• 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
Mitt Romney - Too much baggage regarding his successful Health Care system in Massachussetts that the national policy is based on. Any Republican candidate will need help from the lunatic fringe that is controlling the right wing currently, and I doubt that help will be extended to the author of RomneyCare.

Tim Pawlenty - T-Paw didn't impress the lunatic fringe in the first debate, as the feeling was that he wasn't sincere in his comments, and that he seemed to be playing politics with his answers. Initially he seemed to be an interesting choice, but he seems to have lost his fire.

John Huntsman - Too soon to tell for the Ambassador. He may have a good shot at the nomination, but some of his views are right of center, which will not play well with the Lunatic Fringe. He still isn't very will known by most, and if he can package himself around his more conservative views he may be a good candidate for the Nomination. Time will tell.

Mitch Daniels - Daniels is the current front runner. He has Lunatic Fringe cred due to his recent actions in his state, but may be politically savvy enough to move to the center effectively if he wins the nomination.

Sarah Palin - Certainly a favorite with the Lunatic Fringe, but with few others outside of that small group. She is too much of a punch line for anyone to vote for her in the general election, and she may be smart enough to realize that she is better as a pundit than a politician.

Newt Gingrich - Newton's candidacy was over before it started. Few Republicans are friendly with him as it is, and he put the nail in his coffin with his "right wing social engineering" remark.

Michele Bachmann - While she would be a Democrat's dream opponent, I doubt she will win the Iowa caucasus which is where she has been concentrating lately. Even if she does, I find it unlikely that she will stand up well against Huntsman and Daniels.

Donald Trump - RIP. Trump is back to NBC.

Ron Paul - It would be interesting if Mr. Paul got the nomination, but I have a better chance of winning the lottery. Paul is smart and sincere about his cause, but while that is his greatest asset it is also his greatest weakness. Already pundits are mocking his willingness to legalize drugs such as heroine and cocaine. The GOP is simply not ready for that kind of social liberalism.

Herman Cain - My first impression of him was that of a bumper sticker politician; a guy who can say the quick and witty things, but can that translate into a thinking statesman. After I pealed the onion I saw him as a passionate conservative who could be a threat to Obama. But for that to happen the conservatives will need to be able to peal the onion as well, which I don't think they will do. Too bad too, as a Obama-Cain debate would be good to watch.
 
Last edited:
Herman Cain - My first impression of him was that of a bumper sticker politician; a guy who can say the quick and witty things, but can that translate into a thinking statesman. After I pealed the onion I saw him as a passionate conservative who could be a threat to Obama. But for that to happen the conservatives will need to be able to peal the onion as well, which I don't think they will do. Too bad too, as a Obama-Cain debate would be good to watch.

Common Sense Solutions, his book, doesn't give any answers but talking points. What is there to peal back?
 
I'll just say, in my opinion the LAST thing Cain needs to do is hire experts to help him with his speeches.
Then he probably will not make it too far in the campaign if he is too stubborn to have people to help him better cultivate his image.
His answer on Afghanistan was perfect. I guess he could have said "When I am elected, I'll bring all our troops home by July! I'll close Gitmo within a year. Everyone will be able to afford college and healthcare! There will be no more torture on my watch!

That is not who Cain is. He said he would have to have all the inside information that he is not privy to, before he could answer the question about what he would do about Afghanistan.

Seems Obama had all kinds of answers during his campaign until he became privy to the secret stuff. Then he had to back track.
Although I view his answer about what he would do about Afghanistan as a cop out, that is not the answer I have a problem with.

What I mentioned was when he said he did not know what the current plan is for Afghanistan. I could answer that with ease and I am not running for any political office. Is it too much to ask the same of Cain so at least I can know if he even has the slightest clue about American foreign policy? With the answer he gave I now assume he knows little about the situation in Afghanistan.

You criticize President Obama for pandering to his audience, but how is Herman Cain any different? Or do you expect that his energy policy, the FairTax, or any other of his more outlandish ideas will actually come to fruition? I can tell you right now that the same bureaucracy that stalled Obama's plans will stall Cain's as well.
His energy plan sounds great to me too. Maybe it won't be easy to execute exactly as he wants, by I promise you, it will get more than lip service.
It sounds great to anyone who agrees with him on energy policy. That is until reality hits them in the face that it will not have nearly the effect he claims.
 
What makes you support Pawlenty? I need to know who to vote for in the repub primary so I need more info from your lot.

:) at this point? he's the credible conservative with executive experience who isn't Romney. I could have given you a thousand reasons for Daniels, but then he dropped.


I will give him this, however. The man went to Iowa (which he needs to take on Romney, and which threatens to slip from him if Bachmann tosses her hat in) and declared himself in favor of ending agricultural subsidies. I gotta admit, that's gutsy.
 
Mitt Romney - Too much baggage regarding his successful Health Care system in Massachussetts that the national policy is based on. Any Republican candidate will need help from the lunatic fringe that is controlling the right wing currently, and I doubt that help will be extended to the author of RomneyCare.

Tim Pawlenty - T-Paw didn't impress the lunatic fringe in the first debate, as the feeling was that he wasn't sincere in his comments, and that he seemed to be playing politics with his answers. Initially he seemed to be an interesting choice, but he seems to have lost his fire.

John Huntsman - Too soon to tell for the Ambassador. He may have a good shot at the nomination, but some of his views are right of center, which will not play well with the Lunatic Fringe. He still isn't very will known by most, and if he can package himself around his more conservative views he may be a good candidate for the Nomination. Time will tell.

Mitch Daniels - Daniels is the current front runner. He has Lunatic Fringe cred due to his recent actions in his state, but may be politically savvy enough to move to the center effectively if he wins the nomination.

Sarah Palin - Certainly a favorite with the Lunatic Fringe, but with few others outside of that small group. She is too much of a punch line for anyone to vote for her in the general election, and she may be smart enough to realize that she is better as a pundit than a politician.

Newt Gingrich - Newton's candidacy was over before it started. Few Republicans are friendly with him as it is, and he put the nail in his coffin with his "right wing social engineering" remark.

Michele Bachmann - While she would be a Democrat's dream opponent, I doubt she will win the Iowa caucasus which is where she has been concentrating lately. Even if she does, I find it unlikely that she will stand up well against Huntsman and Daniels.

Donald Trump - RIP. Trump is back to NBC.

Ron Paul - It would be interesting if Mr. Paul got the nomination, but I have a better chance of winning the lottery. Paul is smart and sincere about his cause, but while that is his greatest asset it is also his greatest weakness. Already pundits are mocking his willingness to legalize drugs such as heroine and cocaine. The GOP is simply not ready for that kind of social liberalism.

Herman Cain - My first impression of him was that of a bumper sticker politician; a guy who can say the quick and witty things, but can that translate into a thinking statesman. After I pealed the onion I saw him as a passionate conservative who could be a threat to Obama. But for that to happen the conservatives will need to be able to peal the onion as well, which I don't think they will do. Too bad too, as a Obama-Cain debate would be good to watch.

I think it's interesting how you substitute "Lunatic Fringe" for "Conservatives".

You do know that we are the largest ideological bloc in the country? And that independents are drifting solidly conservative?

The entire country has shifted right while the Democratic Party leadership and a key active component of their base has drifted left. :) we aren't the "Fringe". We are the plurality.
 
:) at this point? he's the credible conservative with executive experience who isn't Romney. I could have given you a thousand reasons for Daniels, but then he dropped.


I will give him this, however. The man went to Iowa (which he needs to take on Romney, and which threatens to slip from him if Bachmann tosses her hat in) and declared himself in favor of ending agricultural subsidies. I gotta admit, that's gutsy.

This is a myth.

It’s as gutsy as picking on the guy with tape on his glasses.

The vast, vast majority of Iowans aren’t farmers and they gain no benefit from farm subsidies. People that claim what you just claimed show how ignorant they are about the heartland in general.
 
This is a myth.

It’s as gutsy as picking on the guy with tape on his glasses.

The vast, vast majority of Iowans aren’t farmers and they gain no benefit from farm subsidies. People that claim what you just claimed show how ignorant they are about the heartland in general.

The vast majority of Michiganders aren't farmers either, but farming is a big part of the Michigan way of life.
 
The vast majority of Michiganders aren't farmers either, but farming is a big part of the Michigan way of life.

farming makes up about 5% of income for Iowans.
 
farming makes up about 5% of income for Iowans.

It still makes up almost 1/4 of their total industry. Iowa is also the biggest producer of corn and ethanol in United States. Although true, most the work force aren't farmers there I'm sure many of the people are effected by the culture so it may hit home for them. I don't know if Pawlenty could lead with something like that but seeing how Romney is a weak forerunner and Pawlenty is the second best viable candidate right now, he could very well win Iowa. I would guarantee it to him if he said something like "ethanol subsidies and oil subsidies need to be phased out".
 
It still makes up almost 1/4 of their total industry. Iowa is also the biggest producer of corn and ethanol in United States. Although true, most the work force aren't farmers there I'm sure many of the people are effected by the culture so it may hit home for them. I don't know if Pawlenty could lead with something like that but seeing how Romney is a weak forerunner and Pawlenty is the second best viable candidate right now, he could very well win Iowa. I would guarantee it to him if he said something like "ethanol subsidies and oil subsidies need to be phased out".

this is an example of stats producing anything you want.

UAW workers at John Deere aren't going to vote for corn subsidies just because the 5% of farmers in the state might get hurt without them.

I/T workers aren't going to vote for subsidies just because the programs they develop are used by field applicators to spray chemicals.

the amount of voters that actually factor corn subsidy into their decisions is extremely small. It takes no courage to say what Pawlenty said, just common sense.
 
this is an example of stats producing anything you want.

UAW workers at John Deere aren't going to vote for corn subsidies just because the 5% of farmers in the state might get hurt without them.

I/T workers aren't going to vote for subsidies just because the programs they develop are used by field applicators to spray chemicals.

the amount of voters that actually factor corn subsidy into their decisions is extremely small. It takes no courage to say what Pawlenty said, just common sense.

Oh I agree with what you are saying, I'm just saying don't sell the industry short and that in the short term it may be an issue until the attention is directed elsewhere. I think it would have been much better to hear him say all fuel subsidies need to be phased out rather than curiously concentrating on just one that has to do with that region.
 
$72 billion dollar industry here.

Here = Michigan? Just trying to clarify....

I used to live across from a farm. The guy planted many, many acres of corn and had a small dairy. Super well off. I believe the name was Sackrider.
 
Government subsidies have their place, I think government loans and such are fine in crops but livestock we still need a few subsidies to help farmers through. Let me give you an example. My grandfather (a SC Republican that ran for state senate twice came close once!) ran a chicken farm with 4 "chicken houses" each 50 ftx1 acre big, holding 22,000 chickens per house. Back in 93 I believe? Hurricane Andrew came through and tore through 2 whole houses killing thousands of chickens, each at 20 cents a pound each chicken roughly 10 lbs per shipping growth. If not for the government helping supplement loses that were difficult to cover with farmers insurance and the company that supplied the chickens (which does little in covering damages actually) he would have been in a financial hardspot for sometime, as each cycle of chickens last for 8 weeks.
 
Government subsidies have their place, I think government loans and such are fine in crops but livestock we still need a few subsidies to help farmers through. Let me give you an example. My grandfather (a SC Republican that ran for state senate twice came close once!) ran a chicken farm with 4 "chicken houses" each 50 ftx1 acre big, holding 22,000 chickens per house. Back in 93 I believe? Hurricane Andrew came through and tore through 2 whole houses killing thousands of chickens, each at 20 cents a pound each chicken roughly 10 lbs per shipping growth. If not for the government helping supplement loses that were difficult to cover with farmers insurance and the company that supplied the chickens (which does little in covering damages actually) he would have been in a financial hardspot for sometime, as each cycle of chickens last for 8 weeks.

Emergency servics and rebuilding should be a responsibility of the government anyway. Paying a farmer to grow more corn for an inefficient fuel source, or paying a farm not to grow to fix supply...that's a different issue.
 
What about this guy?

Thaddeus McCotter weighing White House bid - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Eight years in Congress (including a leadership position), solidly conservative on most issues, voted against TARP, enough of an outsider to make his fellow Congresspeople uncomfortable with him. And he seems pretty smart, and funny to boot. Nobody knows who he is now (I just heard of him today), but that could change at any moment. He seems more exciting than the poor choices we have now. If he officially joins the race I'm keeping an eye on him.
 
Last edited:
I think it's interesting how you substitute "Lunatic Fringe" for "Conservatives".

You do know that we are the largest ideological bloc in the country? And that independents are drifting solidly conservative?

The entire country has shifted right while the Democratic Party leadership and a key active component of their base has drifted left. :) we aren't the "Fringe". We are the plurality.

I find it interesting how you assume that I replaced lunatic fringe for conservative. I didn't. Conservatives are rational, intelligent individuals who believe in smart government and are a bit more restrictive regarding social policies than most centrists. The Lunatic Fringe is the far right wing of the party that believes government should be shrunk down to the size of a small dog and then drowned in a bathtub. The Lunatic Fringe is the politician who tells the folks in Missouri that just got ravaged by a 7 mile tornado that aid cannot be made to them until congress aproves spending cuts. The Lunatic Fringe are the idiots who believe Obama is born in Kenya, or that believe in Death Panels.

And it is a common Republican argument that the country is moving in their direction. Enjoy the majority you have in the House, because if the recent election in New York is any indication, Dems will get the majority back in 2012. But please, continue to believe that the country is moving more conservative, as your overconfidence will be your undoing.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting how you assume that I replaced lunatic fringe for conservative. I didn't. Conservatives are rational, intelligent individuals who believe in smart government and are a bit more restrictive regarding social policies than most centrists. The Lunatic Fringe is the far right wing of the party that believes government should be shrunk down to the size of a small dog and then drowned in a bathtub. The Lunatic Fringe is the politician who tells the folks in Missouri that just got ravaged by a 7 mile tornado that aid cannot be made to them until congress aproves spending cuts. The Lunatic Fringe are the idiots who believe Obama is born in Kenya, or that believe in Death Panels.

And it is a common Republican argument that the country is moving in their direction. Enjoy the majority you have in the House, because if the recent election in New York is any indication, Dems will get the majority back in 2012. But please, continue to believe that the country is moving more conservative, as your overconfidence will be your undoing.

To be fair, I think an emergency election in Ohio or Florida would be more indicative of the political pendulum.
 
I find it interesting how you assume that I replaced lunatic fringe for conservative. I didn't. Conservatives are rational, intelligent individuals who believe in smart government and are a bit more restrictive regarding social policies than most centrists. The Lunatic Fringe is the far right wing of the party that believes government should be shrunk down to the size of a small dog and then drowned in a bathtub. The Lunatic Fringe is the politician who tells the folks in Missouri that just got ravaged by a 7 mile tornado that aid cannot be made to them until congress aproves spending cuts. The Lunatic Fringe are the idiots who believe Obama is born in Kenya, or that believe in Death Panels.

And it is a common Republican argument that the country is moving in their direction. Enjoy the majority you have in the House, because if the recent election in New York is any indication, Dems will get the majority back in 2012. But please, continue to believe that the country is moving more conservative, as your overconfidence will be your undoing.

the true lunatic fringe are the ones that insist the federal government is needed to handle the damage from a tornado.

If that is the mindset of rational conservatives, then I question the definition of rational.
 
Here's an exercise that I find useful for thinking about who the Republican nominee will be. Create the most realistic narrative you can for each candidate's path to the nomination, then read them and see which sound the most plausible. Here is my attempt:

Mitt Romney - It was inevitable. Romney had the support of the establishment, the funds to support a campaign, and a great organization. He was the frontrunner leading into the nomination, and most of his potential rivals (Christie, Huckabee, Daniels, Barbour, Perry) chose not to enter the race at all. Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman never caught fire with Republican primary voters, leaving Romney to contend with the vanity candidates. Romney eked out a narrow victory over Michele Bachmann in Iowa, then cemented his position with a solid win in New Hampshire. After that, Romney never looked back as he won nearly every other primary.

Tim Pawlenty - Pawlenty was blessed with amazingly good luck this presidential race. He had the good fortune to be the generic Republican candidate in a race where every other candidate was deemed unacceptable by Republicans, for one reason or another. Of the three establishment candidates in the race (Pawlenty, Romney, Huntsman), the other two mainly fought with each other for votes, leaving Pawlenty to carve out a large niche for himself: downscale Republican voters who wanted an electable nominee. Furthermore, Pawlenty benefited from being an evangelical Christian running against two Mormons. Pawlenty trounced the competition in Iowa, then stunned Mitt Romney with a strong second place finish in New Hampshire. Although he lost Nevada to Romney, he came roaring back to success in South Carolina. As it became a two-man race, most of the establishment began lining up behind Pawlenty to prevent Romney (whom they saw as too liberal or too untrustworthy) from winning the nomination. On Super Tuesday, Pawlenty won a decisive victory.

Jon Huntsman - Huntsman entered the race a relative unknown, but emerged anything but. His stellar performances in the televised debates drew a sharp contrast with his rivals. He became viewed as the sole candidate who had both the personality to excite Republican voters and the ability to win the general election. In contrast to Romney and Pawlenty, most voters viewed Huntsman as more authentic and trustworthy. Despite the media's overblown analysis of Huntsman's relatively centrist views on civil unions, polls had always shown that his position on the issue was closer to the median Republican voter than were the views of his more conservative colleagues. After Mitt Romney finished an embarrassing fourth place in Iowa (behind Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Bachmann), pundits began openly questioning his electability and Romney's supporters and money began migrating to Huntsman. Huntsman trounced Pawlenty in New Hampshire and Nevada, and held his own with a narrow second place finish in South Carolina. Huntsman won most of the Super Tuesday states, and Pawlenty dropped out shortly thereafter.

Herman Cain - Cain's electrifying performances in the debates inspired GOP voters more than any of the more traditional candidates. He drew massive support from the internet, and the money followed shortly thereafter. As Obama's approval ratings hovered at nearly 55% by the year's end, many GOP voters began viewing their establishment candidates as woefully inadequate to defeat Obama, and were willing to take a chance on Cain. He won the Iowa caucuses in a close finish, stunning the establishment. When Romney preceded to win New Hampshire and Nevada, and Pawlenty won South Carolina, Cain appeared to be finished. But as Romney and Pawlenty turned their guns on one another, Cain was able to rise above the fray. On Super Tuesday, Romney and Pawlenty split the vote of Republicans who preferred an establishment candidate, allowing Cain to win more votes than either of them. Pawlenty dropped out following a poor showing, but it was too late for Romney to control the damage. Having established himself as a viable candidate, Cain proceeded to win most of the subsequent states.

Michele Bachmann - Bachmann, the darling of the conservative right, was always the natural choice to win Iowa. Most of her competitors were New Hampshire candidates, rather than Iowa candidates. Her Minnesota counterpart, Tim Pawlenty, never excited voters with his underwhelming debate performances and risk-averse campaign strategy. Following a poor showing in the Ames Straw Poll, Pawlenty dropped out. Bachmann coasted to an easy victory over Mitt Romney in Iowa, and surprised him with a win in New Hampshire too. This sent the Republican establishment into panic, which feared she was unelectable. Romney won Nevada, but Bachmann's victory in South Carolina meant that she was the clear winner in three of the four early states. When Romney dropped out following Super Tuesday, Bachmann became the presumptive nominee.

Newt Gingrich - (I see no path whatsoever for Newt to win the nomination.)

Ron Paul - (I see no path whatsoever for Ron Paul to win the nomination.)
 
Last edited:
It still makes up almost 1/4 of their total industry. Iowa is also the biggest producer of corn and ethanol in United States. Although true, most the work force aren't farmers there I'm sure many of the people are effected by the culture so it may hit home for them. I don't know if Pawlenty could lead with something like that but seeing how Romney is a weak forerunner and Pawlenty is the second best viable candidate right now, he could very well win Iowa. I would guarantee it to him if he said something like "ethanol subsidies and oil subsidies need to be phased out".

I wonder if Pawlenty is even aware that the current administration already has a plan to phase out corn ethanol?

May 05 2009

The Obama administration's sweeping revision to the federal renewable energy standard encourages development of high-yield ethanol from biomass.

"The Environmental Protection Agency has seen a future fueled by corn ethanol, and it doesn’t much like it. That’s why in a sweeping revision to the National Renewable Fuel Standard announced today, it proposes a shift over time to the higher-yielding cellulosic form of ethanol — which is produced largely from biomass (switchgrass, woodchips and sugar cane).

By 2022, the rulemaking proposes that the U.S. fuel mix will include 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels, four billion gallons of “advanced biofuels” and at least a billion gallons of diesel fuel made from biomass — an increasingly viable concept (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel can all be made from “feedstocks” as varied as sawdust and sugar cane)."
Fuel facts of life: Corn ethanol is out, and cellulosic ethanol from biomass is in | MNN - Mother Nature Network
 
Here's an exercise that I find useful for thinking about who the Republican nominee will be. Create the most realistic narrative you can for each candidate's path to the nomination, then read them and see which sound the most plausible. Here is my attempt:

Mitt Romney - It was inevitable. Romney had the support of the establishment, the funds to support a campaign, and a great organization. He was the frontrunner leading into the nomination, and most of his potential rivals (Christie, Huckabee, Daniels, Barbour, Perry) chose not to enter the race at all. Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman never caught fire with Republican primary voters, leaving Romney to contend with the vanity candidates. Romney eked out a narrow victory over Michele Bachmann in Iowa, then cemented his position with a solid win in New Hampshire. After that, Romney never looked back as he won nearly every other primary.

Tim Pawlenty - Pawlenty was blessed with amazingly good luck this presidential race. He had the good fortune to be the generic Republican candidate in a race where every other candidate was deemed unacceptable by Republicans, for one reason or another. Of the three establishment candidates in the race (Pawlenty, Romney, Huntsman), the other two mainly fought with each other for votes, leaving Pawlenty to carve out a large niche for himself: downscale Republican voters who wanted an electable nominee. Furthermore, Pawlenty benefited from being an evangelical Christian running against two Mormons. Pawlenty trounced the competition in Iowa, then stunned Mitt Romney with a strong second place finish in New Hampshire. Although he lost Nevada to Romney, he came roaring back to success in South Carolina. As it became a two-man race, most of the establishment began lining up behind Pawlenty to prevent Romney (whom they saw as too liberal or too untrustworthy) from winning the nomination. On Super Tuesday, Pawlenty won a decisive victory.

Jon Huntsman - Huntsman entered the race a relative unknown, but emerged anything but. His stellar performances in the televised debates drew a sharp contrast with his rivals. He became viewed as the sole candidate who had both the personality to excite Republican voters and the ability to win the general election. In contrast to Romney and Pawlenty, most voters viewed Huntsman as more authentic and trustworthy. Despite the media's overblown analysis of Huntsman's relatively centrist views on civil unions, polls had always shown that his position on the issue was closer to the median Republican voter than were the views of his more conservative colleagues. After Mitt Romney finished an embarrassing fourth place in Iowa (behind Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Bachmann), pundits began openly questioning his electability and Romney's supporters and money began migrating to Huntsman. Huntsman trounced Pawlenty in New Hampshire and Nevada, and held his own with a narrow second place finish in South Carolina. Huntsman won most of the Super Tuesday states, and Pawlenty dropped out shortly thereafter.

Herman Cain - Cain's electrifying performances in the debates inspired GOP voters more than any of the more traditional candidates. He drew massive support from the internet, and the money followed shortly thereafter. As Obama's approval ratings hovered at nearly 55% by the year's end, many GOP voters began viewing their establishment candidates as woefully inadequate to defeat Obama, and were willing to take a chance on Cain. He won the Iowa caucuses in a close finish, stunning the establishment. When Romney preceded to win New Hampshire and Nevada, and Pawlenty won South Carolina, Cain appeared to be finished. But as Romney and Pawlenty turned their guns on one another, Cain was able to rise above the fray. On Super Tuesday, Romney and Pawlenty split the vote of Republicans who preferred an establishment candidate, allowing Cain to win more votes than either of them. Pawlenty dropped out following a poor showing, but it was too late for Romney to control the damage. Having established himself as a viable candidate, Cain proceeded to win most of the subsequent states.

Michele Bachmann - Bachmann, the darling of the conservative right, was always the natural choice to win Iowa. Most of her competitors were New Hampshire candidates, rather than Iowa candidates. Her Minnesota counterpart, Tim Pawlenty, never excited voters with his underwhelming debate performances and risk-averse campaign strategy. Following a poor showing in the Ames Straw Poll, Pawlenty dropped out. Bachmann coasted to an easy victory over Mitt Romney in Iowa, and surprised him with a win in New Hampshire too. This sent the Republican establishment into panic, which feared she was unelectable. Romney won Nevada, but Bachmann's victory in South Carolina meant that she was the clear winner in three of the four early states. When Romney dropped out following Super Tuesday, Bachmann became the presumptive nominee.

Newt Gingrich - (I see no path whatsoever for Newt to win the nomination.)

Ron Paul - (I see no path whatsoever for Ron Paul to win the nomination.)

Thanks for taking the time to write all this up. I appreciate it.
 
the true lunatic fringe are the ones that insist the federal government is needed to handle the damage from a tornado.

If that is the mindset of rational conservatives, then I question the definition of rational.

So the fed should be involved in emergency disaster relief?

This is a myth.

It’s as gutsy as picking on the guy with tape on his glasses.

The vast, vast majority of Iowans aren’t farmers and they gain no benefit from farm subsidies. People that claim what you just claimed show how ignorant they are about the heartland in general.

The farm lobbies are strong in the Midwest, and have historically convinced the population that the entire state would suffer without those subsidies.
 
Last edited:
...our first inductee...

so you are basically saying that a state with a population of millions doesn't have the resources to handle a tornado.

I nominate you.
 
Back
Top Bottom