Let The "Race" Begin

Remove all ads!

Exactly. And I agree, that that's his big problem - He's a GWB wanna be, but smoother.

 

Where's Sarah? Where's Gov Rick? If they don't jump in soon, Bachmann is going to eat their lunches.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43559903#43559903

 

I think that Bachmann is a much bigger problem for Palin than Perry, simply because she and Palin are so similar in almost every way (even the sound bites). However, if Palin enters the race, it will definitely hurt Bachmann's chances at the nomination, simply because many of Palin's supporters would almost certainly have Bachmann as their second choice. I think Palin is unelectable in the general election, and I don't like Bachmann's chances much either once the rest of America gets to know her and realize she's a lot like Sarah.

In fact, if you see either one of these candidates pull off a win in Iowa (and I think both of these candidates have some demographic advantages over Romney in Iowa) you may see a move by the Republican establishment to really push for Romney or Pawlenty (whichever does better in Iowa). I don't think the GOP really wants to see either Palin or Bachmann as their presidential candidate (and I agree with them).

Perry is whole different matter. I can think of only one reason why he would not run: He thinks his odds of winning would be better in 2016. In other words, if he thinks Obama is going to be tough to beat, and would win re-election in 2012, if he waits until 2016, he wouldn't be running against an incumbent. History shows that you really only get one shot at the party's nomination.

This list of president's who won their party's nomination, lost the election, and later won the nomination again and got elected president isn't particularly long. I can think of two instances where it's happened. Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, but defeated Humphrey in 1968. The only other instance I can think of is the unusual case of Grover Cleveland, who secured his party's nomination in three consecutive elections (1884, 1888, and 1892). He won the first and third, and lost the middle one to Harrison. (As an aside, I do think it's strange that Cleveland is counted as the 22nd and 24th president. Obama is the 44th president, but he's only the 43rd person to hold the job.)

So anyway, if Perry's calculation is that Obama will win in 2012, he'd rather take his chances against the Democrat nominee in 2016, and it's not entirely clear who that would be. Hillary could run again, perhaps Biden (though I doubt it), and other than that, you'd have to look to some up and comer, perhaps Andrew Cuomo. On the surface, the plan looks solid, but it's not without some potential pitfalls. I think Hillary made that exact calculation in 2004 when she decided not to run - a run in 2008 looked more promising, but we all know how that turned out. So there are two potential problems with Perry pursuing a wait for 2016 strategy - 1) If Obama loses, then there's a Republican in office in 2016, so there goes his shot, and 2) some Republican surges in popularity between now and 2016 (much like Obama did in 2008) and catches him from behind. That said, I think he poses a bigger threat to Obama than any other candidate currently in the race.

 

While I don't have a problem with this as Christian, one has to wonder how Gov Rick would approach these issues as a prez. What specfically would he do? I mean, prayer is good and all, but....

Oh, I get it now.

 

Is anyone surprised by this?

He will get the Republican nomination, IMO. Beyond that, I can't say with any real certainty.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44110416/ns/politics-decision_2012/

 

I had a Political Psychology class last year, and one day our professor suddenly said: "Okay, guys... I have to admit this. I'm so sorry. It has to come out sooner or later... I taught Sarah Palin. I'm so ashamed."

He was also distantly related to Lenin, on his (Lenin's) wife's side. Good lecturer - unassuming, but surprisingly hilarious.

 

I think he immediately becomes the front runner. He's getting in a little late, but it's not without precedent. (Like how I did that precedent/president - oh what can I say - I'm easily amused.) Anyway Bill Clinton didn't formally announce his presidential intentions until Labor Day weekend of the year before he won. So it's certainly possible to declare a bit later in the process and win.

 

Nate Silver throw a bucket of cold water on Gov. Perry's presidential announcement by questioning his electibility chances. In his opinion, Romney is still the frontrunner because his appeal to swing voters is more important than Perry's strong conservative credentials.

I'm not so sure I'm on board with that argument. I can't deny that Romney was elected governor in a very blue state. So it would appear that he certainly has cross-over appeal. However, if we look at their records as governor, Perry certainly would appear to be the one with a better conservative record, and he definitely would have more appeal to Christian conservatives - not that those are a group I'd consider to be swing voters. (They definitely won't vote for Obama - they'll either vote Republican, or stay home.)

I'm a bit confused by the article to tell the truth. I had considered Perry to be the most significant challenger to the presidency, but some of the early polling gives me pause.

 

Well, all it took was a couple of weeks for the polling to catch up with my initial suspicion. Perry is now polling ahead of Romney - not by a huge margin, but enough to be beyond the polls' margin for error. While Perry and Romney combined only represent about 60% of Republican voters (the rest are spread out over 8-10 other candidates), it really looks like a two-way race at this point. Of course, if someone actually managed to get ALL of those remaining 40% of the voters, they would lead the polls. Even though Perry is in the lead, because there are so many people who have someone other than Perry or Romney as their first choice, those are voters they are going to try to win over to their side.

I think Romney is already getting nervous. He doesn't poll well in Iowa. We know he has to go all-in with New Hampshire. Right after that is South Carolina, which doesn't look too promising either. I think he's hoping for a late Palin entry. She would take more votes away from Perry than she would from him.

 

I don't care what the polls say. Romney has no chance in hell of becoming the Republican candidate. The Christian right in the USA is far too powerful a force in Republican affairs to ever let a Mormon take top office. They will mobilize against him in droves if it looks like he's about to lead the ticket.

 

I used to think the same way, and you're probably right. But I've noticed over the last 3-4 months that his and Huntsman's Mormonism hasn't really been brought up at all. It feels to me like a lot of people more or less got used to the idea in the last election when Romney ran the first time; people seemed to think "this Mormon guy doesn't seem like the weirdo I'd assumed a Mormon would be." In fact - Romney's constant and shameless pandering aside - I think it's kind of cool that both Romney and Hunstman come off (in the current field, at least) as easily the most grounded, likeable, non-batsh*t-crazy of the bunch.

Basically, if you're running for office and you're worried that people won't support you because they think you're part of a kooky, cultish religion, the best possible situation is to be lined up next to actual religious kooks like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. If Sarah Palin still gets in the race (and it's looking more and more likely), the comparison will only improve. And beating Obama trumps just about every other priority to the Republicans.

On that note - I also think you're discounting the irrational Obama-hatred factor. The same people who would likely discount Romney for his Mormonism tend to be the same voters who (still!) think Obama's a Muslim. And when push comes to shove, guess who wins THAT coin toss...

 

Did anyone else hear Obama's address to congress, saying he was going to increase the tax on the rich? Right before election time? He also said in his original campaign that he was going to close Guantanamo and end the War in Iraq. We'll see if he actually commits to his campaign promises this time

 

Damedog, Obama tried to close Guantanamo. The senate blocked funding for it back in 2009, rendering a closure impossible. Regarding Iraq, he did end the war. I don't recall Obama ever promising a 100% troop reduction. We've had troops in Germany and Japan since the end of WW2 and we aren't at war with either of them. Obama did what he promised, and we have ceased combat operations in Iraq. Iraq is still unstable, as should be expected. We did destroy their infrastructure and the arms of government when we invaded, after all, and we have a duty to the Iraqi people to provide support to those seeking to maintain order in our wake. When you break something at an antique store, you have to buy it, and toppling the government of a sovereign state without provocation kind of works the same way.

Regarding the tax statement, popular sentiment does seem to support increasing taxes on the top tiers of income, and the Republicans clearly wanted to make this an election issue. Obama was correct to throw down that gauntlet now, so that he can shape the debate. If republicans win even more of the legislature, it is unlikely that Obama will get his tax increases in the current political climate. He needs to (correctly) paint republicans as the roadblock to achieving this policy objective if he wishes to garner political points from it. The primary benefit to taking on the issue early and shaping that debate is that, if he wins, it cuts against both his presidential challenger and Republican legislators. All democrats running for office stand to benefit -- at least if Obama's narrative is the one that wins out.

 

I agree that the Senate fought him in his attempt to close it, but I see the battle he fought as half-hearted at best. In his executive order he states that there should be a thorough examination of each detainee before transfer or closure would even be considerations, as if the detainees would be less safe somewhere slightly more humane, and says nothing about stopping or even reducing the abusive practices in the meantime.

Actually, if I remember correctly, he did promise a near 100% troop reduction, or at least alluded to it. He said something about one or two brigades gone each month, with most gone in 16 months. Oh, and he also stated no permanent bases. Also untrue.

I also remember something about a 1,000$ emergency energy rebate for needy families? I've yet to see that as well. He also promised an end to the Bush Tax Cuts, but that one I can partly understand as he surely had strong opposition. Didn't he also say we would have 10% renewable energy by next year? Let's not forget him saying he would, in his "Obamacare" plan, allow us to purchase cheaper drugs from other countries, and wasn't he in support of a public option? I know the major pharma companies famously stated that they would put ads out in opposition to it if he tried such dastardly things, but bending to corporate threats doesn't sit well with me. Oh, and he proposed to end taxes for seniors making less than 50,000$. What about the minimum wage becoming 9.50?

I would agree with your part about shaping the debate Drew, if Obama had not promised an increase in the capital gains and dividends tax on higher income earners in his earlier campaign. While i'm willing to accept that he may be ready to re-open the battlefield on these issues, i'm going to have to see some real fighting on this to believe it. In looking at his actual enforcement of the promises he states, it seems like he is either truthful but bad at enforcement or untruthful and tries to cover it by half-hearted attempts. I personally lean on the truthful side, and I hope that he "grows a pair" in his second term.

Oh, and one thing about Bachmann. She wants to eliminate the minimum wage. Need I say more?

 

Of course he wanted a thorough examination of each detainee! A lot of the people at GITMO should never have been there, and needed to be released, but a lot of them were also terrorists that had perpetrated real and legitimate crimes against the US. Regarding your claim about abuses? Quite simply, you are wrong. President Obama ended our torture program on January 22, 2009 -- the second day of his term.

In a speech delivered at Camp Lejeune a little over a month after he took office, president Obama pledged to end the combat mission in Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010. He delivered. Regarding permanent bases, Obama stated in the same speech "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." 2011 isn't over yet, but it seems clear that this one isn't going to happen, which shouldn't be surprising. It was an ambitious goal. That said, Section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 states, "No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended ... to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq." You are wrong about permanent bases in Iraq. Not only is he not establishing a permanent presence, but he's put it in writing.

You're still thinking like a partisan and, like a partisan, you still expect too much from President Obama. Were he willing to jettison his health care promise, it is likely that the democrats would still control both houses of congress, and that he would have been able to push through his tax increases. I readily concede that this may have been a miscalculation on Obama's part, but Democrats (and a few moderate Republicans like Nixon) have been trying to push through comprehensive health care reform since Theodore Roosevelt advocated it way back in 1912. While it is possible that Obama simply miscalculated the political cost of passing the reform, I think it is more likely that he deemed it to be worth the cost. History will decide if he made the right decision.

Regarding finances, again you're still thinking like a partisan. Obama is not helping anyone by trying to pass legislation that won't pass the Republican-controlled house. Such proposals are a waste of time, and do nothing whatsoever to help civility in political discourse -- yet another Obama goal. Beyond that, raising the capital gains tax isn't all that great an idea right now. Our economy is still recovering, and we want to encourage growth. Once the economy is healthy, stable, and strong, raising the tax will be a good idea as it will discourage market speculation and encourage long-term investment. Raising the tax will cause a lot of people to get out of the market before the shift (by taking profits early), effectively decreasing the amount invested in our economy. The effects of such an increase would stabilize eventually, but is not a good idea in the short term.

 

Saying that his stated policies aren't a good idea is ignoring the issue- he stated his policy goals, and that isn't what we got from him. It isn't partisan to desire him to implement some of the things he said he would, and he failed in almost every aspect when it comes to his stated tax policies. I understand he couldn't do everything or even a majority of what he said he wanted to do in a republican controlled house, but the complete flop that it was is inexcusable. He compromises too early, and when he's under pressure never seems to get a single thing he wants done, which is my main problem with him. Far from being a partisan desire to see a dictatorship of liberal policies, it's more that we fail to see any liberal policies when it comes to some of the things that I feel are important.

Besides, you can't label me a partisan. I can see how you would think that given the subject matter I often debate about on here, but I believe I have stated, albeit briefly, that i'm against capitalism because it is flawed in it's fundamental operations. I advocate a system mostly based upon the pragmatic elements of a Resource Based Economy. All the other things I talk about are "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic", so to speak.

 

So, should Obama have spent his efforts on shutting down Gitmo or saving the economy and trying to organize healthcare? His obvious priority was the unstable economy/healthcare issues he inherited. Shutting down Gitmo would of been nice, but not something that really affects your average citizen on a daily basis. Stabilizing the economy was the obvious decisive action to take. You are being too critical of an issue that , though important, was not a priority for Americans of the times. And of course, you are now bringing it out at re-election time. Makes one wonder.....

 

What makes you wonder?

 

Can you say "DESPERATION" any louder, Gov Rick?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-unveil-plan-to-uproot-branches-of-government

 

And to think I thought he would win the nomination if he got in the race. I haven't seen any polls recently, but as of the beginning of last week Perry wasn't even polling third. He was behind Romney, Cain, and Gingrich. I think he has no chance. In fact, the past few weeks could not have gone better for Romney. Perry looks like a fool, and that sex scandal affecting Cain isn't going to help him any. The only thing Romney needs to avoid is a disastrous showing in Iowa. If he can finish say second there, and then win New Hampshire, the path to the nomination opens up for him.