Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
There is not “war”. It is an in-family fight and when they are done beating eachother up, the rest will fall in line to support the winner. Its how the process works. Unlike the Democratic Party, where the media picks the winner and then crowns him/her with a halo, the GOP contender actually has to get bruised and dirty.
Click to expand...
Really? Is that what happened when John McCain was nominated? If it had, he wouldn’t have felt it necessary to choose someone like Sarah Palin as his running mate. He would have chosen Mitt or Rudy.
 
I think Sarah Palin can win in 2012. She almost beat Obama in 2008 dragging McCann kicking and screaming. In the end it doesn’t matter, anyone can beat Obama. Obama has nothing to run on. We just started war number four,and 48% of Americans think a Great Depression is coming within a year. Anybody but Obama 2012
 
ishii said:
There’s a split within the Republican party? I see a group of candidates vying for the nomination. They have some stylistic differences, and some might stress one issue more than another, one might be more or less conservative then the other, but on the whole, I believe they agree on the basics. Perhaps some of the more obscure candidates have bigger differences but I think they’re pretty much inconsequential anyway.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe there is a split within the Republican Party and I think this is the major reason the Republicans lost to Obama in the last election. I think it is fairly clear when you look at the spectrum of candidates running and notice how they split Republican votes. It isn’t a formula for victory in the next election. The split is between those who want to govern and know they must track to the center of the political divide to capture the solid middle and those who wish to make ideological points and so refuse to compromise even if it means losing the next election. They maintain their positions on the far right of the party and throw stones at those who attempt to move toward the middle. The Democrats had this problem in the past but Bill Clinton brought the left wing of his party under control and was able to move closer to the middle, thus capturing many votes from the Republicans. Obama was able to do the same. Contrary to what many folks on the right believe, Obama is not a socialist. He may be liberal in his outlook, but he knows that winning the next election means reigning in his liberal impulses and forming a steady position closer to the middle of the political spectrum. Republicans have been unable to do this so far and have not yet found a candidate who can bridge the divide to help them win the election and keep those voters who are on the far right. Without moving toward the middle (and thus isolating the right wing of the party), no Republican can win the election at this point. The question is can a Republican win the nomination by isolating the right wing of the party.
 
nathan_oc said:
I think Sarah Palin can win in 2012. She almost beat Obama in 2008 dragging McCann kicking and screaming. In the end it doesn’t matter, anyone can beat Obama. Obama has nothing to run on. We just started war number four,and 48% of Americans think a Great Depression is coming within a year. Anybody but Obama 2012
Click to expand...
I think McCain would have won the last election if he had chosen almost any other running mate besides Sarah Palin. Palin cost McCain the election in my opinion. I’m sure he wishes he had chosen Jindal or Huckabee or Romney. He would be the President now.
 
Tsuwano said:
I think McCain would have won the last election if he had chosen almost any other running mate besides Sarah Palin. Palin cost McCain the election in my opinion. I’m sure he wishes he had chosen Jindal or Huckabee or Romney. He would be the President now.
Click to expand...
There wasn’t a GOP person alive in 2008 that could have beaten Obama. George Soros and the obedient media made sure of it.
 
Tsuwano said:
Yes, I believe there is a split within the Republican Party and I think this is the major reason the Republicans lost to Obama in the last election. I think it is fairly clear when you look at the spectrum of candidates running and notice how they split Republican votes. It isn’t a formula for victory in the next election. The split is between those who want to govern and know they must track to the center of the political divide to capture the solid middle and those who wish to make ideological points and so refuse to compromise even if it means losing the next election. They maintain their positions on the far right of the party and throw stones at those who attempt to move toward the middle. The Democrats had this problem in the past but Bill Clinton brought the left wing of his party under control and was able to move closer to the middle, thus capturing many votes from the Republicans. Obama was able to do the same. Contrary to what many folks on the right believe, Obama is not a socialist. He may be liberal in his outlook, but he knows that winning the next election means reigning in his liberal impulses and forming a steady position closer to the middle of the political spectrum. Republicans have been unable to do this so far and have not yet found a candidate who can bridge the divide to help them win the election and keep those voters who are on the far right. Without moving toward the middle (and thus isolating the right wing of the party), no Republican can win the election at this point. The question is can a Republican win the nomination by isolating the right wing of the party.
Click to expand...
The only problem with walking down the middle of the road is that you tend to get run over. That is Obama’s problem now. He sold himself in 2008 as a middle of the road, fresh new face, no more red and blue, a man who will bring people together…and turned out to be the MOST divisive president in US history. Well, we have all seen that the Emperor is really naked, so he can’t sell us on third grade pet slogans anymore. NOW he has a track record. NOW he has been in the spotlight for 2.5 years. HE isn’t the American Idol contestant anymore. The independents who voted for him in droves aren’t liking what they have been seeing. I am not sure they will like what they see on the other side. But the middle voters who are not sold their soul to their party will be paying very close attention to who is saying what and solving problems. This won’t be a campaign of soaring rhetoric and people fainting in the crowds. When Obama lies through his teeth, there will be public records available on demand from Al Gore’s Magical Interwebs for instant access. Nobody will care where he comes from this go around. They will be looking at what he has achieved. They will look at what he promised and what he went back on. Obama is not the shining Greek god standing on Mount Olympus this time.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The only problem with walking down the middle of the road is that you tend to get run over. That is Obama’s problem now. He sold himself in 2008 as a middle of the road, fresh new face, no more red and blue, a man who will bring people together…and turned out to be the MOST divisive president in US history. Well, we have all seen that the Emperor is really naked, so he can’t sell us on third grade pet slogans anymore. NOW he has a track record. NOW he has been in the spotlight for 2.5 years. HE isn’t the American Idol contestant anymore. The independents who voted for him in droves aren’t liking what they have been seeing. I am not sure they will like what they see on the other side. But the middle voters who are not sold their soul to their party will be paying very close attention to who is saying what and solving problems. This won’t be a campaign of soaring rhetoric and people fainting in the crowds. When Obama lies through his teeth, there will be public records available on demand from Al Gore’s Magical Interwebs for instant access. Nobody will care where he comes from this go around. They will be looking at what he has achieved. They will look at what he promised and what he went back on. Obama is not the shining Greek god standing on Mount Olympus this time.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but it isn’t clear that the next election is going to be about President Obama and his policies. That depends on whom the Republican candidate is. If the candidate is someone like Ms. Palin, then that is where the focus will be, not on Mr. Obama. If the Republican candidate is able to win support from the right wing of the party without alienating the left wing of the party, then the election may be about the President’s policies, but that is not at all sure at the moment. One thing for sure is that the Republicans will not win the election by attacking the President. They will have to focus on his policies and stop refering to him with such over the top descriptions like “the most divisive president in U.S. history.” I would have thought President Lincoln had won that dubious distinction, but with all such political rhetoric, emotion tends to trump common sense. To win the next election Republicans will have to nominate a candidate who unites the two halves of the party and focus on policy, not personality. Calling President Obama a socialist will not win the election. Not only is it a lie that most voters can see through, but it is a lie that most voters will resent.
 
Independant voters voted for Nixon in 72, Carter in 76, Reagan in 80, Bush Sr. in 88, Clinton in 92, Bush Jr. in 2000 and 2004, and Obama in 2008. While one has to get their votes, one also wonders about them…?
Unseating Obama in 2012 is pointless if one elects another who carries on his policies. Something the tea party is finding out is that political purity is not enough; one must also have a clue as to how things work; and so few turn out to be pure.
I would like to suggest that it is incumbent on those who care about this country to get involved (see my last post this thread). We need to elect someone who will turn this country as it needs to go, not just “anyone but Obama”.
Qualifications: One must have a track record, the longer the better. Not just a good speach last night; someone who has walked the walk, and walked it for a long time. One must know how things work, how to get things done; how to turn this country as it should go. THAT MEANS A WASHINGTON INSIDER! Not, repeat NOT, someone from outside who has some ideas of how things should be; but someone who knows how to “make it so”. Elect another new face, i.e. amateur hour, and the system will run over them.
An effective president must address our real problems, not imagined ones. Must CUT SPENDING, shrink the government, re-establish strict constitutional policy, address the Federal Reserve, FDA, EPA, ESA etc., etc.; and of course, peak oil. Their is no wise old bunny come down from the mountain to make it all right, no fairy God Mother; no magic wand (catch word), no painless solution; we must address the real causes of our problems. Otherwise, changing the face that the talking heads discuss is pointless.
If you think such a person is not electable; then you better get to work making them electable!
 
Tsuwano said:
Really? Is that what happened when John McCain was nominated? If it had, he wouldn’t have felt it necessary to choose someone like Sarah Palin as his running mate. He would have chosen Mitt or Rudy.
Click to expand...
I think you need to look at the 2008 election more deeply. Obviously McCain knew that with Obama as the Democrat nominee, there would be a lot of enthusiasm for his candidacy based on “making history” and taking a big step toward putting our racist past behind us. I think McCain felt the need to roll the dice, and try something to counter that - by picking a woman as a running mate. He knew he couldn’t play it safe in the political environment at the time. Think of how much the deck was stacked against any Republican (not just McCain) : the economy was tanking, there was the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush had been president for eight years. I think many thought it was time for a change. I don’t know that merely choosing a different running mate would have made much difference in 2008.

Ishii
 
Tsuwano said:
Yes, I believe there is a split within the Republican Party and I think this is the major reason the Republicans lost to Obama in the last election. I think it is fairly clear when you look at the spectrum of candidates running and notice how they split Republican votes. It isn’t a formula for victory in the next election. The split is between those who want to govern and know they must track to the center of the political divide to capture the solid middle and those who wish to make ideological points and so refuse to compromise even if it means losing the next election. They maintain their positions on the far right of the party and throw stones at those who attempt to move toward the middle. The Democrats had this problem in the past but Bill Clinton brought the left wing of his party under control and was able to move closer to the middle, thus capturing many votes from the Republicans. Obama was able to do the same. Contrary to what many folks on the right believe, Obama is not a socialist. He may be liberal in his outlook, but he knows that winning the next election means reigning in his liberal impulses and forming a steady position closer to the middle of the political spectrum. Republicans have been unable to do this so far and have not yet found a candidate who can bridge the divide to help them win the election and keep those voters who are on the far right. Without moving toward the middle (and thus isolating the right wing of the party), no Republican can win the election at this point. The question is can a Republican win the nomination by isolating the right wing of the party.
Click to expand...
Historically the primaries include many more conservative candidates and then the GOP settles on someone who is palatable to the electorate. There has been a division in the GOP historically between the eastern establishment wing - the “Rockefeller wing” and the conservative wing represented by Goldwater and later Reagan. The Rockefeller wing is pretty much extinct except for a few blue blood senators in Maine and elsewhere. Reagan’s success went a long way toward pushing the GOP as a whole toward conservatism.

I don’t think 2008 was a typical election. Rather it was a historic moment for those who for a long time wanted to see a black man elected president. One gets a sense of the tide of history going on in the 2008 election. Of course the media played up the whole historic nature of the race - and Obama tried to portray himself as beyond partisan and beyond left/right which was total nonsense because he had one of the most liberal/left voting records in the Senate. But the media played up the myth of Obama the post-partisan politician. Once elected, Obama showed his true colors - ramming Obamacare down our throats and spending our country into oblivion. He showed that he is an eltist, tax and spend liberal. He will now have to defend his liberal record - he won’t be able to get away with portraying himself as a moderate. If the economy remains dismal, then all the Republicans have to do is nominate a Romney or a Pawlenty (maybe Huntsman) and they will have pretty good chance of defeating Obama.

As for the current crop of candidates - every election year there is a host of candidates who have no chance of winning the nomination and are on the right - Bob Dornan ran in 1996. I think Alan Keyes ran a few years ago and there have been many others. They get to join some of the debates and probably get more lucrative speaking fees on the lecture circuit after the election - they’re “former presidential candidate so and so” . But they aren’t indicative of any “split” in the Republican party. The GOP will most likely nominate an electable conservative candidate.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Historically the primaries include many more conservative candidates and then the GOP settles on someone who is palatable to the electorate. There has been a division in the GOP historically between the eastern establishment wing - the “Rockefeller wing” and the conservative wing represented by Goldwater and later Reagan. The Rockefeller wing is pretty much extinct except for a few blue blood senators in Maine and elsewhere. Reagan’s success went a long way toward pushing the GOP as a whole toward conservatism.

I don’t think 2008 was a typical election. Rather it was a historic moment for those who for a long time wanted to see a black man elected president. One gets a sense of the tide of history going on in the 2008 election. Of course the media played up the whole historic nature of the race - and Obama tried to portray himself as beyond partisan and beyond left/right which was total nonsense because he had one of the most liberal/left voting records in the Senate. But the media played up the myth of Obama the post-partisan politician. Once elected, Obama showed his true colors - ramming Obamacare down our throats and spending our country into oblivion. He showed that he is an eltist, tax and spend liberal. He will now have to defend his liberal record - he won’t be able to get away with portraying himself as a moderate. If the economy remains dismal, then all the Republicans have to do is nominate a Romney or a Pawlenty (maybe Huntsman) and they will have pretty good chance of defeating Obama.

As for the current crop of candidates - every election year there is a host of candidates who have no chance of winning the nomination and are on the right - Bob Dornan ran in 1996. I think Alan Keyes ran a few years ago and there have been many others. They get to join some of the debates and probably get more lucrative speaking fees on the lecture circuit after the election - they’re “former presidential candidate so and so” . But they aren’t indicative of any “split” in the Republican party. The GOP will most likely nominate an electable conservative candidate.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I agree with some of what you’ve said, but I’m not so sure about some other things. I understand the historical split within the Republican Party as represented by the Rockefeller wing and the wing as represented by Goldwater, but it is a sign of the times that the split widened so far over the years to the point that before he died Goldwater, once considered extreme right, criticized the ideologs of the party as represented by the Moral Majority and the evangelicals as being intolerant and not representative of the majority of the party. The Party had moved so far to the right that Goldwater was considered as middle of the road. That is a significant split. I think the split is even greater now. I think that even Ronald Reagan, in this day and age, would have trouble uniting the party behind him. John McCain was not so different from Ronald Reagan and yet he was constantly ridiculed by the Republican right wing. I don’t think it is fair to blame the media on the defeat of the Republicans in the last election. Sure, Obama represented a novelty as an electable Black man, but that is not the sole reason people voted for him. The voters deserve more credit than that. One reason Obama won the election is because the Republicans lost it. They wouldn’t unite behind McCain when he stood in the middle. When he selected Palin as a bone for the right wing, he lost the middle and the crossover vote who owe no allegiance to a party. It may be going too far to say that the Republicans defeated McCain more than Obama did, but crucial support from Republicans was certainly lacking and this hurt McCain. I think the same thing is about to happen in the next election. I’m not basing my opinion that there is a split within the Republican Party on the present list of candidates hoping to win the nomination, but on what I saw happen during the last election. I may be proved wrong, and I will gladly admit my error if so, but right now, the Republicans strike me as a party very much unsure of itself.
 
Probably either Ron Paul or Sarah Palin. I know I won’t vote for Obama. I don’t think any Catholic should vote for Obama. After all, he does support the murder of unborn children.
 
As far a novelty Black issue? I don’t see it. Its high time for the US to get off that kick. Put the best candidate in period. With a woman in Clinton running and also receiving much of a following. In this sense I do see a change of the times.

Regardless of how one feels about Obama as a President or someone capible of making a split-second choice. He a very good Orator. The best I’ve seen come along in a very long time. To beat him you will have to overcome that disadvantage.

I like Cain and Paul. But as time moves on more will unfold.

The issues are all the same. The cuts for the next decade are clealy all Military. Which is correct. We have inceased spending yearly and built a very effective war machine. We can trim the fat.

Its time to get out of the middle east. Of course the Holy Land remains an issue. That is the concern with Iraq ultimatly being ovecome by Iran and radical rule.

Nonetheless while we are most capible of being and continuing to be the World Police. Its time to get back to “life” here. Back to basics and the moral aspect within our own country. Which have become a bit out of control.

How much do you believe “religion” plays into this? Today I don’t believe we can afford any more mistakes in this area of Morals.

God Bless, Gary
 
Palin is starting to get a little too narcissistic for my liking with a movie coming out about her. The reason why I say that is because I consider Obama to be VERY narcissistic with him publishing 2 biographies of himself when he hasn’t accomplished ANYTHING at all prior to 4 years ago. Perhaps I will be wrong about Palin.

We need to defeat Obama and the best candidate I think in my humble opinion is Rick Perry. The 2012 election will be about the economy as EVERY election is. Its what got Clinton in 1992 (Economy sucked) and its why ultimately that McCain lost.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Palin is starting to get a little too narcissistic for my liking with a movie coming out about her. The reason why I say that is because I consider Obama to be VERY narcissistic with him publishing 2 biographies of himself when he hasn’t accomplished ANYTHING at all prior to 4 years ago. Perhaps I will be wrong about Palin.
Click to expand...
Well, I’d say you were wrong about the president. He has been an accomplished individual for at least the last 20 years. Further, he was asked **to write an autobiography by an editor who thought it would sell. I bought his first book in 1998 or so. The followup was certainly to cash in on his celebrity.
JMJSHJ said:
We need to defeat Obama and the best candidate I think in my humble opinion is Rick Perry.
Click to expand...
I think we need to keep the president.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top