• 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.

Gaffes by Michelle Bachman

Zyphlin said:
Ron Paul runs "devastating ad", next to no one but the loyalist Ron Paul supporters will ever pay attention to ad, ad has little to no affect on Gingrich's standing, Ron Paul fans continue to interject it into anything tangetally related to it which is more annoying then "Devestating", a month later they whine about how everyone is a moron except for them.

Yeah...um, stating "Ron Paul" and "most americans" in the same sentence rarely works well.
Click to expand...
The fact is, that not only Ron Paul is aware of these Gingrich views, Mitt Romney's campaign will probably jump into it, too, being that he's now taken the #2 place. I don't care about Ron Paul, the things I find offensive in Gingrich have nothing to do with Paul, I just had forgotten or wasn't aware of some of them. I'm sure other Americans won't see Gingrich in the wonderful "glow" that most conservatives, who are desperate for a "winner" do.
 
A gaffe is just a goof, and public speakers make them. And I don't expect any Presidential candidate without significant foreign policy experience to understand foreign policy the way, say, a career diplomat or Secretary of State or incumbent President would. (But I would expect, after three years in office, that the current President would be familiar with the correct name of the British Embassy in Tehran.) I don't expect any of the candidates to have comprehensive understanding of everything.

Yes, the gaffes can be hilarious. Please, 57 states? Or just awful like Perry's "brain freeze." But the candidates are human and are going to mispronounce words or occasionally misspeak and, horrors, show their ignorance. Enjoy the entertainment that is American politics!
 
Zyphlin said:
Ron Paul runs "devastating ad", next to no one but the loyalist Ron Paul supporters will ever pay attention to ad, ad has little to no affect on Gingrich's standing, Ron Paul fans continue to interject it into anything tangetally related to it which is more annoying then "Devestating", a month later they whine about how everyone is a moron except for them.

Yeah...um, stating "Ron Paul" and "most americans" in the same sentence rarely works well.
Click to expand...
Popularity does not equal merit, the fact that you chose not to address any of the obvious truths in the vid speaks for itself.
 
mertex said:
The fact is, that not only Ron Paul is aware of these Gingrich views, Mitt Romney's campaign will probably jump into it, too, being that he's now taken the #2 place. I don't care about Ron Paul, the things I find offensive in Gingrich have nothing to do with Paul, I just had forgotten or wasn't aware of some of them. I'm sure other Americans won't see Gingrich in the wonderful "glow" that most conservatives, who are desperate for a "winner" do.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. He's the only individual in this race who, during the month long height of his primary popularity, had a clear example in the polls of Obama's support significantly and rather consistently lowering while his consistently and continually raised. It seems, thus far at least, Newt's the one that may have the best chance to get other American's enjoying his "glow".

In regards to Bachmann's gaffes...meh, mistakes of speech don't bother me a ton. Some of her polices and actions may be a different story however. But I don't think she's got a chance of sniffing the nomination so its of little real concern to me.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
Popularity does not equal merit, the fact that you chose not to address any of the obvious truths in the vid speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

The link to the ad has turned up in a handful of threads, most of them tangentially related to it at best. Forgive me if I won't indulge in thread derailment by deeply analyzing an ad put out by a campaign that isn't the topic of this thread about a person who isn't the topic of this thread.
 
Zyphlin said:
The link to the ad has turned up in a handful of threads, most of them tangentially related to it at best. Forgive me if I won't indulge in thread derailment by deeply analyzing an ad put out by a campaign that isn't the topic of this thread about a person who isn't the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
Well you already commented on it, insulted Paul supporters and took the time to analyze it's affect on Newt's campaign, apparently the facts presented were the only thing you chose to ignore.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not so sure. He's the only individual in this race who, during the month long height of his primary popularity, had a clear example in the polls of Obama's support significantly and rather consistently lowering while his consistently and continually raised. It seems, thus far at least, Newt's the one that may have the best chance to get other American's enjoying his "glow".
Click to expand...
We hope conservatives continue to think that, and by all means choose Gingrich as their candidate. The general population is not enamored with a person just because he is favored by conservatives, most Democrats will vote for Obama over any of the Republican candidates, but most of the others won't vote for Gingrich, considering his baggage, and the way he has flip-flopped on issues.

In regards to Bachmann's gaffes...meh, mistakes of speech don't bother me a ton. Some of her polices and actions may be a different story however. But I don't think she's got a chance of sniffing the nomination so its of little real concern to me.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between mis-speaking and not knowing facts. Like when Palin said Revere warned the British, that wasn't misspeak - that was pure not knowing her history. Bachman has also made mistakes, like claiming the FF were working hard to get rid of slavery, when everyone knows that most of them owned slaves. Here most recent gaffe, saying that if she was president she wouldn't have an embassy in Iran, duh! We haven't had one in Iran since 1980. If she knew it, like her campaign people are claiming, then her comment did not make any sense. Either way, she comes off as bad as Palin, failing to engage their brain before they put their mouth in gear. But, like you said, she is no longer a competitor.
 
mertex said:
We hope conservatives continue to think that, and by all means choose Gingrich as their candidate. The general population is not enamored with a person just because he is favored by conservatives, most Democrats will vote for Obama over any of the Republican candidates, but most of the others won't vote for Gingrich, considering his baggage, and the way he has flip-flopped on issues.
Click to expand...

Wonderful opinion. What facts do you base this on?
 
Zyphlin said:
Wonderful opinion. What facts do you base this on?
Click to expand...

Obama may have low approval ratings, but holds huge preference lead when paired against Gingrich in the general election.

Obama's reelection chances improve greatly once he is paired against his leading GOP rivals

Obama's prospects for reelection improve greatly when he is paired against each of his two leading GOP challengers in general election match-ups. In trial heats, Obama now leads Romney by ten points and holds a more commanding twenty-point lead over Gingrich.

Romney's somewhat stronger showing against Obama as compared to Gingrich is almost entirely due to the general election preferences of this state's non-partisan voters. Among these voters Romney and Obama are statistically tied (Romney 42% and Obama 41%). By contrast, Obama holds huge preference lead of 35 points among non-partisans when paired against Gingrich in the general election.
Field Poll | Obama holds double-digit leads when paired against Romney or Gingrich


Ron Paul Does Best Against Obama in Iowa

By ThePresidentialCandidates.US on Dec 4, 2011 in 2012 President | 0 Comments
Recent polling shows that Newt Gingrich has taken a solid lead among the Republican presidential nominees in Iowa with Ron Paul & Mitt Romney just about tied for second place about 8 points behind.
But this Iowa poll also ran the general election possibilities in Iowa (GOP vs. President Obama) and the results are rather stunning: Ron Paul does the best of any of the Republican candidates by a wide margin.
This seems rather telling because, as the first state to hold primary elections in the nation, Iowa voters have already taken a long look at all of the Republican candidates.
Iowa can also be seen as a pretty good indicator for where the candidates stand nationally because their 2008 general election results (Obama +9%) were very close to the national results (Obama +7%.)
GOP vs. Obama in Iowa
Obama 42% Ron Paul 42% (tied)
Obama 46% Mitt Romney 39% (Obama +7)
Obama 47% Newt Gingrich 37% (Obama +10)
Obama 48% Rick Perry 37% (Obama +11)
2012 Presidential Candidates | 2012 Election News & Opinion
 
So your proof of "general public" is that Obama does better than Newt in a poll of Californians?

Well no ****, Obama does better than the Republican nominees in a significantly liberal state. I'm shocked! That's proof all right. Screw the multitude of NATIONAL polls, one random poll in California is MUCH more accurate.

And then your further proof is....Iowa, again, one state.

Sorry if I'm more concerned about NATIONAL polls with regards to a NATIONAL election. Next time the Presidential election, or the "general population", is just California or Iowa let me know.
 
Zyphlin said:
So your proof of "general public" is that Obama does better than Newt in a poll of Californians?

Well no ****, Obama does better than the Republican nominees in a significantly liberal state. I'm shocked! That's proof all right. Screw the multitude of NATIONAL polls, one random poll in California is MUCH more accurate.

And then your further proof is....Iowa, again, one state.

Sorry if I'm more concerned about NATIONAL polls with regards to a NATIONAL election. Next time the Presidential election, or the "general population", is just California or Iowa let me know.
Click to expand...

Ya know that "liberal" State has elected a couple of republican actors as governor one being Reagan.
 
winston53660 said:
Ya know that "liberal" State has elected a couple of republican actors as governor one being Reagan.
Click to expand...

All well in good at a state level election, especially in the past two decades where the "republican" they nominated, as you said, was an Actor and thus a popular figure simply due to pop culture and was also a very moderate republican. However, the recent trend in regards to California's view when it comes to National elections shows why I make my point:

Over the past 6 (1998-2008) of Presidential Elections, how many elections did California go Red?

Since 1991, which party controlled both of California's Senate Seats?

Since 1988, which party had more people in the House for the State of California after every election, by an average of a 3:2 margin?

When it comes to National races, for at least 2 decades, California has been solidly Blue.
 
winston53660 said:
Ya know that "liberal" State has elected a couple of republican actors as governor one being Reagan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and this so-called "liberal" state also voted in Prop 8! Shows how confused Republicans/conservatives really are.
 
Zyphlin said:
So your proof of "general public" is that Obama does better than Newt in a poll of Californians?
Click to expand...
That was just one poll, and I guess you've forgotten, California voted Prop 8 - must not be so "liberal".


Well no ****, Obama does better than the Republican nominees in a significantly liberal state. I'm shocked! That's proof all right. Screw the multitude of NATIONAL polls, one random poll in California is MUCH more accurate.

And then your further proof is....Iowa, again, one state.

Sorry if I'm more concerned about NATIONAL polls with regards to a NATIONAL election. Next time the Presidential election, or the "general population", is just California or Iowa let me know.
Click to expand...
Okie-dokie! Keep on fooling yourself, that is exactly what most Republican/conservatives do, and they will nominate Gingrich, and he'll go down in flames. Thank you so much!

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/14/poll-obama-leads-both-romney-and-gingrich-in-virginia/



Dec 14 2011 - WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich holds a 10-point lead in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination, but he would fare worse against President Barack Obama than Republican Mitt Romney, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

With the first nominating contest in Iowa less than three weeks away, Gingrich leads Romney among Republican voters nationwide by 28% to 18%, the poll found.

However, the poll raises questions about whether Gingrich — a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives who has shot to the top of Republican opinion polls in recent weeks — would be able to defeat Obama.

The poll found that if the November 2012 presidential election were held today, Obama would defeat Gingrich, 51% to 38%. By contrast, Obama would defeat Romney by a narrower margin, 48% to 40%.
Newt Gingrich worse against Barack Obama than Mitt Romney: poll | News | National Post
 
mertex said:
That was just one poll, and I guess you've forgotten, California voted Prop 8 - must not be so "liberal".
Click to expand...

Look at post #37. When it comes to the federal level the states slant is clear.

Okie-dokie! Keep on fooling yourself, that is exactly what most Republican/conservatives do, and they will nominate Gingrich, and he'll go down in flames. Thank you so much!
Click to expand...

Wow, you sure did show me. I should've never said that Newt has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney...

Oh wait, that was never the argument I made. I simply stated that I didn't think that Gingrich was as dead in the water as you made it out to be due to the fact that he had better traction against Obama than any of the other "Not-Romney" candidates did in regards to actually seeing votes leave Obama while votes went to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom