• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Republican Field becoming more volatile

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,684
Reaction score
39,939
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A doubling of undecideds' is very interesting; you would imagine the movement would be in the opposite direction. I read this as Republicans in general still refusing to take Romney - every voter that Perry lost seems to have gone to Cain. Now the question becomes, given the history between those two; is Cain trying to swing the race Romney's way in order to secure a VP slot?


Results from Gallup poll released today of Republicans and Republican leaning independents: Romney (20 percent), Herman Cain (18 percent), Rick Perry (15 percent), Ron Paul (8 percent), Newt Gingrich (7 percent), Michele Bachmann (5 percent), Rick Santorum (3 percent), and Jon Huntsman (2 percent). When Gallup polled in September, only 10 percent of Republicans were undecided; now that number has doubled to 20 percent. Perry’s support was halved, going from 31 percent to 15 percent. Cain gained 13 percentage points, while Romney went down by 4 percentage points...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't think Cain is doing some odd strategy like that, but the numbers are interesting. Romney seems to be stuck at about the same level of support and not rising, which is a problem for him. Romney needs primaries to start so people can wash out and see if he picks up support that way, but with the accelerated primary schedule next year, it will be very interesting.
 
We've already seen two candidates "wash out" - Pawlenty and Bachmann, and possibly a third in Perry. You could make a slightly less effective argument for the loss of the "hopefuls" in Daniels, Christie, and Palin. In no instance did Romney pick up a considerable amount of the support that was then freed up. He may simply max out and not be able to appeal to more than 28-ish percent of the Republican Party.

:D get ready

5r5v0k
 
Let us remember that all the various GOP primaries in January and February are proportional in their division of delegates. Well funded candidates like Romney have a big advantage in staying alive in that sort of situation as long as they hold their own and nobody emerges as the front runner.
 
That's true. Romney can survive being a second-status candidate for a long time. It's going to come down to him and a NotRomney (always was). The question is - is that NotRomney Cain, or Perry? too late now for anyone (I think) to surge up and take it; though a fantastic debate performance combined with a meltdown by one of those two might do the trick.
 
cpwill said:
A doubling of undecideds' is very interesting; you would imagine the movement would be in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
I've talked with a number of people who were vowing not to vote Obama no matter what months ago. Now they are saying that unless the GOP quits giving them unacceptable candidates they will be voting for Obama. Most feel they may as well vote for Obama if Romney is the candidate and are disappointed that no one who is both presidential material and fiscally-conservative has stepped up to challenge him.

I'm all for there being both a solid liberal and solid conservative candidate to choose between. Does the GOP have anyone in congress that might be available and interested? I might vote Republican if they had a fiscal conservative that was willing to raise taxes as well.
 
cpwill said:
A doubling of undecideds' is very interesting; you would imagine the movement would be in the opposite direction. I read this as Republicans in general still refusing to take Romney - every voter that Perry lost seems to have gone to Cain. Now the question becomes, given the history between those two; is Cain trying to swing the race Romney's way in order to secure a VP slot?
Click to expand...

Cain has no intention of trying for the VP slot.
 
cpwill said:
We've already seen two candidates "wash out" - Pawlenty and Bachmann, and possibly a third in Perry. You could make a slightly less effective argument for the loss of the "hopefuls" in Daniels, Christie, and Palin. In no instance did Romney pick up a considerable amount of the support that was then freed up. He may simply max out and not be able to appeal to more than 28-ish percent of the Republican Party.

:D get ready
Click to expand...

By wash out, I mean withdraw and back another candidate.
 
If the race is becoming more volatile, the prediction markets certainly disagree. On InTrade, Romney's chances of being the GOP nominee are up to 61.1%. That's the highest they've ever been, and they've almost doubled in the last couple weeks. Herman Cain, in contrast, has a mere 8.9% chance of being the nominee according to the bettors.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
If the race is becoming more volatile, the prediction markets certainly disagree. On InTrade, Romney's chances of being the GOP nominee are up to 61.1%. That's the highest they've ever been, and they've almost doubled in the last couple weeks. Herman Cain, in contrast, has a mere 8.9% chance of being the nominee according to the bettors.
Click to expand...

I'm trusting history over a number cruncher any day of the week.
 
Redress said:
By wash out, I mean withdraw and back another candidate.
Click to expand...

then you've only got the example of Tim Pawlenty - who had as near as I can tell zero effect when he endorsed Mitt Romney.
 
cpwill said:
A doubling of undecideds' is very interesting; you would imagine the movement would be in the opposite direction. I read this as Republicans in general still refusing to take Romney - every voter that Perry lost seems to have gone to Cain. Now the question becomes, given the history between those two; is Cain trying to swing the race Romney's way in order to secure a VP slot?
Click to expand...

The GOP primary is a train wreck. You've got one electable candidate and he's playing to the far-right base, desperately trying to erase his past.

There is tons of video on Romney supporting a woman's right to choose, his own health care plan, and a half-dozen other things that the teabrains won't let slide.

GOP turnout for 2012 < 15%...
 
that is my one fear - that a Romney candidacy would spark a third-party rebellion (which I would feel obliged to take part in). I'm hoping Perry starts manning up to the plate, and past that I will (reluctantly) support Cain, but of the top three contenders, currently, none of them are Mitch Daniels. :(
 
cpwill said:
that is my one fear - that a Romney candidacy would spark a third-party rebellion (which I would feel obliged to take part in). I'm hoping Perry starts manning up to the plate, and past that I will (reluctantly) support Cain, but of the top three contenders, currently, none of them are Mitch Daniels. :(
Click to expand...

I'm surprised at that. Republicans will not abandon their nominee. We want BO out. Whether any of these candidates can do that is questionable, but a third party candidate? No. Let Nader or whoever run to BO's left. The right is not going to split first chance they get to put BO out.
 
LuckyDan said:
I'm surprised at that. Republicans will not abandon their nominee. We want BO out. Whether any of these candidates can do that is questionable, but a third party candidate? No. Let Nader or whoever run to BO's left. The right is not going to split first chance they get to put BO out.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with this assessment. If there is a significant third-party challenger in this election, it's much more likely to come from the left flank than the right. I don't get the feeling that Romney is nearly as unpopular among the GOP rank-and-file as the media narrative indicates. Sure, no one is going to be excited about a Romney candidacy, but it will take a bit more than that for a third-party challenger to peel off a significant amount of the conservative vote.

Obama, on the other hand, truly does have some problems with his base. It remains to be seen whether that dissent will be permanent or just a snapshot of this moment in time. I doubt there will be a significant third-party challenge from the left either...unless Obama's approval ratings fall even farther. But that situation is nevertheless more likely than a Pat Buchanan / Ron Paul type candidate outflanking Romney from the right.
 
cpwill said:
that is my one fear - that a Romney candidacy would spark a third-party rebellion (which I would feel obliged to take part in). I'm hoping Perry starts manning up to the plate, and past that I will (reluctantly) support Cain, but of the top three contenders, currently, none of them are Mitch Daniels. :(
Click to expand...

A third party could go one of two ways. The easiest is to get an already existing party which already has a reserved spot on the ballot in the states to nominate you. Obviously the ready example would be the Libertarian Party would most likely nominate Ron Paul in a second if he gave them the word.

The second route is the one taken by Wallace in 68 and Perot in 92. You can start your own new party. If somebody wanted their own brand new party, that task is a formidable one s you have to get signatures in each state you want ballot access to. Depending on the state, that can be a Herculean task. I am guessing if one went the second route, you would have to know by the end of February and get moving or risk not getting on the ballot in many states.

The first option, to be the candidate of an already existing third party is the easiest option. But then you have the double edged sword as you are under a party designation which gets very little historic support.
 
LuckyDan said:
I'm surprised at that. Republicans will not abandon their nominee. We want BO out. Whether any of these candidates can do that is questionable, but a third party candidate? No. Let Nader or whoever run to BO's left. The right is not going to split first chance they get to put BO out.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right, but I think you are underestimating the degree to which the Tea Party types Aren't Going To Take It Any More. Romney as a candidate could potentially wreck a similar level of damage on Republicans as Obama has on Democrats - they would feel obliged to defend him, and he would decouple the Republican Party from the Conservative movement in this country. Third Party candidates could become common.
 
cpwill said:
We've already seen two candidates "wash out" - Pawlenty and Bachmann, and possibly a third in Perry. You could make a slightly less effective argument for the loss of the "hopefuls" in Daniels, Christie, and Palin. In no instance did Romney pick up a considerable amount of the support that was then freed up. He may simply max out and not be able to appeal to more than 28-ish percent of the Republican Party.

:D get ready

5r5v0k
Click to expand...


Decions havent been made yet and set in stone....the tone can still change...Cains 999 is beginning to get hammered by both libs and conservatives and its a ryan like scam to give to the rich and take from everyone else....that isnt going to go unnoticed or help him in the end..
 
cpwill said:
I hope you are right, but I think you are underestimating the degree to which the Tea Party types Aren't Going To Take It Any More. Romney as a candidate could potentially wreck a similar level of damage on Republicans as Obama has on Democrats - they would feel obliged to defend him, and he would decouple the Republican Party from the Conservative movement in this country. Third Party candidates could become common.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. If Romney is the nominee, I think the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives will get over it and support him, just as they did with McCain and Bush. People can't expect a larger-than-life candidate every single election cycle. A Barack Obama or a Ronald Reagan (or even a Hillary Clinton) doesn't come around that often. People who wait for the perfect candidate are always going to be sorely disappointed. The GOP has ten candidates with at least some degree of diversity of views, all of which are right-of-center. If the party cannot find an acceptable candidate among them, perhaps it suggests more about how unreasonable the voters are being in their expectations, rather than how bad the candidates are.

PREDICTION: Romney is the Republican nominee, and he wins at least 90% of the Republican vote in the general election.
 
Kandahar said:
Unlikely. If Romney is the nominee, I think the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives will get over it and support him, just as they did with McCain and Bush. People can't expect a larger-than-life candidate every single election cycle. A Barack Obama or a Ronald Reagan (or even a Hillary Clinton) doesn't come around that often. People who wait for the perfect candidate are always going to be sorely disappointed. The GOP has ten candidates with at least some degree of diversity of views, all of which are right-of-center. If the party cannot find an acceptable candidate among them, perhaps it suggests more about how unreasonable the voters are being in their expectations, rather than how bad the candidates are.

PREDICTION: Romney is the Republican nominee, and he wins at least 90% of the Republican vote in the general election.
Click to expand...

Cpwill has something of a point in that I could see Romney getting the nomination, and having a hard time getting republicans out to vote. Yes, most republicans are going to vote for him, but he needs republicans to get motivated behind him, and that is going to be harder.
 
Redress said:
Cpwill has something of a point in that I could see Romney getting the nomination, and having a hard time getting republicans out to vote. Yes, most republicans are going to vote for him, but he needs republicans to get motivated behind him, and that is going to be harder.
Click to expand...

I think in ANY election with an incumbent president, the challenger has very little to do with how motivated the party faithful are. If Obama's approval ratings are the same or lower at this time next year, the Republicans are going to be motivated to vote regardless of who the nominee is. If his approval rating rebounds a bit (even just a few points), then I would agree that Republican turnout will probably be lower than it would otherwise have been.
 
Redress said:
Cpwill has something of a point in that I could see Romney getting the nomination, and having a hard time getting republicans out to vote. Yes, most republicans are going to vote for him, but he needs republicans to get motivated behind him, and that is going to be harder.
Click to expand...

Democrats aren't exactly all enthused over Obama this time either. Yes, Romney is not a candidate that will bring out large numbers, but right now, neither is Obama. If Romney wins the nomination, he isn't the kind of guy that will cause Democrats to rally behind Obama.
 
Kandahar said:
Well in that case, history and the number crunchers would point to the same conclusion: Romney will be the nominee.
Click to expand...

History points to Cain, as I've said 100 times. The candidate that has won the Florida straw poll has been the nominee since 1979. Nice try. NEXT?!?
 
DashingAmerican said:
History points to Cain, as I've said 100 times.
Click to expand...

Romney has far more historical precedent behind him than Cain does. The GOP nominates whoever's turn it is. That's a far more important precedent than some bit of trivia about a straw poll, as it cuts right to the temperament of the Republican Party itself.

The candidate that has won the Florida straw poll has been the nominee since 1979. Nice try. NEXT?!?
Click to expand...

Since Florida wasn't even an early-voting state until 2008, this doesn't mean much. That kind of stuff is one step above picking the next president based on who wins some football game, just because it has traditionally happened. Precedents like that are broken every election cycle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom