The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Herman Cain is statistically tied for first place with Mitt Romney among registered Republicans in the key early voting state of Florida, according to a Suffolk University/WSVN-TV poll released Tuesday evening. … The poll shows that the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO remains a favorite in Florida a month after he won the state’s straw poll – the event that marked the beginning of the ‘Cain surge’ and Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s fall. Mr. Cain took second place with 24% support, behind Mr. Romney who took 25%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came in third with 11% and Mr. Perry placed fourth with 9%. Some 20% of Sunshine State Republicans said they were still undecided.” - WSJ

“Whoever wins the 2012 Republican presidential nomination can carry Florida if he adds Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate, according to a new poll by Suffolk University in Massachusetts.” - Palm Beach Post

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry stands at a now-or-never moment for his presidential campaign, teetering between second-tier status and emerging as the prime alternative to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the nomination fight.” - Washington Post

Poll: Texans don’t give Rick Perry credit for economy - USA Today

As polls slip, Perry gets first blast of super-PAC ads - New York Times

Mitt Romney hit for past emissions stance - Politico

Pro-Obama outside group targets Romney in digital campaign - CNN
 
I am on the Ron Paul bandwagon until he either wins the nomination or officially drops out.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
🤷 Still really early in the show. We’ll see where the season takes us. I like Gingrich as an alternative.
Click to expand...
One has to admit that one would truly love to see an Obama vs. Gingrich debate. No matter how well Obama’s people prepare him, he would still be overmatched because Gingrich can actually think. :eek:
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
🤷 Still really early in the show. We’ll see where the season takes us. I like Gingrich as an alternative.
Click to expand...
I like Gingrich, as well. His “baggage” looks a little lighter lately, but I’m sure he’ll have his turn in the barrel.
 
At the moment, I’m leaning toward Newt Gingrich with his excellent debating skills, and also like Herman Cain for the GOP nod. But also would not be surprised if in the end Mitt Romney won the nomination. Regardless thought this article correct. The biggest decider in the coming race will be Europe and their debt problems. Will the European contagion spread to America? Even though I’d like a conservative candidate to win, I hope not as that could harold a depression.

“Obama’s Biggest Problem: Europe, Not GOP”

blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/11/02/obamas-biggest-problem-europe-not-gop/

excerpt:
If the US economy crashes again, President Obama can be easily beaten by even a weak and unloved opponent. That means that President Obama’s grip on the White House may largely be up to Merkel and Sarkozy; if they can keep Europe afloat, they will save President Obama as well as the Greeks.
Gideon Rachman over at the Financial Times has an important column that examines the linkage between President Obama and the EU in real depth; Rachman makes the point that new economic problems in the US caused by European failures won’t just hurt Obama by weakening the economy. They will also make it easier for Republicans to frame the election as a choice between Obama’s adherence to a “failed European model” and the red blooded American capitalism that Republicans love. Read the whole thing.
Click to expand...
 
Don’t believe everything the talking heads say. Most of them speculate and don’t know any more than we do. Sometimes they say and write things to specifically influence the outcome of an election.

Obama’s biggest political enemy is himself:
support for abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion,
government waste,
government growth,
government over-spending,
government exceeding Consititutional authority,
bad appointees who support his points of view,
Obamacare with much government interference in the private lives of individuals,
government over-regulation and taxation causing businesses to leave the Country,
refusal to adequately protect our borders,
trying to divide the American people with class warfare,
etc.
 
In a Quinnipiac poll taken Oct. 25-31, embattled GOP juggernaut Herman Cain continued to show amazing staying power in what has been a transient Republican primary race, extending his lead on establishment pick Mitt Romney to 30%-23%, and almost quadrupling former leader Rick Perry‘s 8% support. The real news from this poll, taken before most of the fallout from Politico‘s alleged sexual harassment expose´, might be that some rays of sunshine are finally hitting President Obama.

As former RNC chair Michael Steele noted on Morning Joe today, everything has a shelf life, but so far, Cain has shown the staying power of a flash-frozen Twinkie. His continued support would seem to indicate an immunity to his weakness on foreign policy, and while the jury is still out on how the unfolding sexual harassment allegations will affect his poll numbers, his rock-solid hold on the lead ought to give Cain, and his campaign, an incentive to handle things a bit more carefully.

The consensus among the journalists I’ve spoken to has been that Cain can survive this scandal, unless one or more of his accusers comes forward and presents a credible account of those allegations.

In that same poll, though, President Obama gained six points on his approval rating, going from 41-45 to 47-49, and while Mitt Romney still performs best in head-to-head polling with the President, Obama is now beating all Republican challengers by margins of 5-16 points. The President has seen steady progress in the polls since rolling out his American Jobs Act in September, taking it on the road, and taking the fight to the Republicans who oppose it.

Elsewhere in the poll, Democrats opened up a lead on the generic House ballot, beating Republicans 42-36, after tying them at 39 in October.

Superficially, at least, it seems that the President’s message on jobs is hitting the mark, aided in part by the ubiquity of the Occupy Wall Street protests, which have placed issues of income inequality into the pop-cultural bloodstream.

These shifts in the polls, while encouraging for President Obama and the Democrats, aren’t anything to start a victory dance about. Some of it is likely a by-product of the fact that the Republican primary race has been dominating political news, showcasing the naturally more extreme elements of primary politics, while President Obama has been out campaigning for his American Jobs Act. The challenge will be to sustain these gains when the Republican nominee is named, and switches to more moderate positions.

Still, the combination of a weak Republican field, and an economy that showed some signs of life in the third quarter, could be a recipe for the President’s reelection, one that didn’t seem all that likely a few months ago.

You can read the full poll results here.

mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-good-news-for-herman-cain-better-news-for-president-obama/

Somebody in the comments section said:

It might also be worth pointing out that the respondents of this poll broken down by political party were: Dems 35%, Repubs 22%, Indpendents 36% compared to the previous Quinnipiac poll where his approval rating was 6 pts lower of 31%, 28%, 33%, respectively.

Basically this poll was weighted more towards Dems and away from Republicans by about the margin that The One’s approval rating went up.

Is this true? Is the poll biased or rigged?

How reliable in general are these presidential candidate vs Republican candidate polls? Because one poll has Obama up some points against the Republican candidate, another poll has the Republican candidate up points against Obama.
 
_Abyssinia said:
h
You can read the full poll results here.

mediaite.com/online/new-poll-shows-good-news-for-herman-cain-better-news-for-president-obama/

Somebody in the comments section said:

It might also be worth pointing out that the respondents of this poll broken down by political party were: Dems 35%, Repubs 22%, Indpendents 36% compared to the previous Quinnipiac poll where his approval rating was 6 pts lower of 31%, 28%, 33%, respectively.

Basically this poll was weighted more towards Dems and away from Republicans by about the margin that The One’s approval rating went up.

Is this true? Is the poll biased or rigged?

How reliable in general are these presidential candidate vs Republican candidate polls? Because one poll has Obama up some points against the Republican candidate, another poll has the Republican candidate up points against Obama.
Click to expand...
It is worth noting, that in general, the American public defines themselves on average as 20% liberal, 35% conservative, 40% independent. I’ll leave 5% unaccounted for slight fluctuations.

So, the Quinnipiac poll certainly doesn’t reflect the American public. And it certainly doesn’t reflect voters that will vote in the Republican primary. Imagine if Republicans were given the opportunity to answer a poll between Obama and Hillary as the 2012 nominee… their answers would be very skewed to Hillary.

So, it’s possible that Dems are intentionally choosing Cain bc they think he’s a laughing stock. Other indicators suggest that Democrats want Mitt Romney to run, because he can’t bring Obama to task on his signature piece of legislation: Obamacare.

Can anyone who voted for Mitt Romney please explain why they support him?

my concern is that Republicans shouldn’t settle on a guy bc he’s the most plausible. We need a President we can trust, and who has solid principles, and will get conservatives fired up. Is anyone fired up about Romney, or are you just picking him bc you feel he’s got the best chance?
 
Semper_Zelare said:
It is worth noting, that in general, the American public defines themselves on average as 20% liberal, 35% conservative, 40% independent. I’ll leave 5% unaccounted for slight fluctuations.

So, the Quinnipiac poll certainly doesn’t reflect the American public. And it certainly doesn’t reflect voters that will vote in the Republican primary. Imagine if Republicans were given the opportunity to answer a poll between Obama and Hillary as the 2012 nominee… their answers would be very skewed to Hillary.

So, it’s possible that Dems are intentionally choosing Cain bc they think he’s a laughing stock. Other indicators suggest that Democrats want Mitt Romney to run, because he can’t bring Obama to task on his signature piece of legislation: Obamacare.

Can anyone who voted for Mitt Romney please explain why they support him?

my concern is that Republicans shouldn’t settle on a guy bc he’s the most plausible. We need a President we can trust, and who has solid principles, and will get conservatives fired up. Is anyone fired up about Romney, or are you just picking him bc you feel he’s got the best chance?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info; I am excited for anybody who has the chance to beat Obama.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
.
]Can anyone who voted for Mitt Romney please explain why they support him.?
Click to expand...
First, re-read what the USCCB had to say about our votes being based on our individual well-formed understanding of the issues, not being one issue voters, and voting for the candidate that we agree with as best putting into action a balanced program of Catholic principles.:coffeeread:

Obviously, you have qualms about Romney. Understandable. I have major qualms about the other seven candidates. I have fewer qualms about Romney then other candidates. YMMV.🤷
 
The last thing I want is a candidate who can “get conservatives fired up.” People, when “fired up” about politics, generally have a history of doing irrational and often very immoral things. If anything, Romney’s relative calmness is an appealing factor to me.
 
Raskolnikov said:
The last thing I want is a candidate who can “get conservatives fired up.” People, when “fired up” about politics, generally have a history of doing irrational and often very immoral things. If anything, Romney’s relative calmness is an appealing factor to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. Look at what happened in 2008. 🤷
 
Raskolnikov said:
The last thing I want is a candidate who can “get conservatives fired up.” People, when “fired up” about politics, generally have a history of doing irrational and often very immoral things. If anything, Romney’s relative calmness is an appealing factor to me.
Click to expand...
Really? I recall people being “fired up” at the failures of the Carter presidency and that gave us Reagan. People have a justification for being fired up about things as there is a lot going wrong in our country.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Really? I recall people being “fired up” at the failures of the Carter presidency and that gave us Reagan. People have a justification for being fired up about things as there is a lot going wrong in our country.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Gee, think what might have been if we had gotten ourselves off oil exclusively 30 years ago. Think of what life might have been like if we were not beholden to the oil companies so heavily.
How did that trickle down ecomnic plan work out. There aren’t too many drips coming down the pike.
Imagine.
 
Pirate_Talker said:
Gee, think what might have been if we had gotten ourselves off oil exclusively 30 years ago. Think of what life might have been like if we were not beholden to the oil companies so heavily.
How did that trickle down ecomnic plan work out. There aren’t too many drips coming down the pike.
Imagine.
Click to expand...
I believe I read it took Denmark 25 years, with things like 100 percent tax on automobiles to become energy independent. Somewhere around the mid 70’s if I remember right there was an oil crunch that left them in a bind. They now produce more energy than they consume, but their population is the about the same as Oklahoma City.
 
Pirate_Talker said:
Gee, think what might have been if we had gotten ourselves off oil exclusively 30 years ago. Think of what life might have been like if we were not beholden to the oil companies so heavily.
How did that trickle down ecomnic plan work out. There aren’t too many drips coming down the pike.
Imagine.
Click to expand...
Yes, Carter’s 55 mph national speed limit and personal crusade to set thermostats low would have given us energy independence if we’d just continued his policies! Reagan presided over robust economic growth - unlike his predecessor Carter. Reagan also presided over the victory in the Cold War, and the restoring of America’s confidence. Not bad for a president.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Really? I recall people being “fired up” at the failures of the Carter presidency and that gave us Reagan. People have a justification for being fired up about things as there is a lot going wrong in our country.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t around then. I don’t know why some people keep trying to blame me for Jimmy Carter. And I don’t like the idea of candidates getting elected on emotional appeal. It is typical, of course, for people to react against the previous administration, of course. Do recall how ‘fired up’ people were at tha failures of the BUsh administration, all that was going wrong in the country back then? So you see, reacting with one’s impulses does not necessarily yield a good result. I don’t want in the least a candidate who can get me excited or incite me to worship him. I’d like one who can reasonably persuade me that he is right, and that he is not going to a slave of the present situation when making decisions. I’m a fan stoicism in politicians, I suppose one could say.

Americans of course will not stand a long speech by a candidate. Only sound bites. And most would certainly never read position paper by candidates even if they bothered to write them. So sadly, I don’t think the media as it publicizes elections today really allows us to get to truly know candidates before the election anyway. Their public personas are largely invented and molded anyway by the scores of consultants hired to maximize their appeal to the public.
 
Raskolnikov said:
I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t around then. I don’t know why some people keep trying to blame me for Jimmy Carter. And I don’t like the idea of candidates getting elected on emotional appeal. It is typical, of course, for people to react against the previous administration, of course. Do recall how ‘fired up’ people were at tha failures of the BUsh administration, all that was going wrong in the country back then? So you see, reacting with one’s impulses does not necessarily yield a good result. I don’t want in the least a candidate who can get me excited or incite me to worship him. I’d like one who can reasonably persuade me that he is right, and that he is not going to a slave of the present situation when making decisions. I’m a fan stoicism in politicians, I suppose one could say.

Americans of course will not stand a long speech by a candidate. Only sound bites. And most would certainly never read position paper by candidates even if they bothered to write them. So sadly, I don’t think the media as it publicizes elections today really allows us to get to truly know candidates before the election anyway. Their public personas are largely invented and molded anyway by the scores of consultants hired to maximize their appeal to the public.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with the above. I remember Reagan asking America, “are you better off than you were four years ago?” And most Americans answered no. I think people were able to look at the double digit inflations, unemployment and interest rates, the lack of respect America was getting around the world and say, “it’s time for a change.” Maybe people were a little worked up, but it was based on reality more than emotions. Now if you want to know about emotions, look at the opposition to Reagan on the part of the left and you will see emotion. He was the “cowboy” who would start WW3.

I think the series of debates (ala Lincoln/Douglas) Gingrich is challenging Obama to (if Newt wins the nomination) would be a big step away the soundbite political culture in which we live. Obama, of course would never agree to the debates, but if they occurred they would be substantive. If Obama declined the debates, Gingrich would follow him around on the stump, answering every speech he made. The resulting media coverage might put the pressure on Obama to do the debates after all. Not sure what Obama would do without his teleprompter though.

Ishii
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top