2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

Pages

Edited to turn into a candidate catch all.

Let's start with Ron Paul:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/breaking-rep-ron-paul-announces-third-bid-for-presidency/?hpt=T1

Not sure how I feel about this. I wrote him in during the '08 election (turns out DE throws write-ins away), but a bit of the crazy is still there. Still, does the GOP have any contenders that aren't batsh*t crazy?

Nevin73 wrote:

Still, does the GOP have any contenders that aren't batsh*t crazy?

Maybe John Huntsman? I haven't heard enough from him yet either way.

A better question is, "are there any GOP contenders that aren't batsh*t insane with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination?"

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

A better question is, "are there any GOP contenders that aren't batsh*t insane with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination?"

Which is why the GOP won't win. How to does someone appeal to arch conversative base without getting their teeth kicked in by the predominantly center independents?

Paul is an outsider candidate who inspired a lot of younger party and libertarian types, but he doesn't seem like a mainstream candidate. I was reading one of the political blogs the other day, and the writer pointed out that the media has decided that only senators and governors can be considered really serious candidates, and they cover them accordingly. Hilary Clinton was kind of an exception to that rule in the last cycle, but she's had star power that nobody else has had.

Paul is a member of the house, so he's swimming upstream.

Nevin73 wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:

A better question is, "are there any GOP contenders that aren't batsh*t insane with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination?"

Which is why the GOP won't win. How to does someone appeal to arch conversative base without getting their teeth kicked in by the predominantly center independents?

The approach will be "act batsh*t insane to get the nomination, flee back to the middle once the full election starts". That being said, I don't know who really has a chance right now on the GOP side; Newt's got just massive loads of baggage, Romney has both Romneycare and I do think his being a Mormon makes him untenable to social conservatives, Huckabee is nuts, Palin is a joke to large swaths of the population, Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul . . . I don't know who can get elected right now.

As maybe the lone conservative leaning person that still posts in P&C I'll quickly throw in my 2 cents.

It's a long ways until the election, but at this point it feels to me like the GOP is on the path of handing Obama a second term. None of the common names being thrown around (Palin, Newt, Trump, Bachmann, Romney, Huckabee) are people I'd want as president. Not only that, but I don't see any of these people beating Obama.

Out of that bunch I like Palin the best, but I don't want to see her run. She has become too polarizing to win the presidential election. I think she is just fine in the role she currently has.

I would choose Ron Paul over the names listed above, but he didn't do much in 2008, and I don't see that changing much for 2012. I may have to refresh my memory on what his thoughts are on issues like the economy, jobs, health care, foreign policy. What I'd love to see is a fresher face that hasn't been in the spotlight so much the past few years and hasn't already flamed out in a presidential run. Too bad Paul Ryan won't run this time around.

Funkenpants wrote:

Paul is an outsider candidate who inspired a lot of younger party and libertarian types, but he doesn't seem like a mainstream candidate. I was reading one of the political blogs the other day, and the writer pointed out that the media has decided that only senators and governors can be considered really serious candidates, and they cover them accordingly. Hilary Clinton was kind of an exception to that rule in the last cycle, but she's had star power that nobody else has had.

Paul is a member of the house, so he's swimming upstream.

Not really - she was a senator

MattDaddy wrote:

As maybe the lone conservative leaning person that still posts in P&C I'll quickly throw in my 2 cents.

It's a long ways until the election, but at this point it feels to me like the GOP is on the path of handing Obama a second term. None of the common names being thrown around (Palin, Newt, Trump, Bachmann, Romney, Huckabee) are people I'd want as president. Not only that, but I don't see any of these people beating Obama.

Out of that bunch I like Palin the best, but I don't want to see her run. She has become too polarizing to win the presidential election. I think she is just fine in the role she currently has.

I would choose Ron Paul over the names listed above, but he didn't do much in 2008, and I don't see that changing much for 2012. I may have to refresh my memory on what his thoughts are on issues like the economy, jobs, health care, foreign policy. What I'd love to see is a fresher face that hasn't been in the spotlight so much the past few years and hasn't already flamed out in a presidential run. Too bad Paul Ryan won't run this time around.

I think Paul Ryan's budget proposals would make him absolutely toxic in the general election. The commercials pretty much write themselves - "would you vote for the man who is engineering the destruction of Medicare?"

I think Ron Paul did well enough in terms of fund raising that he was considered a moderate threat to the "real" Republican nominees (the GOP hates Ron Paul).

I'd be an interesting exercise to see what the counter arguments to the main GOP contenters might be:

Newt - could be crushed on "family values"
Palin - quit the only real political job she had
Trump - only issue of note was a non-issue
Jindal - looked bad on the public stage and is (surprising) a way religious conservative (like Earth being 7000 years old type conservative)
Huckabee - see Jindal on religion - not electable in the national election

Not sure about the others.

You know, Paul Ryan's budget proposal was astonishing but you have to admit that he is one of the only people in Washington willing to speak frankly about the fact that trimming NPR and saving a few paper clips won't do anything about the deficit. For that alone I give him credit.

edit: also he looks like Gabe from the office.

If there was ever a chance for Paul to become a fairly serious candidate it seems like this is the climate.

Tanglebones wrote:

Not really - she was a senator :P

Ah, that's right. Duh!

Well according to this site here are the guys who have launched exploratory committees for a 2012 Republican Presidential run, in addition to the ones we've already talked about of course:

Herman Cain. They list his top points as Cancer survivor and YouTube sensation. Oookay.

Gary Johnson. former Libertarian Republican governor of New mexico.

Fred Karger, politicial consultant & gay rights activist.

Tom Miller, career flight attendant. Really?

Vern Wuensche, businessman, started a construction company, came in 10th place in 2008 presidential run.

John Bolton, the ol' ambassador to the UN

Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana

Maybe one of them will be the dark horse candidate? I just can't see any of the big names that everyone's talking about now even coming close to winning.

boogle wrote:

If there was ever a chance for Paul to become a fairly serious candidate it seems like this is the climate.

Except for he's a racist sh*t head.

I like Mitch Daniels but I'm not sure he's going to run. Mattdaddy, you have me though I'm more of a country club republican than a conservative.

Mitch Daniels has been sending some pretty strong signals that he doesn't want to run. Although I hate his abortion campaign, I respect his stance that social issues might have to be put on the backburner (he claims...as he crushes abortion funding, enacts gay marriage bans, and strengthens drug laws).

I am curious to see how he performs on a national level.

Ron Kucinich is running again?

Kehama wrote:

John Bolton, the ol' ambassador to the UN

We just elected our first black president. Is America really ready for its first walrus president?

Ranger Rick wrote:
Kehama wrote:

John Bolton, the ol' ambassador to the UN

We just elected our first black president. Is America really ready for its first walrus president?

IMAGE(http://happyhourvalley.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/diabeetus-evil.jpg)

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/TaftOfficial_Portrait.jpg)

Ranger Rick wrote:

We just elected our first black president. Is America really ready for its first walrus president?

Depends on which kind of walrus. A "straight talking" walrus that likes to give the middle finger to the rest of the world? No. An even tempered walrus that likes to bust myths and randomly blow up common household items with various types of explosives? Maybe.

It's probably a bad sign that I live in Eagan, MN, and didn't mention Tim Pawlenty. Largely because Pawlenty is A) the former governor of Minnesota, B) a resident of Eagan, and C) belongs to my YMCA; I saw him there about a month ago.

I think it's safe to conlcude at this point that Palin won't run. So, the primary GOP nomination will come down to whomever she ends up endorsing.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

It's probably a bad sign that I live in Eagan, MN, and didn't mention Tim Pawlenty. Largely because Pawlenty is A) the former governor of Minnesota, B) a resident of Eagan, and C) belongs to my YMCA; I saw him there about a month ago.

Is T-Paw seriously considering running?

Reaper81 wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

It's probably a bad sign that I live in Eagan, MN, and didn't mention Tim Pawlenty. Largely because Pawlenty is A) the former governor of Minnesota, B) a resident of Eagan, and C) belongs to my YMCA; I saw him there about a month ago.

Is T-Paw seriously considering running?

T-Paw is 100% running. There is no doubt he is running. His major handicap is his wet sponge-like charisma.

Ulairi wrote:
boogle wrote:

If there was ever a chance for Paul to become a fairly serious candidate it seems like this is the climate.

Except for he's a racist sh*t head.

You really don't think that is going to stop anyone do you?

boogle wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
boogle wrote:

If there was ever a chance for Paul to become a fairly serious candidate it seems like this is the climate.

Except for he's a racist sh*t head.

You really don't think that is going to stop anyone do you?

I think so. When Paul doesn't have shot no one brings this stuff up. If he becomes a serious candidate, there will be a lot of TV ads with quotes from his newsletter about the mongrelization of the races.

Ulairi wrote:
boogle wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
boogle wrote:

If there was ever a chance for Paul to become a fairly serious candidate it seems like this is the climate.

Except for he's a racist sh*t head.

You really don't think that is going to stop anyone do you?

I think so. When Paul doesn't have shot no one brings this stuff up. If he becomes a serious candidate, there will be a lot of TV ads with quotes from his newsletter about the mongrelization of the races.

Don't forget his interview with Chris Mattews last night.

If the Republicans have a shot in this election, they need to find a sane, financial conservative immediately. I don't think America wants an election about abortion or gay rights in 2012. I imagine the economy, job creation, national debt and budget priorities will be the main issues.

Grubber788 wrote:

If the Republicans have a shot in this election, they need to find a sane, financial conservative immediately. I don't think America wants an election about abortion or gay rights in 2012. I imagine the economy, job creation, national debt and budget priorities will be the main issues.

Mitch Daniels and Huntsmen but I think they want to wait until 2016 and hope the crazy is gone by then.

Grubber788 wrote:

If the Republicans have a shot in this election, they need to find a sane, financial conservative immediately.

There literally is no such thing, because no republican can make it into a leadership position while contemplating the necessary tax hikes to put the government's financing on a firmer footing. Just not possible. Republicans who favor balancing the budget by proposing spending cuts that have no possibility of passage (i.e., eliminating medicare or social security or cutting defense by 2/3rds or whatever) don't really count because fiscal conservatism implies some level of reality-based thinking. Voters have indicated that they will not accept elimination of the government safety net, so how else is there to pay for that net without at best a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts?

Pages