I am not from the US but we get our tv from the US so of course every time I turn on the news I get snippets on the upcoming elections. My question to all Republicans (I know there aren’t many on this board) is really? That’s the best bunch of candidates you can come up with? Do any of them really have a realistic hope of beating Obama? They all seem like a bunch of clowns spouting b/s rhetoric and all with their heads up their asses without a clue what is really happening in the world around us!
Can any Republican here please tell me who is your best candidate and why. Thank you!
I’m moving this thread to the Elections forum from Great Debates. We’ve had some discussions similar to this one, but I’ll leave this one open at least for now.
We don’t come up with candidates, they put themselves up for election. The primary system is designed to take a field of possibilities and winnow it down by the time of the convention, to see who can best lead the battle against the other side. Yes, it is a battle in our system. Part of the problem is that to win the primary, you have to win the extremes. Then, to win the race, you have to win the middle.
Doubtful in my book. This is not because of the candidates, but instead because Obama has not had any significant failures that can be tied to him. His campaign can list out leaving Iraq, killing OBL, and trying to stabilize the nation in the time of a global financial crisis. His two weaknesses in the campaign will be the health care plan that bears his name, and the general recession that is always blamed on whoever is in office.
All elections are full of b/s rhetoric. Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman all have a good idea of what is going on around them - the debate is what to do about it. Paul has no chance of winning (admitting it himself), but he has brought some strong libertarian ideas back into the conversation. Santorum is a social conservative that I refuse to support, but that mindset is shared by many American voters. Gingrich has been in the trenches for years, and knows how the Washington DC game is played. He has no chance of winning either. Huntsman is running for Vice President, or to set the ground for 4 years from now.
Romney will get the nomination it appears. Once he is no longer trying to get the far right to elect him in the primaries, he will return to the center where he comes from. He served as Governor of Massachusetts, and put together a pretty good state-based health care program with the cooperation of elements from the far-right Heritage Institution. I fully expect him to return to this once he has the nomination, in an attempt to sway some of the middle 20% of voters to his side. He has political, non-profit and business experience under his belt - not a terrible resume for a candidate.
I still expect an Obama re-election, barring some sort of a new crisis or problem.
The candidates all look like pinheads, because the liberal media does their best to make them look that way, and so do their opponents.
Who is the best depends on your goal. If you really want a Republican, no matter what, you have to run the most centrist one (probably Romney). If you really want a true conservative, you have to pick someone else, but then you run a greater risk of losing to a more-centrist Obama.
As for overall chances of a Republican win, I’d say it’s 50-50 right now. It mostly depends on where the economy is at in six to nine months.
This is the first Republican primary race of the Tea Party era. I think some of the rancorous tone and fringe-y viewpoints that represent some of the Tea Partiers, combined with the perceived Tea Party wins in the off-season elections two years ago have emboldened a more outlandish selection of candidates this year.
Obama might disagree with you. From early in his term (Feb 2009):
*Lauer: "At some point will you say, `Wait a minute. We’ve spent this amount of money, we’re not seeing the results. We’ve got to change course dramatically.’ "
Obama: "Yeah, look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years and…
Lauer: “You’re going to know quickly how people feel about what’s happened.”
Obama: “That’s exactly right. And you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”*
That was a not a very smart thing to say, and that’s what this election is going to hinge on.
I think it’s telling that someone looks at these candidates and says, “They’re crazy,” which they are, and the Yanks on the forum say, “Well, that’s the more outlandish TEA Party politics,” like it’s normal, and one even defends them.
So, yes, (politically active) Americans are overwhelmingly dumber than a bag of hammers and madder than a chicken on LSD. And we have the world’s most expensive military knocking on your door.
There is no “liberal media”; that’s just a right wing catchphrase with no truth to it. Originally invented to deflect criticism of Reagan IIRC. We have a right-leaning corporate media, one that tends to bend over backwards for Republicans not the other way around; and that ignores the parts of the media like Fox News that are outright right wing propaganda.
True dat. See the Pew Political Typology. The TP’s base is the Staunch Conservatives, who make up 9% of the general public, 11% of registered voters. Now. But, this is “The oldest of the groups (61% ages 50 and older).” And when they pass on, they will, in political terms, not be replaced by their offspring, whose worldview was shaped by different and better times.
No a lot of good people such Huckabee, Jindal, Rubio, Pawlenty (who dropped out), and Giuliani are regrettably not running this year.
Romney, Huntsman, and (to a lesser extent) Gingrich I think have 50/50 chances of defeating Obama.
Jon Huntsman by a mile. He is conservative but also realistic and moderate and unlike Romney and Gingrich has been consistent on the major issues. He in particular has a solid economic plan especially in reforming the tax system.
Not any more than France where a neo-fascist got second place in 2002, or any of the European countries (especially Germany) where unreconstructed former Commies get a good chunk of the vote.
Unless your definition of right wing is anybody to the right of Pol Pot, that is ridiculous. The editorial tone of NYT, Washington Post, and other major news outlets is essentially Keynesian and socially liberal. Ditto for the new broadcasters. Almost all of them endorse largely Democratic policies or criticize them for ngoing far enough.
Funny, I get my news from multiple sources and reach conclusions based upon the sum of the information provided to me, largely based upon quotes, actions and behaviour of the people involved. You know, an attempt at having an informed opinion.
I am not American, but from my perspective, this group of Republicans look like pinheads all on their own. The comedic opportunities are just a bonus.
Which was really not fair to the poor little dears.
Texas Democrats gathered a lot of information to convince Americans why it was really, really not a good idea to vote for this Texas Governor. (As if the last guy hadn’t convinced them.)
The reason why has to do with the rise of “Movement Conservatism” after the Goldwater campaign of 1964. Once upon a time there were commonsensical Republicans, known as “Rockefeller Republicans” (not for their wealth but because Nelson Rockefeller was a prominent one), socially liberal, pro-civil-rights-movement, moderately conservative on fiscal and economic matters. But the Movement Conservatives – forming a coalition of various very dissimilar factions (Commie-fighting warhawks, small-l libertarians, social-religious conservatives, nativist-populists, Midwestern conservatives who wanted the whole New Deal rolled back to zero, white Southern conservatives reacting to the civil-rights movement, and always business-interests conservatives above all) who more or less agreed to work together for common goals in a “No Enemies To The Right” strategy – took over the party, mounted the Reagan Revolution in 1980, and gradually marginalized the Rockefeller Republicans. You can read the story in The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by Adrian Wooldridge and John Mickelthwait.
And now, just these past three years, the Tea Party emerged, which still finds the GOP insufficiently radical-conservative and is trying to push it further right and succeeding.
Anyway, that’s why the GOP candidates this year look like pinheads. Because, pinheads or not, they have to appeal to pinheads to win, or even to avoid the dread label of RINO.