• 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.

Election 2012: Obama 50%, Gingrich 38%

StillBallin75 said:
I'd rather watch some of the folks on this forum. There's plenty of posters here who would destroy both of them in debate.
Click to expand...

Really? I've debated live, and it ain't easy, trust me. No matter how prepared you might think you are, there's always a fear of not recalling what you know or need to know in time, or with perfect flow. Public speaking, and debate is perhaps one of the hardest things to do with any great deal of success. Debating on a public internet forum is NOTHING like a real debate. You don't have Google at your finger tips in a live forum, SB. No comparison..


Tim-
 
Cain would be a dream come true for Obama if he would win the primary...he will not...

This is merely my humble opinion...I think newt would be the best debater out of a Obama, Romney, Newt threeway or twoway.
Everyone focus's on all of Newt Gingrichs negatives and he has enough of them...but hes an extremely intelligent and fully educated politician that knows the ropes around washington better than anyone else in the field...including Ron Paul...
 
danarhea said:
That gap is not going to close. Romney will be the nominee.
Click to expand...

I would agree unless the GOP is even crazier than we can possible detect now.

The real question then becomes will the crazies unite around Romney or will they attempt a third party rebellion?
 
My prediction is whoever the nominee is, the debate between democrat and republican in 2012 will focus on the economy. The Republicans will say that Obama has failed to fix the problem. The Democrats will say that the Republicans created the problem initially and blocked all attempts to fix it, holding America hostage perhaps as the buzz phrase. If I were a Republican candidate, right now I'd say whatever I had to say to win the nomination. Once nominated, I'd talk about what my plain is to fix congress, about how we need to work together and compromise for solutions.
 
coolwalker said:
Take away Obama's teleprompter and you have a stumble-bum.
Click to expand...

Nothing but a Fox talking point. I've seen him stumble in speech but saying every time he doesn't have a telepromter he will fail, is so mistaken. I almost hope Newt gets it now so people will see how big of a fail Newt is.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
However, he is clearly more able than the community organizer -n- chief..
Click to expand...

Another irrelevant right-wing talking point.
 
Hicup said:
Of course she was.. Of course.. Dude, anyone that's been married and divorced knows that all isn't as rosey as some make it out to be. The point is that I don't know who she is, and or what led to their divorce,
Click to expand...

He preferred ****ing his mistress. Then later on, after he married this mistress, he preferred ****ing his next mistress and left her. See the pattern?
 
vvx said:
My prediction is whoever the nominee is, the debate between democrat and republican in 2012 will focus on the economy. The Republicans will say that Obama has failed to fix the problem. The Democrats will say that the Republicans created the problem initially and blocked all attempts to fix it, holding America hostage perhaps as the buzz phrase. If I were a Republican candidate, right now I'd say whatever I had to say to win the nomination. Once nominated, I'd talk about what my plain is to fix congress, about how we need to work together and compromise for solutions.
Click to expand...

wow, we have a real sage amongst us....
 
MaggieD said:
I doubt Obama would debate one-on-one with Gingrich. At least not if he could possibly avoid it...
Click to expand...
I doubt Newt will even get close to the chance... However Newt is such a BSer he would lose.
 
Hicup said:
In all the years I have been watching Newt I've never really seen him stumble.
Click to expand...

Really? So you missed earlier this year Newt's stating that Paul Ryan's plan is "right-wing social engineering?" A gaffe that he had to back-peddled his arse off so much so that he actually said something as incredibly asinine as this:

“Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood,”

:lamo

Or now how he says he didn't lobby for fannie and freddie... but he did and now he's lying by saying it wasn't lobbying but being a "historian." Too funny


Then there is this list of gaffes as well.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I would agree unless the GOP is even crazier than we can possible detect now.

The real question then becomes will the crazies unite around Romney or will they attempt a third party rebellion?
Click to expand...

They'll unite around Romney. Third party rebellions only happen when both of the major candidates are unacceptable to a large part of the electorate...for example, disaffected Republican voters in 1992 and 1996 wanted to vote no-confidence on their party's standard-bearers, but they sure as hell weren't going to vote for Bill Clinton. The only way I could see a third party rebellion happening in 2012 is if the GOP goes nuts and nominates an extremist (e.g. Bachmann, Santorum, Paul), which seems highly unlikely...or if Obama's base of Democratic support totally collapses, which also seems unlikely.

Romney and Obama are both fairly mainstream standard-bearers of their respective parties so I don't anticipate a third party candidate gaining much traction. There are a lot more mainstream voters than crazies.
 
I would love to see a good family man run against a three-timing hypocrite who has the morals of a reptile. If the GOP is foolish enough to nominate Newt they will only further expose who shallow their claim of "family values" is. I'm loving it!!!
 
vvx said:
the debate between democrat and republican in 2012 will focus on the economy.
Click to expand...

Nostradomus you are!

Just pulling your leg :2razz:

Absolutely correct but I think that debate will actually only really happen in the final few weeks, yes all we'll hear about is "Economy, Economy, Economy" but you can only talk about that for so long until you get the other unnessecary distractions. I'm sure we'll get more about Reverend Wright, Islamic schools and various other hogwash, and I'm sure the Republican candidate will have his own whacky stories that will come out. I think many on this forum underestimate just how much the Media shapes the elections and how their job is to gain ratings, the more outrageous the story about a candidate the higher the viewership, and in the end, economy, economy, economy only gets you so far in an election cycle that's sometimes 20 months+ in length.

People ARE going to vote with their wallets I don't think anyone can doubt that, but as far as the Republican primaries go, the Republicans are just looking for someone they can digest, and they haven't found that person yet and honestly out of all those candidates besides Paul and Huntsman I don't see how you can. They're all as phony as it gets. I honestly feel sorry for Republicans, some of the most whacky, idiotic and downright stupid candidates ever seen for the partys nomination.
 
Kandahar said:
They'll unite around Romney. Third party rebellions only happen when both of the major candidates are unacceptable to a large part of the electorate.
Click to expand...
Mitt Romney is unacceptable to large parts of the electorate. Where do you think the expression, anyone but Mitt comes from?

Romney and Obama are both fairly mainstream standard-bearers of their respective parties so I don't anticipate a third party candidate gaining much traction. There are a lot more mainstream voters than crazies.
Click to expand...
If Romney were mainstream, then he would have got more than 25% of the votes right now.

Also, I'm to the left of the positions Romney pretends to have. There is no way I would support Romney. Am I part of the crazies?
 
Camlon said:
Mitt Romney is unacceptable to large parts of the electorate. Where do you think the expression, anyone but Mitt comes from?
Click to expand...

From a media that loves to push a conflict-driven narration of politics, and from a few right-wing ideologues who don't even represent a substantial proportion of the GOP, much less the broader electorate.

If Romney were mainstream, then he would have got more than 25% of the votes right now.
Click to expand...

There are eight candidates. I'd say 25% is pretty good, especially since lots of voters haven't even made up their minds yet. And you overlook the fact that none of the OTHER candidates consistently poll over 25% either.

Also, I'm to the left of the positions Romney pretends to have. There is no way I would support Romney. Am I part of the crazies?
Click to expand...

If you are to the left of Romney then consider voting for Obama. Between the two of them, they pretty accurately reflect the viewpoints of the vast majority of voters on most issues.
 
coolwalker said:
If I were Obama and had to face Newt in a battle of wits, I would call in sick. Newt can wipe the floor with just about anyone alive when it comes to political and historical knowledge. Plus he has no need of a teleprompter.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, Obama had no problem taking on McCain sans teleprompters.

coolwalker said:
My money would be on Newt in any debate.
Click to expand...
Not once they start talking about family values. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Camlon said:
Mitt Romney is unacceptable to large parts of the electorate. Where do you think the expression, anyone but Mitt comes from?
Click to expand...
That's too bad for the GOP because Mitt's going to win the Republican nomination. He's got my vote in the primary.
 
poweRob said:
Really? So you missed earlier this year Newt's stating that Paul Ryan's plan is "right-wing social engineering?" A gaffe that he had to back-peddled his arse off so much so that he actually said something as incredibly asinine as this:

“Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood,”

:lamo

Or now how he says he didn't lobby for fannie and freddie... but he did and now he's lying by saying it wasn't lobbying but being a "historian." Too funny


Then there is this list of gaffes as well.
Click to expand...

Well if we're comparing gaffes, your boy is certainly prone to them himself.. Not to mention the continuing saga that is the "Bush" military doctrine.. :) I'm sure you lib types just Love to turn a blinds eye to that one when mentioned in polite company.. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Well if we're comparing gaffes, your boy is certainly prone to them himself.. Not to mention the continuing saga that is the "Bush" military doctrine.. :) I'm sure you lib types just Love to turn a blinds eye to that one when mentioned in polite company.. :)
Click to expand...

Well...

1) He's not my boy. I didn't vote for him and, as it is, I won't voting for him in 2012 either
2) We are NOT comparing gaffes. We are responding to this quote of yours:

Hicup said:
In all the years I have been watching Newt I've never really seen him stumble.
Click to expand...

If you can't see ANY gaffes or stumbles committed by a serial ethics violator who wraps himself in the flag while carrying a cross all while ****ing his mistresses... you must walk through life with your eyes closed.
 
coolwalker said:
If I were Obama and had to face Newt in a battle of wits, I would call in sick. Newt can wipe the floor with just about anyone alive when it comes to political and historical knowledge. Plus he has no need of a teleprompter. My money would be on Newt in any debate.
Click to expand...

Newt likes to talk alot of smack, but if you really listen to him he really doesn't say much of substance. He, like Bachmann, revels in rhetoric. He makes great "surface" arguments, but when you peal back the layers of rhetorical :spin: and the truth begins to come out, he really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

This is why he wants to hold these 7-hour long, no timer, no interruption style debates - so he can talk...and talk...and talk...and talk...and talk...and talk...and talk... and hope no one is paying close enough attention to him to figure out that he talked for 7-hours but really just repeated a ton of talking points.
 
Kandahar said:
From a media that loves to push a conflict-driven narration of politics, and from a few right-wing ideologues who don't even represent a substantial proportion of the GOP, much less the broader electorate.
Click to expand...
You mean this is media's fault. They hardly report it. The ones who attack Romney for his flip flopping are conservative websites.

There are eight candidates. I'd say 25% is pretty good, especially since lots of voters haven't even made up their minds yet. And you overlook the fact that none of the OTHER candidates consistently poll over 25% either.
Click to expand...
20- 25% is not good, not when you are fighting against candidates such as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry when he entered the race got imidiatly 35%. There is a large group of Republicans who can never support Romney.

If you are to the left of Romney then consider voting for Obama. Between the two of them, they pretty accurately reflect the viewpoints of the vast majority of voters on most issues.
Click to expand...
I'm not voting for Obama, or at least not as a confidence vote. He is way to the left from me, because my views are quite similar to Jon Huntsman. I don't buy into Obama's class warfare.

It's not about views. If Romney actually believed what he was saying, I would have no problems supporting him. I would also support him if he kept his old views. But Mitt Romney is a wild card. You have no idea what you are getting. We don't even know if he can defend any views, because he always takes the wasy way out.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Gingrich is an above-average debater compared to his fellow GOP candidates. That's not really saying much, though. I think it would be evenly matched.
Click to expand...

I doubt Obama would be too comfortable with an even match. If he could help it.
 
Camlon said:
You mean this is media's fault. They hardly report it. The ones who attack Romney for his flip flopping are conservative websites.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a few ideologues don't like Romney, so the media plays up the "anyone but Romney" angle to make it seem like there's more of a horserace than there actually is.

20- 25% is not good, not when you are fighting against candidates such as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. Rick Perry when he entered the race got imidiatly 35%.
Click to expand...

And then he immediately lost most of those. I'm talking about sustainable support, not sudden surges. Since no OTHER candidate is consistently polling above 25% either, why does this reflect poorly on Romney? In fact, the whole reason that this is sometimes viewed as "anyone but Romney" instead of, say, "anyone but Rick Santorum" is because Romney is obviously the frontrunner.

Romney is doing just fine in the primary; a lot of Republican voters haven't even made a decision yet. And I strongly suspect that they will overwhelmingly gravitate toward the serious candidate whose turn it is, just like they always do.

There is a large group of Republicans who can never support Romney.
Click to expand...

I bet that Romney wins at least 90% of Republican votes next November, assuming he is the nominee.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom