in contrast to 23.6 percent of non-Tea Party members. The gap was even greater for views about the country’s future: 62.1 percent thought things will get worse or much worse in the country over the next year, while only 38.8 percent of non-Tea Party members held that view.

Maxwell identified race consciousness and divergent views about equality as characteristic of the Tea Party. For example, in a comparison between white Tea Party members and white people who are not part of the Tea Party, Maxwell finds that white Tea Party members are more strongly opposed to federal support of housing, school, job and health care quality for minorities. Additionally, whereas support for “equality of opportunity” — as opposed to “equality of outcome” — remains a political value shared by most Americans, Maxwell wrote, she found that 30.7 percent of white Tea Party members disagree with the concept. Nearly two-thirds of white Tea Party members think “we have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country.”

Tea Party members, Maxwell wrote, “are particularly united in their opposition to President Obama.” Among white respondents to the Blair-Rockefeller Poll, Tea Party members are more than twice as likely to believe President Obama is a Muslim. Looking toward implications for the 2012 election, Maxwell wrote, “Their extreme racial views will make them less appealing to American Independents and centrists.”

[The link in the article is bad. Here is the correct link.]

Because of the extremity of their views, Poll Shows More Americans Have Unfavorable Views of Tea Party. What's interesting there is support for the Tea party has been fixed at 30% since they emerged, but disapproval has more than doubled over time.

No matter what that 30% would like, it would be fatal for the GOP to nominate a candidate with strong Tea Party ties. Not because of their economic conservatism but specifically because of their social conservatism. You cannot separate the two.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by JimH52

It would appeal to the establishment GOP and it would appeal to the Tea Party. Would it win the WH?

Slim to none.

the Tea Party is a challenge to the establishment. They can't comprimise with it.

I did find it interesting today that Bachmann was trying to walk back some of the Crazy on "Face the Nation".

[Locrian]

Like Palin with the "fire in the belly", Bachmann suddenly has a titanium spine!

And of course, she denies that the money she received did any good for the "clinic". Isn't this the same clinic where her effeminate hubby counsels homosexuals back to their true christian ways?