Poll
Question:
Who will win the GOP nomination?
Option 1: Romney
votes: 31
Option 2: Gingrich
votes: 5
Option 3: Cain
votes: 4
Option 4: Perry
votes: 0
Option 5: Other
votes: 5
It seems like the field has finally settled on Gingrich as the Anti-Mitt. So who will win?
Romney, unfortunately. At least I suppose so.
So hard to choose one. :(
Gingrich would make for a more interesting election. I think Romney will get it though.
Gingerich is up in Iowa and South Carolina, Romney is up in New Hampshire. So, I think they will be the ones to duke it out.
Romney gives off the Giuliani vibe from 2008. It seems like he's the front-runner, but his support is limited and has the legs made of clay. It's hard to tell whether Republican voters will finally decide to settle on him.
I think Gingrich.
May end up coming down to the beer test between Romney and Gingrich.
Romney better not order an arugula salad.
Quote from: The Brain on November 29, 2011, 12:15:38 PM
So hard to choose one. :(
Indeed, it is an embarrassment of riches :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 12:48:33 PM
Romney gives off the Giuliani vibe from 2008. It seems like he's the front-runner, but his support is limited and has the legs made of clay. It's hard to tell whether Republican voters will finally decide to settle on him.
Hey, that was my idea!
I think he wins though because there isn't a McCain, or even Huckabee, in the field.
Romney, I think. Gingrich has too many skeletons in the closet.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 29, 2011, 02:13:28 PM
Indeed, it is an embarrassment of riches :hmm:
You went two words too far.
Quote from: frunk on November 29, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 29, 2011, 02:13:28 PM
Indeed, it is an embarrassment of riches :hmm:
You went two words too far.
I know; he lost me right after "Indeed, it".
Gingrich is the anti-Mitt of the week. I still think that Cain will be the last one standing before the Romney victory.
I'd rather see it be Newt, though.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 29, 2011, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 29, 2011, 12:15:38 PM
So hard to choose one. :(
Indeed, it is an embarrassment of riches :hmm:
:pinch: None of this would've happened if your ancestors fought a little better. :mad:
Romney. I've been saying it all year. It's his turn.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 29, 2011, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 29, 2011, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 29, 2011, 02:13:28 PM
Indeed, it is an embarrassment of riches :hmm:
You went two words too far.
I know; he lost me right after "Indeed, it".
I think we can all reasonably agree some sort of existence is involved.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2011, 02:38:39 PM
Gingrich is the anti-Mitt of the week. I still think that Cain will be the last one standing before the Romney victory.
I'd rather see it be Newt, though.
Cain is imploding. He is getting by the media right now. And this year has been a media driven race, as exhibited by the rise of Cain in the polls despite his lack of organization or name recognition. Today, there are reports that Cain is "reassessing" his campaign amid reports of a 13 year affair. Cain's numbers are dropping also. I wouldn't be shocked if he drops out before Iowa.
I think the race will be drawn out, unfortunately, between Romney, Gingrich, and possibly Perry. Romney and Gingrich will split the early states, so neither will drop out.
What will make this drawn out is that this year Republican primaries will be proportional, as opposed to winner take all. Traditionally, Republican primaries were winner take all. In 2008, McCain basically locked up the nomination by winning Florida, which he won by only a couple percentage points, and Romney dropped out shortly after. In contrast, the Democratic primaries went out forever since each candidate kept picking up delegates. One insight from that election was that Obama won because he dominated the caucuses. Clinton and Obama basically tied the primary/popular vote, but Obama won the nomination because he crushed Clinton in the caucuses due to his superior ground organization. Supposedly, Romney's team is the best organized and the best versed in the delegate count mechanics. That may be his key to victory as was Obama's in 2008.
The other factor is that most of the primaries are not until March. In 2008, Super Tuesday was only 2 weeks after Florida(I think). This year, it will be 5 weeks later. So, there will be plenty of time to recover for candidates who lose Florida.
Quote from: stjaba on November 29, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
What will make this drawn out is that this year Republican primaries will be proportional, as opposed to winner take all.
Really? :hmm: I did not know about that. That makes the situation very different, and it probably doesn't favor Romney.
Do the Republicans have superdelegates?
Quote from: stjaba on November 29, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
Cain is imploding. He is getting by the media right now. And this year has been a media driven race, as exhibited by the rise of Cain in the polls despite his lack of organization or name recognition. Today, there are reports that Cain is "reassessing" his campaign amid reports of a 13 year affair. Cain's numbers are dropping also. I wouldn't be shocked if he drops out before Iowa.
I think the race will be drawn out, unfortunately, between Romney, Gingrich, and possibly Perry. Romney and Gingrich will split the early states, so neither will drop out.
What will make this drawn out is that this year Republican primaries will be proportional, as opposed to winner take all. Traditionally, Republican primaries were winner take all. In 2008, McCain basically locked up the nomination by winning Florida, which he won by only a couple percentage points, and Romney dropped out shortly after. In contrast, the Democratic primaries went out forever since each candidate kept picking up delegates. One insight from that election was that Obama won because he dominated the caucuses. Clinton and Obama basically tied the primary/popular vote, but Obama won the nomination because he crushed Clinton in the caucuses due to his superior ground organization. Supposedly, Romney's team is the best organized and the best versed in the delegate count mechanics. That may be his key to victory as was Obama's in 2008.
The other factor is that most of the primaries are not until March. In 2008, Super Tuesday was only 2 weeks after Florida(I think). This year, it will be 5 weeks later. So, there will be plenty of time to recover for candidates who lose Florida.
Another interpretation is that Obama dominated the caucuses because he appealed to the most hardcore supporters, as opposed to his organization. Which would seem to also explain how Huckabee won Iowa.
Quote from: grumbler on November 29, 2011, 02:38:39 PM
Gingrich is the anti-Mitt of the week. I still think that Cain will be the last one standing before the Romney victory.
Apparently Huntsman's up to 11% in New Hampshire, which is novel. Maybe Mitt's so unpopular that even another comparatively moderate Mormon ex-Governor will briefly get to be frontrunner :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 03:45:06 PMReally? :hmm: I did not know about that. That makes the situation very different, and it probably doesn't favor Romney.
I don't think it's all states and my understanding is that it's not strictly proportional but based on congressional district. They've not gone to the same system as the Democrats but they're heading that way.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2011, 03:47:07 PM
Another interpretation is that Obama dominated the caucuses because he appealed to the most hardcore supporters, as opposed to his organization. Which would seem to also explain how Huckabee won Iowa.
That's a valid interpretation, and obviously both organization and enthusiasm were factors.
DGuller,
In 2008, prior to this withdrawal, Romney won almost every Republican caucus besides Iowa. He definitely has the organization and money it takes to win caucuses.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2011, 03:52:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 29, 2011, 03:45:06 PMReally? :hmm: I did not know about that. That makes the situation very different, and it probably doesn't favor Romney.
I don't think it's all states and my understanding is that it's not strictly proportional but based on congressional district. They've not gone to the same system as the Democrats but they're heading that way.
You're right that not all states are bound to it; just states which vote before April 1, which is over half the states. But there is nothing in the GOP bylaws about congressional districts.
Quote
(b) Timing.
(1) No primary, caucus, or convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention shall occur prior to the first Tuesday in March in the year in which a national convention is held. Except Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes at any time on or after February 1 in the year in which a national convention is held and shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this rule.
(2) Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.
(3) If the Democratic National Committee fails to adhere to a presidential primary schedule with the dates set forth in Rule 15(b)(1) of these Rules (February 1 and first Tuesday in March), then Rule 15(b) shall revert to the Rules as adopted by the 2008 Republican National Convention.
http://www.gop.com/index.php/news/comments/republican_national_committee_approves_2012_presidential_nominating_process
I think different states are doing different things. The congressional district thing's old though and just triggers a proportional state going winner takes all:
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/09/myth-of-republican-presidential-primary.html
I really, really, really wish it would be Rick Perry, if only so the comedy can last longer.
Sorry, he loves immigrants and HPV. :(
They are starting to run out of not-Romney's. Only Santorum, Huntsmen, and Paul haven't been the anti-Romny flavor of the month. Paul is too crazy, Huntsmen is too sane, and Santorum is too creepy.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 29, 2011, 03:21:05 PM
I think we can all reasonably agree some sort of existence is involved.
I categorically refuse to be reasonable.
Quote from: stjaba on November 29, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
Cain is imploding. He is getting by the media right now. And this year has been a media driven race, as exhibited by the rise of Cain in the polls despite his lack of organization or name recognition. Today, there are reports that Cain is "reassessing" his campaign amid reports of a 13 year affair. Cain's numbers are dropping also. I wouldn't be shocked if he drops out before Iowa.
Yeah, I read about that after I wrote what I did. The first sexism charges had actually given Cain a bounce, but follow-up accusations of the same thing are deadly, especially when they cannot be refuted. I agree that he is dead. No one is going to send money to someone they think won't be around to spend it on 'the message." No money, no Cain.
At this point I have to hope it's Romney, or Huntsman, though Huntsman doesn't yet seem to have much of a chance. The others seem to be not ones I'd like to see run. Gingrich is the current flavor of the month but he's too irascible, unpredictable and more.
The basic contours of the race remain what they always have been since Christie passed: every candidate other than Romney has obvious, deal-breaking flaws that render them non-starters on any reasonable calculation. But Romney, while solid on paper, backed by a disciplined organization, and with significant fund-raising resources, appears wooden and obviously contrived in his debates and public appearances, is distrusted by the base, and probably does suffer to some degree from the Mormon factor. His consistent inability to crack the 25% poll ceiling has got to be concerning at this point. As is the fact that Romney not only hasn't benefitted from Cain's collapse; his numbers have actually dropped a bit. Bill Clinton was kind of in a similar situation at the same stage in 92, but Romney doesn't have Clinton's ability to connect with voters at a human level.
Quote from: KRonn on November 30, 2011, 12:26:13 PM
Gingrich is the current flavor of the month but he's too irascible, unpredictable and more.
To be fair, you'd be irascible, too, if you had to pretend you were a moron in order to get any active Republicans to vote for you.
Nixon.
Cain is the man.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 30, 2011, 07:07:07 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2011, 07:02:06 PM
Nixon.
Five bucks says Kennedy's gonna beat him.
Never happen.
Speaking of which, isn't Sirhan Sirhan coming up for parole in the near future or something?
Gingrich would give Obama a run for his money in the debates (heck, even if one disagrees with him, he'd probably trounce Obama on substance), but in the end, his problem is that he is completely unelectable.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 30, 2011, 10:33:57 PM
Gingrich would give Obama a run for his money in the debates (heck, even if one disagrees with him, he'd probably trounce Obama on substance), but in the end, his problem is that he is completely unelectable.
I hope he gets the nomination, just so the debates will be cool.
I think my throw my support to Cain after the release of this map demonstrating his proposed foreign policy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2011%2F11%2F30%2FScreen%2520shot%25202011-11-30%2520at%25202.18.55%2520PM_.png&hash=20c463bcccc39037a0f2dddc0ef0f667692bea0f)
What's Cain's distinction between "rival" and "competitor"?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BO345A_MITTN_G_20111130180605.jpg&hash=de55a7d77cbefa63b3f8104b40f20305dbc5a412)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 30, 2011, 02:58:27 PM
The basic contours of the race remain what they always have been since Christie passed: every candidate other than Romney has obvious, deal-breaking flaws that render them non-starters on any reasonable calculation.
I think Gingrich is different though. His obvious flaws were known to voters before the surge. Republican primary voters could be deciding that despite them they're more comfortable with him than Romney, rather than just getting excited. Also the timing's better.
It also helps that Gingrich is the first non-Romney who's managed to string together two decent debate performances.
Quote from: stjaba on November 30, 2011, 11:20:42 PM
I think my throw my support to Cain after the release of this map demonstrating his proposed foreign policy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlanticwire.com%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2011%2F11%2F30%2FScreen%2520shot%25202011-11-30%2520at%25202.18.55%2520PM_.png&hash=20c463bcccc39037a0f2dddc0ef0f667692bea0f)
:lmfao:
Anybody who thinks of Israel as a friend and ally isn't worthy of holding higher office.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 01:08:36 AM
Anybody who thinks of Israel as a friend and ally isn't worthy of holding higher office.
Anyone who thinks they can discard that alliance isn't capable of winning it.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 01, 2011, 01:05:04 AM:lmfao:
That's actually on his website :lol:
http://www.hermancain.com/issue/foreign_policy_national_security
Also on the rival-competitor distinction, I think his foreign policy thinking clears this up:
QuoteRussia: Rival
Though we share strategic interests – from battling Islamic extremists and homegrown terrorists to space exploration programs - there are a number of issues that still divide our nation and Russia. Russia's insistence on the New START Treaty has put the U.S.A. at a distinct disadvantage, not only relative to Russia, but also to the world's other nuclear powers. Russia's lack of clarity on Iran's nuclear program is also troubling. Though it is just a pale shadow of the former Soviet Union, Russia's energy-as-a-weapon policy with the Ukraine and Belarus, not to mention its invasion of Georgia shows that Russia is not shy about flexing its geopolitical muscles.
...
China: Competitor
While China is still currently no match for the U.S. militarily, they are gaining every year. China's government is also well aware that it was the famous military strategist Sun Tzu, said "attack the enemy at the weakest point." Our greatest threat with respect to China is actually at home. If our economy is allowed to continue to stagnate, we would eventually find ourselves unable to afford to stay ahead of China militarily. China's disputes with its neighbors over the Spratly Islands have raised alarm bells, as it continues to flex its new military might. Mr. Cain's overall strategy for our chief economic competitor is this: Outgrow China. His economic policies will unleash the growth potential of the U.S. economy and transcend the threat from China.
I wonder what his opinion is of all those little countries between Russian and the UK. Some of them are kinda important. Or South East Asia and Indonesia.
One result of Cain's election: mandatory facebook posting in North Korea. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2011, 06:00:08 AM
I wonder what his opinion is of all those little countries between Russian and the UK.
Future Pizza Eaters.
Quote from: Siege on November 30, 2011, 07:20:45 PM
Cain is the man.
Certainly there are more than enough women to testify to that proposition.
Russians hate Facebook. :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2011, 11:05:22 AM
Russians hate Facebook. :hmm:
Thank god. Can you imagine?
Yeah, they have their own Social website.
Good old Putin.
In the past three weeks, Romney's chances of winning the nomination have gone from 70% to 47% according to Intrade. Meanwhile, Gingrich has gone from less than 10% to 40%. Gingrich is dominating almost every poll besides New Hampshire. In the latest national poll, Gingrich has a 21 point advantage over Romney.* The next few weeks should be interesting. If Gingrich pulls this off, his comeback would be impressive, but not necessarily groundbreaking. In 2008, McCain came back to win the nomination after polling in the single digits at one point.
*Gingrich 38, Romney 17, Cain 8, Paul 8, Perry 4, Bachmann 4, Santorum 4, Huntsman 3
In this race of no-talents, anything is possible. When the majority of the candidates are that wretched, and even the headliners are fairly lacklustre, all it takes to win the nomination is the right news story right before the right primary.
The gaffes just keep coming with this crowd. I love it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2011, 11:07:30 AM
Yeah, they have their own Social website.
They do (and it's almost identical to Facebook in style), but they use Facebook quite a bit as well, so it is difficult to say that they hate it.
They also dominate Livejournal insofar as blogging goes.
They also dominate spam, and being subhuman.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2011, 07:52:57 PM
They also dominate spam, and being subhuman.
But the ladies are so HOTT. :(
Now I'm hungry for tacos.
President Gringrich. Wow. :lmfao:
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 01, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
President Gringrich. Wow. :lmfao:
That was only ever feasible in 1995.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 01, 2011, 09:27:58 PM
Want to make a bet on it? :hmm:
I'm willing to. My $100 to your $100 that Gingrich won't be elected president in 2012.
The sad thing is that Mitt Romney for all his flip-flopping fakery is really a God-fearing guy who honestly seems to have been attacting to politics because of the potential to improve the world he lives in. (well that and following the family business)
Whereas Newt is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing asshole who believes in nothing other than his own self-promotion, and who switches religions as often as he switches wives.
Yet to many evangelicals Newt is their new savior from Mitt.
The mind boggles.
Fundamentalists make for bad politics and disastrous governments. Look at the Prohibition Drys.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2011, 09:29:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 01, 2011, 09:27:58 PM
Want to make a bet on it? :hmm:
I'm willing to. My $100 to your $100 that Gingrich won't be elected president in 2012.
Newt is enough to make me vote for Obama. :(
Yi's gonna owe me like $10,000 in 2024.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2011, 09:29:45 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 01, 2011, 09:27:58 PM
Want to make a bet on it? :hmm:
I'm willing to. My $100 to your $100 that Gingrich won't be elected president in 2012.
Pass. I'm not making a bet that screws me if Newt doesn't even get the nomination.
Quote from: FunkMonk on December 01, 2011, 09:02:17 PM
President Gringrich. Wow. :lmfao:
As far as I can see it the only politician who can beat Obama now is Angela Merkel. So it could happen.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2011, 09:39:44 PM
The sad thing is that Mitt Romney for all his flip-flopping fakery is really a God-fearing guy who honestly seems to have been attacting to politics because of the potential to improve the world he lives in. (well that and following the family business)
Whereas Newt is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing asshole who believes in nothing other than his own self-promotion, and who switches religions as often as he switches wives.
Yet to many evangelicals Newt is their new savior from Mitt.
The mind boggles.
Really, it boggles the mind? Evangelical don't think that Mormons are Christians. That is quite enough to explain the current standings of Newt vs Romney with respect to that constituency,
Newt's been pretty consistent in the areas that matter. The Tea Party and the Contract with America stem from the same desire to shrink the government. Romney otoh was fine with government health care when he was governor. For all their rhetoric about family values, conservatives still recognize that the candidate's positions on matters of policy affect them much more than his fidelity to his wife.
Newt advocated a health care insurance mandate and shilled for Freddie and Fannie.
Newt is consistently for Newt. Beyond that you takes your chances. Conservatives hear what they want to hear. For some reason they have decided to hear no evil about Newt. It is the triumph of hope over experience.
Eh, you may be right. I haven't been paying much attention to him since his speaker days. :hmm: I do think the image he's projecting now is the same he had when fighting Clinton. Romney had to do the calisthenics necessary to appeal to both the Massachusetts general electorate and Republican primary voters, so it's no surprise not all of them trust what he says now.
QuoteUnited Kingdom: Our Special Relationship
Mr. Cain will restore our special relationship with Great Britain – our closest ally for nearly two centuries. In noticeable decline under President Obama, the Cain Administration will turn the relationship around so that our two nations start working as a team once again. America and Britain have stood together in both World Wars, and most recently Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Our military alliance and economic ties remain crucial to world stability.
hmm... need to do a bit of math here.... 200 years? 1811... what was the name of that war again.. oh, yes, "The War of 1812". But, he does say "nearly".. since when have the US and UK been allied? August 14, 1941 imho. That was 70 years, 3 months and 17 days ago today.
But.. I do agree with the concept of clearly communicating what the realtionship is. BS is never good.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2011, 02:24:57 AM
Newt advocated a health care insurance mandate and shilled for Freddie and Fannie.
Newt is consistently for Newt. Beyond that you takes your chances. Conservatives hear what they want to hear. For some reason they have decided to hear no evil about Newt. It is the triumph of hope over experience.
Well he's certainly
smarter then most of the crowd up there (though that's not exactly hard. My cat could outwit Perry). A certain degree of pragmatism is admirably. I've never found ideological purity that great, but then I'm a Dem, so take that for what it's worth.
Newt has a massive disadvantage in my book. He's a Timmay. He wrote Alternative history. Put in a negative light, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who has written a history book where Lee wins Gettysburg and Germany won WWII.
I don't think he is that smart actually. I think Huntsman, Paul and Romney are certainly smarter - maybe Santorum too. I think Gingrich is just a bit of an intellectual bully and show off in style.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 12:00:37 AM
Yi's gonna owe me like $10,000 in 2024.
You're predicting 1000% inflation starting next year?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2011, 02:24:57 AM
It is the triumph of hope over experience.
That worked out well for the Obama supporters.
Why isn't Huntsman an option?
He seems so sane compared to the rest, perhaps that is the problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2011, 09:39:44 PM
The sad thing is that Mitt Romney for all his flip-flopping fakery is really a God-fearing guy who honestly seems to have been attacting to politics because of the potential to improve the world he lives in. (well that and following the family business)
Whereas Newt is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing asshole who believes in nothing other than his own self-promotion, and who switches religions as often as he switches wives.
Yet to many evangelicals Newt is their new savior from Mitt.
The mind boggles.
It can only be explained by two factors:
(1) Anti-Mormon feeling; and
(2) Nostalgia for a past time when Republican politicians were reputed to have ideas.
What's the Huntsman love based on? All I know about the guys is a) he's Mormon, b) he was the ambassador to China, and c) he supported ObamaPelosiReidStimulus.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2011, 10:39:21 AM
Why isn't Huntsman an option?
He seems so sane compared to the rest, perhaps that is the problem.
Sane = RINO in the empty minds of Republican primary voters. He's not even a moderate, he's just sane and seemingly pragmatic. However, Republicans have a lot of cretins to choose from this time around, so they don't need to settle for sane.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
What's the Huntsman love based on? All I know about the guys is a) he's Mormon, b) he was the ambassador to China, and c) he supported ObamaPelosiReidStimulus.
He's a Republican governor who had strong support from Democrats in his state, so presumably he isn't an extremist partisan. He also recognizes the advances of science achieved after 1350, and is willing to state that recognition openly in Republican debates.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2011, 10:26:21 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 02, 2011, 02:24:57 AM
It is the triumph of hope over experience.
That worked out well for the Obama supporters.
Obama had no experience, so there was always the chance it could go either way.
With Gingrich there is plenty of experiece - enough to know to stay away.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 06:16:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 12:00:37 AM
Yi's gonna owe me like $10,000 in 2024.
You're predicting 1000% inflation starting next year?
At a 1000%, you'd owe me like a billion dollars.
Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2011, 10:43:21 AMIt can only be explained by two factors:
(1) Anti-Mormon feeling; and
(2) Nostalgia for a past time when Republican politicians were reputed to have ideas.
I think personal distaste for Romney too. As Huckabee said four years ago, he comes across as the guy who fires you rather than the guy you work with. Empathy matters and Romney is probably the worst politician I've ever seen at that side of things. He's like the anti-Clinton.
QuoteWhat's the Huntsman love based on? All I know about the guys is a) he's Mormon, b) he was the ambassador to China, and c) he supported ObamaPelosiReidStimulus.
He's like Romney without the animal cruelty and other personality issues. In addition he's been reasonably ideologically coherent and consistent. He's centre-right.
I also like the fact that he actually has policies. His tax plan's quite interesting as opposed to 9-9-9 or Perry's nonsense.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2011, 01:37:42 PM
he actually has policies.
...and therefore is doooooooooooooomed.
Isn't he doomed because most people don't actually know of his existence? It isn't good to be a candidate that people have to look up to learn about.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 01:49:11 PM
Isn't he doomed because most people don't actually know of his existence? It isn't good to be a candidate that people have to look up to learn about.
That's part of it; I was being facetious. Unknowns have to have flash to get noticed, and Huntsman has no flash. He's got a fair bit of substance, but that's not the shiny object voters need to turn their heads.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 02, 2011, 01:53:13 PMThat's part of it; I was being facetious. Unknowns have to have flash to get noticed, and Huntsman has no flash. He's got a fair bit of substance, but that's not the shiny object voters need to turn their heads.
I think he's started to do well in debates and has lots of ads in New Hampshire. That's the state he needs to do well in to have a chance anywhere else.
But yeah it's difficult to see how he wins. Maybe it's just a marker for 2016 - though it's very early personally I think, assuming he doesn't accept the poisoned chalice VP nomination, that could be Rubio's year.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2011, 01:37:42 PM
I also like the fact that he actually has policies. His tax plan's quite interesting as opposed to 9-9-9 or Perry's nonsense.
Any chance of an executive summary?
There was an article in Time about his plan for campaign finance reform but I skipped it. Boo-ring.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 02, 2011, 01:53:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2011, 01:49:11 PM
Isn't he doomed because most people don't actually know of his existence? It isn't good to be a candidate that people have to look up to learn about.
That's part of it; I was being facetious. Unknowns have to have flash to get noticed, and Huntsman has no flash. He's got a fair bit of substance, but that's not the shiny object voters need to turn their heads.
There is a grain of truth to saying he's "Doomed" because he has substance. The GOP has taken a stance of "anything that Obama is for or connected to is bad". Since Obama is hardly a radical, it means it tars a lot of possible GOP contenders who've had mainstream ideas. For instance Romny's health care plan should be a feather in his cap and it was to some degree in 2008, but now it's an albatross around his neck. Newt has the same problem. And Perry to a less degree (with his vaccine thing). The GOP base is so worked up and frothing, things they were okay with or even supported pre-2008 are now evil simply by virtue that Obama is in someway connected to them.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 02, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
There is a grain of truth to saying he's "Doomed" because he has substance.
Oh, it's more than a grain. It's just not the only reason he's doomed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 01:56:46 PM
Any chance of an executive summary?
Headlines are as follows:
Revenue neutral elimination of all deductions and credits in personal income tax, with replacement of current bands with three bands: 8%, 14%, 23%.
Eliminate AMT.
Something to eliminate double taxation of capital gains and dividends.
Reduce corporate tax from 35% to 25% and move to a territorial system - again I think credits and deductions get eliminated.
There's lots of things to quibble about and I'm sure there's more details but at the least this is a respectable and coherent. It's basically something Bowles-Simpson suggests but instead of using it to pay down the deficit I think Huntsman uses revenue from that, such as there is, to eliminate other investment taxes. Again that's detail I haven't really read into.
QuoteThere was an article in Time about his plan for campaign finance reform but I skipped it. Boo-ring.
That's one of those weird American things I just don't understand. And you're right, it's dull.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2011, 02:05:40 PM
That's one of those weird American things I just don't understand.
The notion is that there's an at least partially-correct sentiment among Americans that lobby groups purchase votes. It's seen, not unreasonably, as a problem.
Quote from: fahdiz on December 02, 2011, 02:16:32 PMThe notion is that there's an at least partially-correct sentiment among Americans that lobby groups purchase votes. It's seen, not unreasonably, as a problem.
Oh I get all that. We've just got a very different system so I can't really comprehend the money, advert rigamarole of American politics. It's very alien and not interesting enough to read up on :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2011, 02:22:02 PM
It's very alien and not interesting enough to read up on :P
I believe that. :D
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 10:56:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
What's the Huntsman love based on? All I know about the guys is a) he's Mormon, b) he was the ambassador to China, and c) he supported ObamaPelosiReidStimulus.
He's a Republican governor who had strong support from Democrats in his state, so presumably he isn't an extremist partisan. He also recognizes the advances of science achieved after 1350, and is willing to state that recognition openly in Republican debates.
:wub:
Voted Cain.
Quote from: The Brain on December 03, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Voted Cain.
So basically Generic Republican Candidate rather than the ones actually in the campaign.
Quote from: PJL on December 03, 2011, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 03, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Voted Cain.
So basically Generic Republican Candidate rather than the ones actually in the campaign.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10172%2Faug08_031.gif&hash=a5248032d532f0e417bff033cbafdcc70693a61f) (http://www.smileyvault.com/)
Romney will get the nomination and lose. He is a Republican Kerry.
That's why I put ketchup on my Kerry.
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 06:10:46 PM
No one is as bland as Kerry.
Internet Al was infinitely blander than Lurch.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 05, 2011, 06:13:28 PM
That's why I put ketchup on my Kerry.
He's already got a significant amount of salt-and-pepper.
Waka waka?
Waka, friend.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 29, 2011, 01:24:58 PM
Romney better not order an arugula salad.
If they call it rocket, it will play...
Quote from: Neil on December 05, 2011, 08:54:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 06:10:46 PM
No one is as bland as Kerry.
Internet Al was infinitely blander than Lurch.
This is true.
He was also right about a great many things in 2000 that nobody wanted to listen to. Like, I dunno, Wall Street.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2011, 06:19:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2011, 06:10:46 PM
No one is as bland as Kerry.
Internet Al was infinitely blander than Lurch.
Good thing he wasn't elected. If Gore won, you'd have much less deficit to bitch about.