Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 99

Thread: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

  1. #21
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    I hope Palin wins the nomination, I think the dems would like to run against her. If I had to have a repub pres., Romney or Pawlenty may not be too bad. Depending on what they say in the next 18 months, I might even vote for one of them. Obama has to begin talking about fiscal responsibility in a reasonable way, and doing reasonable things to move in that direction. Obama also needs to say when we are going to get out of Afghanistan.

    The main reason I would consider NOT voting for a repub president is that the tea partiers have so many religious fundamentalists and I do not believe the bible should be substituted for the constitution. If that's the way you want to run your church, fine. Don't try to run our govt. that way.
    Last edited by finebead; 05-27-11 at 12:54 AM.

  2. #22
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,105

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    Knowing a little bit about politics, the media, and human nature I think there might be some blow back to all the negative media reports about Sarah Palin.


    Anyone who has done the research will find that she has been very affective in all her political positions and it does go against all we here constantly about how dumb she is. People are beginning to see that she really is a pretty intelligent woman.
    Effective in her two minutes as a governor of a state with the population equivalent of Memphis? That said, I do agree that she is an intelligent woman. OTH, she is incredibly ignorant and obviously intellectually lazy. What is particularly scary is that some actually think she is a credible presidential candidate. Let me help you: she is not! Whether a presidential candidate is stupid or ignorant is a rather moot point. Neither should be anywhere near the oval office unless they are serving afternoon tea.


    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    The stereo type that attractive women are air heads seems to be fading away when you look at the facts and ignore the rhetoric that comes from the media and Liberals in general.
    Leave it to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to perpetuate this stereotype and keep it alive for another generation.

    Frankly, running Sarah is a great move for Republicans. Given she has ZERO shot of winning (versus very, very little shot for most of the other Regressive candidates) you at least accomplish the task of moving her completely off the stage and out of sight.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 05-27-11 at 12:56 AM.

  3. #23
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Source: Gallup

    Ron Paul actually came in at third with 10%. So, given that this is the second national phone poll to show him with 10% and a few percentage points away from the lead, where is all the national press coverage about how Paul is nipping at Romney's heels and is a potential frontrunner in this race? Why does the media have numerous articles not mentioning his name once when talking up the top-tier but giving people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, who are well below him, entire articles devoted to the potential threat they pose to Romney?

    It looks like even double digit national support is not enough to unravel the media blackout on Ron Paul.
    Because he can't win the primary. Thinking otherwise is delusional.

  4. #24
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Rand Paul would have run if his dad wasn't going to. Sorry but Rand is the only one of the two who stood at chance at winning. That's the only way we'll ever have a President Paul. As was mentioned, Ron Pauls ceiling is at around 10% or maybe a bit higher. It's just not enough to win.
    That is nonsense. As I said Ron Paul's approval ratings are far higher than his current share of the votes in these polls. In other words, he has plenty of room to grow.

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Because he can't win the primary. Thinking otherwise is delusional.
    I know the corporate propaganda complex we call the media is telling you it is absolutely impossible, but the very things they claim to look to in order to determine that are telling the exact opposite. The data is saying he is fully capable of winning the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #25
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I know the corporate propaganda complex we call the media is telling you it is absolutely impossible, but the very things they claim to look to in order to determine that are telling the exact opposite. The data is saying he is fully capable of winning the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.
    The data says that no sitting member of the House of Representatives has won the Presidency since...James Garfield in 1880. And if a sitting member of the House WAS going to win, there are about 400 more mainstream choices than Ron Paul.

    But I'll tell you what. If you're convinced, you should head over to InTrade. Contracts on Ron Paul winning the presidency are currently trading at 1.0%. If you bet on him, you'll make a fortune when you prove us all wrong.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 05-27-11 at 04:17 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #26
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The data says that no sitting member of the House of Representatives has won the Presidency since...James Garfield in 1880. And if a sitting member of the House WAS going to win, there are about 400 more mainstream choices than Ron Paul.

    But I'll tell you what. If you're convinced, you should head over to InTrade. Contracts on Ron Paul winning the presidency are currently trading at 1.0%. If you bet on him, you'll make a fortune when you prove us all wrong.
    I totally agree with the guy that you roll your digital eyes at. If the media was feeding you something different, you would think Paul has a better chance. I to think Paul doesn't get a fair shake. Even Fox News tries to shut down Paul all the time because they hate how he undermines them.
    "Were going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and thats crazy." -Reagan

  7. #27
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The data says that no sitting member of the House of Representatives has won the Presidency since...James Garfield in 1880. And if a sitting member of the House WAS going to win, there are about 400 more mainstream choices than Ron Paul.
    That is a terrible reason. We are talking about some real data saying what the people think about him not some fanciful notion that only Senators and Governors can become Presidents.

    But I'll tell you what. If you're convinced, you should head over to InTrade. Contracts on Ron Paul winning the presidency are currently trading at 1.0%. If you bet on him, you'll make a fortune when you prove us all wrong.
    Even if I were a betting man I could not reasonably discount the possibility that some "lone wacko" will knock him off before he gets the chance.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    I agree with the general consensus that Congressman Paul has little chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election.

    First, he has below average communication skills. Senator McCain didn't have great communications skills and paid a severe price at the debates. He won the nomination on a legacy of military heroism and long service in the Senate. He could not articulate the kind of message that galvanized public support. Paul's communication skills are even weaker.

    Second, his largely libertarian domestic policy posture appeals to only a limited base. Even as major problems plague the nation's social welfare system, the broad majority of Americans supports a much more expansive social welfare system and aggressive defense posture than Paul envisions.

    Third, his foreign policy of abication/non-interventionism/soft isolationism, also is outside the mainstream. Even as Americans worry about overreach, they also recognize that the U.S. has major interests and allies abroad. Paul's retreat to the other extreme to which American foreign policy has oscillated in the past is not likely to bring him broad support.

    In effect, Ron Paul is far more prophet than political leader. He has a vision and unwavering commitment to that vision. However, he lacks the skill set necessary to align support behind that vision, as well as to compromise to make progress toward that vision. His Congressional record shows very little evidence of compromise and pragmatism. It does show, as one would expect from a prophet, unyielding commitment to his ideas.

    Winston Churchill actually faced a similar problem prior to WW II. His warnings about the dangers posed by a rising Nazi Germany in general and Hitler in particular were widely dismissed. However, Churchill was not just an effective communicator. He was one of the world's great communicators. When his moment of opportunity came, his vision, unwavering determination, and powerful communications skills allowed him to provide one of the great examples of human leadership.

    It is not clear that Ron Paul could do so even if the nation were to fall into crisis (unlikely in the near-term unless the U.S. succumbs to a self-inflicted crisis over a political impasse over raising the debt ceiling). In fact, he already had one such opportunity. During the financial crisis, he railed against TARP. At a time when an increasingly panic-stricken public was clamoring for solutions, that was the extent of Paul's position. He opposed TARP but offered no coherent and clear alternatives to save the nation's financial system from meltdown. The moment of opportunity that would have allowed him to distinguish himself and would have positioned him as a strong contender for 2012 passed.

    During crises, the public seeks leaders who impose a sort of order on chaos and who provide a clear avenue of hope that shatters a panic. Senator McCain failed the first task when he succumbed to panic during the financial crisis. He lost his modest lead and never recovered. Congressman Paul failed on the second task when he opposed one suggested policy path but failed to substitute another concrete path. Advocating leaving the public exposed to full effects of a crisis wins no political rewards.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 05-27-11 at 11:08 AM.

  9. #29
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Even if I were a betting man I could not reasonably discount the possibility that some "lone wacko" will knock him off before he gets the chance.
    If you were a betting man, you wouldn't worry about such a statistically unlikely scenario as him being "knocked off".

    It'd be like holding pocket aces and folding because you are worried about someone pulling a flush with 7-2 off suit.

    Hell, the dude's going to be 76 this August. It's a far more reasonable assumption that his ticker gives out before the primaries than to worry about assasination.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I know the corporate propaganda complex we call the media is telling you it is absolutely impossible, but the very things they claim to look to in order to determine that are telling the exact opposite. The data is saying he is fully capable of winning the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.
    Today's polling numbers are meaningless. Given the time involved, the uncertainty is so great that even a candidate who is in the lead is not assured of actually winning the nomination. The evaporation of Hillary Clinton's overwhelming early pre-primary polling advantage highlights the magnitude of uncertainty that exists well in advance of the primaries.

    Relying on such figures and trying to draw firm conclusions is little different from arguing that a company with steadily rising profits is destined for greatness. Beyond the company, a disruptive technology that satisfies a similar function as the company's products/services could steadily be gaining in the overall value proposition and the company's steadily rising profits could merely mask the reality that the company and its industry are prospering on borrowed time.

    When it comes to Rep. Paul, one has to take a full look at his attributes, the appeal of his ideas, his capabilities, etc., to determine whether he can prevail. Given the importance of communication in aligning support, his noted below average communication skills put him at a decided disadvantage. If he cannot coherently articulate a compelling narrative why the broader public should embrace his vision/policies, he will not be able to broaden his base of support much beyond those who passionately embrace his vision. If he cannot point to concrete examples where he worked with others and accepted trade-offs to forge agreement over common ground, he will find it difficult to assert that he is a leader, not just a visionary. Given the above intangibles, even if Rep. Paul were leading the polls at present, I would suggest that his lead would likely evaporate once the contest begins.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •