• 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!

Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

Who do you think will win the Republican nomination?

  • Total voters
    70
finebead said:
I voted for Pawlenty. I like what I've seen him say. Everyone else has some big negatives, either inside the party or outside the party. Problem with Pawlenty, his speaking skills are poor, he's boring. But I think he's bright, balanced and practical. But, I'm not aware of big negatives for Pawlenty, so I went with him.
Click to expand...

He just needs some grooming.
 
cpwill said:
:) You evidently haven't been paying attention. Glad I am able to help here.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."...






who have specifically used their money power to weaken unions in order to have an even bigger advantage in the 2012 election. If Unions were doing the same thing that these people are I would be calling them out on it as well, but they are being dwarfed. Citizen United isn't necessarily a bad decision, the problem is with the fact that the Supreme Court didn't force congress to write a full disclosure law, even though thats exactly what the Supreme Court wanted.

Personally, I think all elections, except the primaries, should be publicly funded in one way or another in order to remove the mandatory pandering/political favors that is needed to get money. Its not like keeping some of it in the open is preventing back room deals.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Sorry if I don't trust the WSJ on this one.
 
Last edited:
:roll: really? it's not like these numbers are hidden - they are publicly accessible.

HERE. and this is just the donations to the candidates.

Top Donors of 2010
1 Service Employees International Union
2 Perry Homes
3 National Education Assn
4 American Federation of Teachers
5 National Assn of Realtors
6 TRT Holdings
7 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees



CBS NEWS: Public-Sector Union AFSCME Now No.1 Spender in 2010 Election Cycle

the president of the Union was bragging about this, man, it's hardly a secret or some kind of conspiratorial claim. They were also number one in 2000, and 2002.

Unions are bigger spenders on politics than businesses are. And when businesses spend they aren't always spending on the Republicans. Largest donor of 2004 was Goldman Sachs - 62% of which went to Democrats (they were #2 in 2008, when 75% of their contributions went to Democrats).
 
Barbbtx said:
If he doesn't win the nomination (which he will) I'll even start my punishment early. It couldn't be any worse than the fat white butt with glasses avatar liblady gave me for a month. LOL
Click to expand...

Cool beans! :sun
 
The only one who has a fighting chance to beat Obama is Romney and he is unacceptable to the True Believers of the right who tend to have disproportionate voting power in GOP primaries. The only real question is will it be somebody who can make it a race where the rest of the GOP ticket has a chance to survive like 2008 or will it be Goldwater 64 all over again?
 
On that we'll have to disagree. Romney would be a disaster against Obama, for the mere reason that he would be unable to make a convincing case as to why people should choose him over Obama. His presence on the ticket negates one of the Republican Party's most salient issues - the individual mandate. It makes it difficult to take seriously their most salient issue - the need for entitlement reform and spending decreases. The republican party wouldn't turn out for him - just like they didn't turn out for McCain; independents would waffle, and the result would be the same as 2008. A dispirited Republican party loses.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that your views are somehow representative of the general center of the American body politic. In fact that is precisely opposite of the case (no shame in it, but that's the reality):

iglnwvn0jeaslencabs5iq.gif


psoqdieiw0ujtbe5agw84a.gif


epaguk4jlk2zy1zjikzxcw.gif


hvubc7dke0agzad70hgdwg.gif
 
Last edited:
There is no one view that represents the majority of the American people other than most want what they see as best for them and for the nation as a whole. Most see their self interest as dovetailing with the broader national interest. That is probably human nature.

Most people are not ideological. That puts them in opposition to the current republican party which has become very ideological.

Further, large numbers of people hold views which are impossible to categorize as liberal or conservative or moderate since they may vary on many different issues and topics. For example, I am very liberal on labor issues and on matters of using government for the betterment of the people. I am very conservative on a topic like the death penalty. I suspect there are lots of people who hold views that place them all over the spectrum. Thus, graphs like the ones you use above are interesting but not very useful in determining who someone will vote for in a presidential election.
 
I haven't heard a lot about honesty or true to their confictions, in the candidates we are discussing.
Personally, I'm rejecting Newt and Romney for those things. I don't trust either of them.
I know Romney stuck by his HC plan and should get a point for that I guess, but honestly they both come off sleazy to me.
I want a president who says what he means and isn't going to change his mind tomorrow.
 
Barbbtx said:
I haven't heard a lot about honesty or true to their confictions, in the candidates we are discussing.
Personally, I'm rejecting Newt and Romney for those things. I don't trust either of them.
I know Romney stuck by his HC plan and should get a point for that I guess, but honestly they both come off sleazy to me.
I want a president who says what he means and isn't going to change his mind tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Sometimes changing your mind is a good thing..anyone that can realize what they once thought to be right is now wrong and changes is fine with me.
I give credit to Newt Gingrich it took courage to come out against ryans plan. If he believes that and says it, good for him. He has to know that cant help him in the primary.
 
haymarket said:
The only one who has a fighting chance to beat Obama is Romney and he is unacceptable to the True Believers of the right who tend to have disproportionate voting power in GOP primaries. The only real question is will it be somebody who can make it a race where the rest of the GOP ticket has a chance to survive like 2008 or will it be Goldwater 64 all over again?
Click to expand...
I'm not a true believer. Hell, I even support public health care (not Obamacare) and supported Obama in 2008.

However, Romney would be a disaster because he is a RINO. He is just pretending. Why would I vote for someone who doesn't believe in what he is saying and is boring as well? For instance he is in reality liberal towards immigration. He is pro-choice and helped fund abortions. His health care reform looks awfully similar to Obamacare. He is supposedly against gay rights now, but has previously been a big supporter. Some of these opinions, I don't mind but the biggest problem is that he is not honest. I don't want a dishonest President. However, he will fail against Obama like McCain did and he will make the Republican party look weak.

I believe in Herman Cain, and I hope he will moderate himself somewhat before the election. Even if he lose, he will still give Obama a tough match.
 
Camlon said:
I'm not a true believer. Hell, I even support public health care (not Obamacare) and supported Obama in 2008.

However, Romney would be a disaster because he is a RINO. He is just pretending. Why would I vote for someone who doesn't believe in what he is saying and is boring as well? For instance he is in reality liberal towards immigration. He is pro-choice and helped fund abortions. His health care reform looks awfully similar to Obamacare. He is supposedly against gay rights now, but has previously been a big supporter. Some of these opinions, I don't mind but the biggest problem is that he is not honest. I don't want a dishonest President. However, he will fail against Obama like McCain did and he will make the Republican party look weak.

I believe in Herman Cain, and I hope he will moderate himself somewhat before the election. Even if he lose, he will still give Obama a tough match.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to see Herman Cain moderate himself. The fact that he is stead fast to his convictions is what appeals to me. However, whatever his convictions, a president still has congress to check him. Also, Cain isn't one to go into things lightly and on his own. He will surround himself with good people as he has done in his business career. This will be especially handy on foreign affairs. His expertise lies in making us a prosperous nation again.
The way Cain was so upset about this administration going against the will of the people on Obamacare, tells me he won't be forcing anything down our throats.
 
Barbbtx said:
I wouldn't want to see Herman Cain moderate himself. The fact that he is stead fast to his convictions is what appeals to me. However, whatever his convictions, a president still has congress to check him. Also, Cain isn't one to go into things lightly and on his own. He will surround himself with good people as he has done in his business career. This will be especially handy on foreign affairs. His expertise lies in making us a prosperous nation again.
The way Cain was so upset about this administration going against the will of the people on Obamacare, tells me he won't be forcing anything down our throats.
Click to expand...
I understand that. If I was more conservative, I would want that to happen either.

However, it is important that he moderate himself somewhat. He needs to appeal to a larger segment of society and not offend moderates who may believe in public health care or in abortion.

Also, his power over Congress is dependant on his likability. If Democrats despise him, like republicans do with Obama. Then they will use every second to work against him and no one but republicans will mind. If he has a larger base, then democrats can't work against him because people won't accept it.
 
haymarket said:
The only one who has a fighting chance to beat Obama is Romney and he is unacceptable to the True Believers of the right who tend to have disproportionate voting power in GOP primaries. The only real question is will it be somebody who can make it a race where the rest of the GOP ticket has a chance to survive like 2008 or will it be Goldwater 64 all over again?
Click to expand...



Who are these "true believers" you repeat ad nauseum?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Who are these "true believers" you repeat ad nauseum?
Click to expand...

Republican/tea party/rightist-libertarian types who have consumed massive quantities of the right wing ideological kool-aid ..... the believe what they believe because they want to believe it in much the same way that people accept religious doctrine
 
haymarket said:
Republican/tea party/rightist-libertarian types who have consumed massive quantities of the right wing ideological kool-aid ..... the believe what they believe because they want to believe it in much the same way that people accept religious doctrine
Click to expand...



Can you give some examples? I know I have asked you this before, but you have always come up short.

Who is a true believer, and why do you call them this name?

what do you think making broad generalizations about those who disagree with you, add to the debate?
 
For what it's worth, here are the current probabilities on each of the Republican contenders winning the nomination according to InTrade. I'm including all of them who have at least a 1% chance, as of today:

Mitt Romney: 25.3% chance of winning the nomination
Tim Pawlenty: 18.5%
John Huntsman: 12.0%
Mitch Daniels: 10.8%
Herman Cain: 6.9%
Sarah Palin: 6.0%
Newt Gingrich: 5.0%
Michele Bachmann: 5.0%
Ron Paul: 3.1%
Chris Christie: 3.0%
Paul Ryan: 1.1%

As I see it, the top four candidates (plus Chris Christie who says he isn't running) are the ones that could actually mount a serious challenge to Obama. Their chances of winning the nomination increase if Obama's poll numbers decline, because Republicans will be more likely to nominate a potential president instead of merely a conservative standard-bearer. The other six candidates on that list are, in my opinion, vanity candidates. They won't win the nomination unless Obama looks unbeatable, and Republicans decide to nominate an ideological purist as a sacrificial lamb.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Can you give some examples? I know I have asked you this before, but you have always come up short.

Who is a true believer, and why do you call them this name?

what do you think making broad generalizations about those who disagree with you, add to the debate?
Click to expand...

No - I have never come up short. Just the opposite. You and I have gone round and round on this time and time again. I make statements about the body politic and you attempt to make it about yourself by asking baiting questions because you suspect that you are the target of them. Apparently, you recognize something in the description that speaks to you about your own views. I have not "come up short". When you ask me - like you have done again in your post right here - I repeatedly have identified someone like yourself who fits that category and you repeatedly dispute it despite being a self acknowledged libertarian/tea party person who voted Republican.

The name True Believer is not something I came up with. It goes back to Eric Hoffer. There have been threads written about it right here on this very site. It can refer to someone who believes in a political ideology out of faith much like a person believes in religion. They believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Evidence and facts have little to nothing to do with their belief system. They accept axioms as the Truth with a capital T and those Truths are beyond challenge. Two such examples that exist among the True Believers of today are easy to identify
1- small government is the best government
2- tax cuts are a good in and of themselves

We are in a high point for the rise of the True Believer as evidenced by the rise of the teaparty/libertarian/republican individual and their impact on the 2010 elections. Generalizations are useful if they are correct and spot on. As these are.

Now what comes next is your next move where you demand an apology or retraction or demand that I reproduce all of your posts which prove your place on the ideological continuum.

Please remember that this was not about you. I spoke about the body politic. You asked for specific information and it was given to you........ as it always is.

And we will go back and forth on this for many posts over several pages until a mod comes in and either tells both of us to knock it off or we get thread banned.

We both have seen this show before and we both know the lines by this time.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
1- small government is the best government
2- tax cuts are a good in and of themselves.
Click to expand...



so simply put, anyone who believes Items 1 and 2 are true believers. And those who disagree with you, are most likely "true believers"... noted.


Can you address the second part of my question? What do you think hurling insults at folks you disagree with adds to the debate?


Thank you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
so simply put, anyone who believes Items 1 and 2 are true believers. And those who disagree with you, are most likely "true believers"... noted.


Can you address the second part of my question? What do you think hurling insults at folks you disagree with adds to the debate?


Thank you.
Click to expand...

No insults were hurled. Simple statements of observation about the current body politic were made.

If I say that someone measures less than five feet in height and they claim I insulted them having said they were a shrimp, no insult was made, the slight being in the mind of the individual taking exception to the facts.

Go back and read my answer to you again. I did NOT say that those two statements constituted the definition of the True Believer.

The name True Believer is not something I came up with. It goes back to Eric Hoffer. There have been threads written about it right here on this very site. It can refer to someone who believes in a political ideology out of faith much like a person believes in religion. They believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Evidence and facts have little to nothing to do with their belief system. They accept axioms as the Truth with a capital T and those Truths are beyond challenge. Two such examples that exist among the True Believers of today are easy to identify
1- small government is the best government
2- tax cuts are a good in and of themselves

We are in a high point for the rise of the True Believer as evidenced by the rise of the teaparty/libertarian/republican individual and their impact on the 2010 elections.
Click to expand...

Now go back and read the complete context of my use of the term in the post which caught your attention

The only one who has a fighting chance to beat Obama is Romney and he is unacceptable to the True Believers of the right who tend to have disproportionate voting power in GOP primaries.
Click to expand...

It is both clear and easy to understand.
 
Last edited:
I am still trying to figure out just who these mythical "true believers" you keep talking about are. They are kinda like some sort of bogeyman or something? It's creepy, this sorta alex jonesesque view of this mythical enemy of yours.
 
I would urge you to read Hoffer.

Short of doing that, read this

The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here is an important part of the summary

Summary

Hoffer argues that all mass movements such as fascism, communism, and religion spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to glorify the past and devalue the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavors.
Click to expand...

Most of that fits the teaparty/rightist-libertarian/ republican perfectly.

this quote from the original Hoffer book fits the teaparty perfectly

When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, is well for the timid to lock doors, shutter windows, and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse. — P.20
Click to expand...

This is particularly fitting

It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. — P.76
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I would urge you to read Hoffer.

Short of doing that, read this

The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here is an important part of the summary



Most of that fits the teaparty/rightist-libertarian/ republican perfectly.

this quote from the original Hoffer book fits the teaparty perfectly



This is particularly fitting
Click to expand...




How so? You have in all your posting been FAIL at answering this one simple question.
 
There are plenty of examples were smaller governments thrive longer than larger ones. I don't think that should be on your list mate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom