Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 23, 2011 9:05:30 GMT -5
No, but I texted back to see if someone could talk The Replacements into staying together.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 23, 2011 12:35:30 GMT -5
sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6575570Maybe Ray Lewis should run for President. He already has mastered the politics of fear. ;D As for the rest of the conversation, well, I just got a text from 1991, telling me how George Bush was sitting pretty with ridiculously high approval numbers after a big foreign policy victory, unemployment was under 8%, and the Democrats had no serious candidates to challenge him according to most of the media. Man, that was a cakewalk of a Presidential election. Somehow though, I can't seem to remember much about Bush's second term. What happened with that? Who is going to be Obama's version of Ross Perot? Another important tidbit, Out of all of the Post WWII losses by sitting incumbents (Ford, Carter, Bush1) all of them have the same thing in common: they had serious primary challengers. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 23, 2011 13:15:15 GMT -5
I wouldn't call Pat Buchanan almost winning New Hampshire and then getting swept aside as a "serious" primary challenger in '92. But he was a challenger.
And there was Perot eventually. You've got that.
Obama has a great advantage as the incumbent and as an incumbent who will not have a primary challenger. Don't get me wrong. There is no question that this is a huge boon to his campaign and definitely puts him well out in front as things begin to kick off later toward the end of the summer.
I think my only point is, it is blindingly premature to think that this election is not going to be competitive. To take just the two who I think will be the ultimate contenders, both Romney and Pawlenty are credible candidates (i.e. they don't have Trump or Palin issues with people envisioning them as President), both are going to be well funded (Romney more so), and both are capable of beating this President with the record he will be running on. Neither are perfect candidates, not even close to it, nor are either one super charisma guys. But I think even that might work in their favor this time around.
Hey, if Obama wins by a landslide, you can stick your tongue out at me and call me an idiot. But my early prediction is that this election will be much closer than 2008. Much closer.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 23, 2011 13:48:07 GMT -5
I wouldn't call Pat Buchanan almost winning New Hampshire and then getting swept aside as a "serious" primary challenger in '92. But he was a challenger. And there was Perot eventually. You've got that. Obama has a great advantage as the incumbent and as an incumbent who will not have a primary challenger. Don't get me wrong. There is no question that this is a huge boon to his campaign and definitely puts him well out in front as things begin to kick off later toward the end of the summer. I think my only point is, it is blindingly premature to think that this election is not going to be competitive. To take just the two who I think will be the ultimate contenders, both Romney and Pawlenty are credible candidates (i.e. they don't have Trump or Palin issues with people envisioning them as President), both are going to be well funded (Romney more so), and both are capable of beating this President with the record he will be running on. Neither are perfect candidates, not even close to it, nor are either one super charisma guys. But I think even that might work in their favor this time around. Hey, if Obama wins by a landslide, you can stick your tongue out at me and call me an idiot. But my early prediction is that this election will be much closer than 2008. Much closer. Oh I have no hopes of an "invincible Obama" (and, being completely honest, I would vote for Huntsman over Obama if that's the ticket). It would probably take just a month or a little more of high gas prices close to the election to tip the scales. But I believe that Romney winning the primary is just as likely to cause the Tea Party to leave the GOP as it is to inspire momentum. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 23, 2011 14:00:37 GMT -5
The Tea Party is definitely going to be a big factor. And could really hurt the Republican nominee (now that you mention Ambassador Huntsman).
Because of that, I think Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or even Michelle Bachmann is a very strong possibility for VP candidate, regardless of who the nominee is.
As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think any of the best Republican candidates are running, but that doesn't mean I don't think the Republican candidate can't win.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 23, 2011 14:05:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't call Pat Buchanan almost winning New Hampshire and then getting swept aside as a "serious" primary challenger in '92. But he was a challenger. And there was Perot eventually. You've got that. Obama has a great advantage as the incumbent and as an incumbent who will not have a primary challenger. Don't get me wrong. There is no question that this is a huge boon to his campaign and definitely puts him well out in front as things begin to kick off later toward the end of the summer. I think my only point is, it is blindingly premature to think that this election is not going to be competitive. To take just the two who I think will be the ultimate contenders, both Romney and Pawlenty are credible candidates (i.e. they don't have Trump or Palin issues with people envisioning them as President), both are going to be well funded (Romney more so), and both are capable of beating this President with the record he will be running on. Neither are perfect candidates, not even close to it, nor are either one super charisma guys. But I think even that might work in their favor this time around. Hey, if Obama wins by a landslide, you can stick your tongue out at me and call me an idiot. But my early prediction is that this election will be much closer than 2008. Much closer. Oh I have no hopes of an "invincible Obama" (and, being completely honest, I would vote for Huntsman over Obama if that's the ticket). It would probably take just a month or a little more of high gas prices close to the election to tip the scales. But I believe that Romney winning the primary is just as likely to cause the Tea Party to leave the GOP as it is to inspire momentum. I wonder if that is true. First, it seems unlikely that Romney can win the primary w/o some tea party support. Secondly, I'd think that its likely that the base will come out to vote against Obama (it almost worked for Kerry, I think). Finally, I think that McCain showed that you can shore up the base funding/volunteering questions w/ the right VP choice (i.e. one that fires them up/gives you more conservative bonafides). I'd think a Rubio/Ryan/Christie/Haley on the ticket would probably solve any problem Romney has w/ regard to enthusiasm. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 23, 2011 14:10:53 GMT -5
Because of that, I think Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or even Michelle Bachmann is a very strong possibility for VP candidate, regardless of who the nominee is. Republicans won't make the same mistake twice and go Bachmann for VP. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 23, 2011 14:11:44 GMT -5
Because of that, I think Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or even Michelle Bachmann is a very strong possibility for VP candidate, regardless of who the nominee is. Republicans won't make the same mistake twice and go Bachmann for VP. It'll be Rubio. Hispanic, liked by the Tea Party, has a tendency to keep his mouth shut. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 23, 2011 14:17:06 GMT -5
Republicans won't make the same mistake twice and go Bachmann for VP. It'll be Rubio. Hispanic, liked by the Tea Party, has a tendency to keep his mouth shut. Don't forget Florida is both a swing state and a large state. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 23, 2011 14:21:06 GMT -5
Because of that, I think Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or even Michelle Bachmann is a very strong possibility for VP candidate, regardless of who the nominee is. Republicans won't make the same mistake twice and go Bachmann for VP. I think it is a mistake to equate Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Of those three, do I think she would be the best? No, I don't. Not at all. That's why I noted "or even" before I listed her name. Sort of trying to indicate she'd be an outside chance. She is controversial, yes, and liberals hate her almost as much as they hate Sarah Palin, but they would not be the same candidate at all. Bachmann can pretty much go toe-to-toe with anyone on issues. And she has literally none of the "folksy" about her that Palin actively cultivates. In the end, you are probably right. But I think there is a big difference between the two. I think Christie might be the most likely choice. He has said he's not running for President, and I still believe him. But he has not talked much about this possibility. I think he could easily come out with one of those BS statements you hear politicians make all the time: "I did not seek this out. But when asked by the nominee to serve, I could not say no." You know how they do. I think the Obama campaign is certainly preparing like they think he is going to be in the mix with the reports of the opposition research they're doing on him. |
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 23, 2011 15:01:58 GMT -5
Oh I have no hopes of an "invincible Obama" (and, being completely honest, I would vote for Huntsman over Obama if that's the ticket). It would probably take just a month or a little more of high gas prices close to the election to tip the scales. But I believe that Romney winning the primary is just as likely to cause the Tea Party to leave the GOP as it is to inspire momentum. I wonder if that is true. First, it seems unlikely that Romney can win the primary w/o some tea party support. Secondly, I'd think that its likely that the base will come out to vote against Obama (it almost worked for Kerry, I think). Finally, I think that McCain showed that you can shore up the base funding/volunteering questions w/ the right VP choice (i.e. one that fires them up/gives you more conservative bonafides). I'd think a Rubio/Ryan/Christie/Haley on the ticket would probably solve any problem Romney has w/ regard to enthusiasm. I think you're right and that's exactly what's going to happen... if Pawlenty or someone wins. But if a right combination of things happen (like Romney getting the bid because Tea Party votes are divided amongst several other candidates, and/or if Congressional Republicans fail to win "enough" victories against Obama) a run by a "Constitution" party could be the result. And that nulifies the "anyone but Obama" appeal that an uncharismatic mainstream guy would have |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 24, 2011 12:35:12 GMT -5
She is controversial, yes, and liberals hate her almost as much as they hate Sarah Palin, but they would not be the same candidate at all. Bachmann can pretty much go toe-to-toe with anyone on issues. Like what? Types of light bulbs? Yelling at Anthony Weiner and robotically repeating talking points for the 3,000th time on a cable news show isn't going toe-to-toe with someone on issues. Whether there's a substantive difference between Palin and Bachmann really is immaterial - Republicans aren't going to choose an utterly polarizing woman as their VP candidate again. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 24, 2011 13:33:57 GMT -5
I'm always amazed that progressives have the gall to call someone polarizing when, in the next breath, they accuse Republicans of wanting to throw grandma off the cliff and when they call anyone that is not a progressive an extremist.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 24, 2011 14:35:55 GMT -5
I'm always amazed that progressives have the gall to call someone polarizing when, in the next breath, they accuse Republicans of wanting to throw grandma off the cliff and when they call anyone that is not a progressive an extremist. Bachmann, latest Suffolk : 20% favorable, 28% unfavorable In matchup with Obama : 50% Obama, 30% Bachmann, worst of any candidate polled in GOP field |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 27, 2011 15:57:23 GMT -5
Demo chair says GOP anti-women. Then there's Ed Schultz.
Sarah, Guiliani, Rick Perry thinking about it. Getting interesting. Expect the MSM to tell us all the bad things about them and the rest of the GOP contenders.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 27, 2011 17:13:08 GMT -5
Sarah, Guiliani, Rick Perry thinking about it. Getting interesting. Expect the MSM to tell us all the bad things about them and the rest of the GOP contenders. It wasn't the MSM that deep-sixed GIULIANI 4 years ago. It was Republican primary voters. Believed in Evolution. Was pro-choice. From NYC. Divorced. Announced his intention to divorce to the media - before he even told his wife. You remember, just like Newt. He divorced his wife to marry his long-time girlfriend who worked for him in City Govt. Your kind of guy. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 27, 2011 18:18:49 GMT -5
Sarah, Guiliani, Rick Perry thinking about it. Getting interesting. Expect the MSM to tell us all the bad things about them and the rest of the GOP contenders. It wasn't the MSM that deep-sixed GIULIANI 4 years ago. It was Republican primary voters. Believed in Evolution. Was pro-choice. From NYC. Divorced. Announced his intention to divorce to the media - before he even told his wife. You remember, just like Newt. He divorced his wife to marry his long-time girlfriend who worked for him in City Govt. Your kind of guy. Nobody said it was the MSM that deep-sixed him. What I did say was the MSM will unload all the bad thing they can find on all the Repubs but downplay or ignore the same on the president and his illustrous VP. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 27, 2011 18:50:36 GMT -5
Nobody said it was the MSM that deep-sixed him. What I did say was the MSM will unload all the bad thing they can find on all the Repubs but downplay or ignore the same on the president and his illustrous VP. You mean the same MSM that amplified all those absurd claims -- many from those honest, hardworking, Republican candidates of impeccable intergrity you mention above -- about Obama "palling around with terrorists", being a muslim, soft on defense, trying to socialize the good old USofA, and creating "death panels", not to mention relaying that whole "birther" conspiracy? THAT msm? |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 28, 2011 9:24:21 GMT -5
Nobody said it was the MSM that deep-sixed him. What I did say was the MSM will unload all the bad thing they can find on all the Repubs but downplay or ignore the same on the president and his illustrous VP. You mean the same MSM that amplified all those absurd claims -- many from those honest, hardworking, Republican candidates of impeccable intergrity you mention above -- about Obama "palling around with terrorists", being a muslim, soft on defense, trying to socialize the good old USofA, and creating "death panels", not to mention relaying that whole "birther" conspiracy? THAT msm? Zing!!!! ;D |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 28, 2011 13:07:03 GMT -5
Nobody said it was the MSM that deep-sixed him. What I did say was the MSM will unload all the bad thing they can find on all the Repubs but downplay or ignore the same on the president and his illustrous VP. You mean the same MSM that amplified all those absurd claims -- many from those honest, hardworking, Republican candidates of impeccable intergrity you mention above -- about Obama "palling around with terrorists", being a muslim, soft on defense, trying to socialize the good old USofA, and creating "death panels", not to mention relaying that whole "birther" conspiracy? THAT msm? Funny, I don't remember the MSM doing anything but disparaging all those claims. Unless your definition of the MSM differs from mine. |
|
