gop field

liblady said:

so, it looks like the frontrunners in the gop field all have problems. who do you think could be the dark horse? huntsman is the least unattractive imo. if you are a conservative, seriously, aren't you despairing at the current crop of bungling bores begging you for your vote?

don't think obama will be easy to beat, because you guys really have no viable candidates. romney polls the same ALL OF THE TIME....20-23%. never changes. perry and cain continue to embarrass themselves. bachmann is done, santorum is done. that leaves gingrich (fat chance) and huntsman.

gop, what do you think? who is your choice?

Click to expand...

I think Obama's going to win the election. And I think the GOP thinks so as well. Truly strong electable candidates are laying in the weeds, imo.

MaggieD said:

I think Obama's going to win the election. And I think the GOP thinks so as well. Truly strong electable candidates are laying in the weeds, imo.

Click to expand...

True candidates were laying in the weeds in 2008 when the GOP led McCain to the slaughterhouse with the air guitar from Alaska.

MaggieD said:

I think Obama's going to win the election. And I think the GOP thinks so as well. Truly strong electable candidates are laying in the weeds, imo.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is really what it boils down to with the GOP. Any GOP candidate that would have had any substantial & creditable chance at winning the nominee much less the Presidency isn't running and all the candidates standing there with high hopes understand this also, especially Romney. He is the next in line so he, as so many other state will get it when they go to Denver and hit the default button. I would have to say this really is the best strategy for the republican party being that they want to skip this 4 year term in the White House and divert taken over this economy, the GOP parties policies are keeping this reality in check as you look in at the approval ratings on congress, its not that they can't get anything done with current administration, it is they can't, because the policies they (tea party) are throwing out there isn't even kosher with most of the GOP's own core base. This plays a huge part in my eyes with any viable GOP running and you get the "lame duck" presidential candidates as well.

I'd love for Huntsman to get the nomination. However I think its next to impossible. There's a little hope since we're so far out and it seems the front runners keep eating themselves alive, so he could make it by attrition. On one hand, the media has painted him as Romney without the Gravitas (an extremely unfair presentation imho) so its hard to see him working as the "not Romney". At the same time, if somehow it does get whittled down to where Huntsman is the only legitimate alternative to Romney I think the incorrect presentation of him could be altered and he'd be seen more positive than Romney. However, like I said, it'd a long shot and HIGHLY implausible that it even got to such a point and would likely require Perry to continue to fall, Cain to do something that just destroys his chances, Paul continued to be viewed as fringe and unelectable, and Newt not be able to surge...and that's a **** ton of iff's.

So discussing Dark Horses I'd imagine that it'd need to be someone other than Romney, the favorite, or the two "top challengers" who've pressed him in Perry and Cain.

So that leaves us, of the main candidates, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, Newt, and Paul.

Out of those I see only three potential dark horse scenarios...

Most likely would be Paul to challenge as a dark horse would be Paul, though out of the dark horses I think he'd be the least likely to win. I see him potentially being a Dark Horse due to his financial ability to stay in the race. If he can finish decently higher in the first few primaries...higher than last time at least...and if Cain and/or Perry get out somewhat early due to seeing that its not financially worth it, Paul could emerge as the only even semi-serious "Not Romney" candidate. That mixed with his grass roots set up makes it potentially there.

Next would be Newt. His would be difficult but would rely on him just doing stellar in the debates closest to the Primaries and stealing one of the first three. I think he has the personality and debate skills to take something like that and actually get it rolling with significant steam. Again, its a long shot and its something where everything would need to fall into place...but IF it happened he'd be the type to pull it off.

The third would be the Huntsman scenario I said above.

I just don't see a good way that Bachmann or Santorum could conceivably manage to be dark horse candidates.

Gary Johnson. He makes too much sense to win. His campaign is logic based. Much too much information for voters. He doesn't stand a chance. TeeVee doesn't like logic and reason.

let's be honest folks: ALL of these GOP debates months before the primary season began, has only done the GOP candidates damage.

liblady said:

so, it looks like the frontrunners in the gop field all have problems. who do you think could be the dark horse? huntsman is the least unattractive imo. if you are a conservative, seriously, aren't you despairing at the current crop of bungling bores begging you for your vote?

don't think obama will be easy to beat, because you guys really have no viable candidates. romney polls the same ALL OF THE TIME....20-23%. never changes. perry and cain continue to embarrass themselves. bachmann is done, santorum is done. that leaves gingrich (fat chance) and huntsman.

gop, what do you think? who is your choice?

Click to expand...

I'm kind of surprised Huntsman didn't take off more. But he's been in far too long to pose any threat now. He may have been better off entering later than he did.

But he is, IMO, someone Millenials and Generation Xers should find appealing. I think the fact that he has done so poorly may say something troubling about the willingness of 20-something voters to consider Republican candidates.

Krhazy said:

I'm kind of surprised Huntsman didn't take off more. But he's been in far too long to pose any threat now. He may have been better off entering later than he did.

But he is, IMO, someone Millenials and Generation Xers should find appealing. I think the fact that he has done so poorly may say something troubling about the willingness of 20-something voters to consider Republican candidates.

Click to expand...

A large part is he's ran a horribly crappy campaign and made some bad PR decisions on presentation I think that simply played into the damaging persona that was painted by the Media (Both Mainstream and "new") rather than confronted it.

Zyphlin said:

A large part is he's ran a horribly crappy campaign and made some bad PR decisions on presentation I think that simply played into the damaging persona that was painted by the Media (Both Mainstream and "new") rather than confronted it.

Click to expand...

I don't think the media has portrayed him poorly. What makes you say that?

The constant portrayal as a "moderate" does him no favors and frankly I find to be rather ill fitting as well; to me, a few non-in line views, especially in regards to one particular aspect of conservatism, does not a moderate make. He's not moderate on his fiscal conservatism, he's not very moderate governmental, hard to really say in regards to Defense issues...I'd almost say traditional conservative rather than moderate...its only really on social issues he could be portrayed as "moderate". More's been made about him being a Mormon than's been made about his success with taxes, gdp growth, or job growth in Utah.

The guy is one of the most solidly right fiscally conservative in the field, with arguably the best actual track record of not just talk and not just action but SUCCESSFUL action as anyone in the field...yet he's made out to be a "moderate" during a time when Fiscal Conservatism is at the forefront of what's being talked about amongst conservatives.

On the big issues recently?

1. Job Creation - Deregulation and business friendly taxes leads to Utah being routinely a top 3 state in the nation for businesses
2. Taxes - Historic tax cuts in the state
3. Economic Growth - His states GDP went up on average 8% a year under him, much better paced than what we're seeing as a nation
4. Government Spending - Government spending as a percentage of GDP went down under his time as governor
5. Health Care - He supported and signed into law market driven, consumer choice focused, health care reform

Five big issues right now, and through actions based on Conservative...not moderate...principles Huntsman actually helped his state succeed in results that Republicans would like to see. That, to me, doesn't sound like someone that should be painted continually and repeatedly as if he's akin to Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, or even John McCain.

He may not be hard right, and he may have SOME moderate views, but on the whole his positions and actions have been pretty solidly right

Tigger said:

Romney will be the nominee, thus ensuring 4 more years of Democratic Party control of the White House. I would suggest that there may be a couple of Right-Wing Third Party candidates who will take significant number of votes away from Romney. I also predict that MANY Conservatives will stay home the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2012. Obama wins the election AT LEAST 56%-40% with 4% choosing other candidates. I also predict it will be one of the least attended Presidential elections in modern US History. Lastly, Obama sees this as a Mandate from The People and turns HARD LEFT, seeking to implement numerous Leftist policies in the First 100 Days. Especially if the Republicans lose control of the House, which I see as a possibility.

Click to expand...

I think if Romney wins the nomination, he might become President. The anti-obama vote will just be too strong, and since this will be the most boring election in decades, many Obama supporters won't come out and vote. Many republicans will vote no matter what. I think you are right it will be the least attended election.

If Cain wins, he also might win the Presidency. It really depends how he campaigns. He is truly the wild card.

Thunder said:

let's be honest folks: ALL of these GOP debates months before the primary season began, has only done the GOP candidates damage.

Click to expand...

I love all the debates. Essentially, folks are getting to hear what the candidates feel on all subjects and vet them. I'm not impressed by the choices, but at least I get enough information to make a choice. I hope (likely in vain) that we will get many debates between President Obama and the republican nominee.

Cain is gonna get it.

Since Perry didn't live up to the hype, I think this will be the ticket Obama will run against in 2012 ~

Catawba said:

Since Perry didn't live up to the hype, I think this will be the ticket Obama will run against in 2012 ~

Click to expand...

I don't know. Two Mormons? I think that would be too big of a mountain for the religious right to swallow.

Romney should have the lead position and most likely he is going to have to pick a far righter candidate for his VP.

Catawba said:

Since Perry didn't live up to the hype, I think this will be the ticket Obama will run against in 2012 ~

Click to expand...

I've said it in another thread and I'll say it here..

As one of Huntsman's biggest fans on the forum, this would be a ridiculously stupid ticket. Huntsman add's nothing to the ticket politically and would be a horrible strategic pick for Mitt.

Zyphlin said:

I've said it in another thread and I'll say it here..

As one of Huntsman's biggest fans on the forum, this would be a ridiculously stupid ticket. Huntsman add's nothing to the ticket politically and would be a horrible strategic pick for Mitt.

Click to expand...

Now now, that isn't true, adding huntsman to your ticket gets you one additional voter .:mrgreen:

Crosscheck said:

I don't know. Two Mormons? I think that would be too big of a mountain for the religious right to swallow.

Romney should have the lead position and most likely he is going to have to pick a far righter candidate for his VP.

Click to expand...

I don't see that for the general election. I think Romney will need someone more moderate to win the independent votes IMO.

Zyphlin said:

I've said it in another thread and I'll say it here..

As one of Huntsman's biggest fans on the forum, this would be a ridiculously stupid ticket. Huntsman add's nothing to the ticket politically and would be a horrible strategic pick for Mitt.

Click to expand...

You may be right, but I think Huntsman would lend credibility for the independents and centrist which I think will be important in a general election if Romney is to have any chance at all to win against Obama.

Catawba said:

You may be right, but I think Huntsman would lend credibility for the independents and centrist which I think will be important in a general election if Romney is to have any chance at all to win against Obama.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the only reason to nominate Romney is with the hope he's going to attract independents and centrists.

Romney's issue is with the base. Adding a VP candidate who will be more attractive to independents and centrists than to the base just copies the constituency Romney already attracts.

Huntsman would make sense for a VP of a Perry or Cain presidency, not of a Romney one

Zyphlin said:

Except for the fact that the only reason to nominate Romney is with the hope he's going to attract independents and centrists.

Romney's issue is with the base. Adding a VP candidate who will be more attractive to independents and centrists than to the base just copies the constituency Romney already attracts.

Huntsman would make sense for a VP of a Perry or Cain presidency, not of a Romney one

Click to expand...

Yep, I agree with that. He would do well to pick Cain (assuming that Cain doesn't win the nomination!).

Zyphlin said:

Except for the fact that the only reason to nominate Romney is with the hope he's going to attract independents and centrists.

Romney's issue is with the base. Adding a VP candidate who will be more attractive to independents and centrists than to the base just copies the constituency Romney already attracts.

Huntsman would make sense for a VP of a Perry or Cain presidency, not of a Romney one

Click to expand...

Like I say, you may be right, however, these Romney positions don't sound very centrist to me:

"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Saturday continued his attacks on President Barack Obama for announcing the withdrawal of virtually all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, decrying it as a "sudden change of policy."
Romney Criticizes Obama On Iraq - Politics News Story - WDIV Detroit

"In Pittsburgh yesterday, Mitt Romney told a questioner, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”
Romney and Climate Change - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online

"Romney has said that he thinks that the Don't ask, don't tell policy is working and he would not change it, especially in the middle of a war, and that "we have much bigger issues as a nation that we ought to be talking about than that policy right now."

"We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform."

"Romney wishes to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops."

"Romney has called for an expansion of the Navy that is estimated to cost $40 billion, but has given no firm details on how he would pay for this."

"Romney has opposed ratification of New START, a bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation,[167] in part because he wishes to deploy defensive missiles on submarines[168]

Romney has written that the "utopian aspiration" of the abolition of nuclear weapons, first put forwards by Ronald Reagan, has undermined America's position in the world."
Political positions of Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney is a blob of jello. He's taking those positions to win over the Tea Partiers. If he wins the nomination he'll flip flop on or walk back most of that.

AdamT said:

Romney is a blob of jello. He's taking those positions to win over the Tea Partiers. If he wins the nomination he'll flip flop on or walk back most of that.

Click to expand...

Many of these positions he has held since 2007. And this flop flopping on the remainder will go unnoticed by the independents and moderates?

Catawba said:

Like I say, you may be right, however, these Romney positions don't sound very centrist to me:

Click to expand...

And if you want to quote positions that don't sound centrist, trust me, I can find a **** ton for Huntsman. I've been doing that for weeks now in this forum. Huntsman is SOLIDLY fiscally and governmentally conservative, traditionalist when it comes to national defense, and moderate right on Social issues. He's against raising taxes on the rich, in favor of consumer market driven health care reform, for deregulation of business, for tax breaks for businesses, for reducing government spending, is prolife, is for securing the borders, and I could go on.

Its not about what is reality, its...sadly...about perception. The perception of both Romney and Huntsman is that they're "moderates" who are not "hard right".

Romney's biggest issue isn't attracting the independent vote, its attracting the base. Its the same issue McCain had. You're correct in that you can't win a national election without attracting independents. What you choose to ignore however is its also not possible to win a national election without securing your base...and Romney has a significant issue doing that. A pick of Huntsman, based on how he's presented by the Media and the Republican establishment, would not help him with the base but would further alienate the base. Whatever good he might do with independents would be countered by the further damage it'd do to his actual base.