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.
Are there 29 bedrooms in the VP’s official residence?
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.
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”.
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.
LOL.
[quote=“Tugboater1970, post:25, topic:585504”]
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.
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.
What have they done very well compared to?
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.
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.
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.
Quoth Sam Stone:
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.
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.
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.
Oh, but it’s OK, Reagan was selling weapons to raise money for negotiating with terrorists.
To be fair, some of that money was to SUPPORT terrorists.
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.
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.