• 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.

33% of GOP Voters Say It Would Be Good If New Candidate Entered Presidential Race

teamosil said:
Actually only 75 out of 2,289 delegates have been committed thus far. Theoretically somebody could wait to enter the race for quite a while still and still get enough delegates. Practically speaking though, nobody could get a campaign up in time at this point. The only way in would be through a brokered convention. But a brokered convention carries a lot of stigma. It would kind of be perceived as an admission that they were not able to come up with anybody.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they would not be able to get on many states' ballots. The only realistic chance is a brokered convention.
 
teamosil said:
Actually only 75 out of 2,289 delegates have been committed thus far. Theoretically somebody could wait to enter the race for quite a while still and still get enough delegates. Practically speaking though, nobody could get a campaign up in time at this point. The only way in would be through a brokered convention. But a brokered convention carries a lot of stigma. It would kind of be perceived as an admission that they were not able to come up with anybody.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we've already kindof admitted that with all this bickering and switching back and forth between candidates . . . so . . . if we do have a brokered convention, and it ends up being someone that is liked only a fraction of a bit more than Romney, I think Republican voters would be relieved, rather than feel shame.
 
MaggieD said:
It's a pretty sure bet that Obama is going to win a second term regardless of what candidate Republicans put up. Encumbancy is the most powerful political force on planet earth. We've only had three one-term presidents since WW II. I think there are probably a number of people who have their eye on the presidency...good ones...but they're not going to step up and face overwhelming odds trying to defeat Obama. 2016. Wait for it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here Maggie! So does quantitative historian, Allan Lichtman, and the mathematical system of prediction he developed for presidential elections:

"The 13 Keys to the Presidency"

"If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. "

1. After the midterm election, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the preceding midterm election. (FALSE)
2. The incumbent-party nominee gets at least two-thirds of the vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention. (TRUE)
3. The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. (TRUE)
4. There is no third-party or independent candidacy that wins at least five percent of the vote. (TRUE)
5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign. (Probably TRUE)
6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. (FALSE)
7. The administration achieves a major policy change during the term, on the order of the New Deal or the first-term Reagan “revolution.” (TRUE)
8. There has been no major social unrest during the term, sufficient to cause deep concerns about the unraveling of society. (TRUE)
9. There is no broad recognition of a scandal that directly touches the president. (TRUE)
10. There has been no military or foreign policy failure during the term, substantial enough that it appears to undermine America’s national interests significantly or threaten its standing in the world. (UNCERTAIN)
11. There has been a military or foreign policy success during the term substantial enough to advance America’s national interests or improve its standing in the world. (FALSE)
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. (FALSE)
13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. (TRUE)

If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. "

Election 2012: The
 
No **** Sherlock - there doesn't seem to be any good candidate on the Republican side... Mitt probably has the best chance, but Obama can beat him simply by pointing out that he's a fat cat, one of the 0.1% and by lambasting private equity, which the other Republicans have already started doing for him.
 
MOrion said:
Yeah, but we've already kindof admitted that with all this bickering and switching back and forth between candidates . . . so . . . if we do have a brokered convention, and it ends up being someone that is liked only a fraction of a bit more than Romney, I think Republican voters would be relieved, rather than feel shame.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about whether the Republicans feel shame or not, it's that people won't be very optimistic and confident in a candidate that was just kind of hobbled together at the last second or a party that doesn't appear to be capable of running a campaign. And then you'd have a candidate that was pretty much untested being picked. Everybody is all hot on Mitch Daniels or whatever, but he's never had real national attention on him. We've never seen him in a debate. We don't know if he's going to come out with some "I think we should invade Mexico" plan or say that he thinks the automobile was invented by Jesus or whatever crazed Republican thing. Virtually all the guys that didn't run didn't run for a reason- because they polled even worse than the guys that did run.

At this point, who knows, maybe a fresh candidate in a brokered convention is actually the GOP's best bet, but lets not mistake what that is. That'd be a Hail Mary pass of historic proportions they'd be trying.
 
MOrion said:
Obama was a nobody before the Democratic convention in 2004. If some previously unknown guy (or gal) was chosen as the nominee at the Republican convention, I think that would pretty much automatically make them a "big" name person . . .
Click to expand...

Obama was an up and comer that was big in inner circles of the DNC but not much else in 2004.......and still was thought as a darkhorse candidate against Hillary Four Years Later.

That's a lot different than some unknown person popping up at the convention and IMMEDIETELY running.

Plus the question was asking about someone entering the primary race...not someone different being chosen in something like a brokered convention. That'd mean they'd need to enter the race here at least before Super Tuesday to have any real chance. So they couldn't use the convention as a spring board
 
Catawba said:
I agree with you here Maggie! So does quantitative historian, Allan Lichtman, and the mathematical system of prediction he developed for presidential elections:

"The 13 Keys to the Presidency"

"If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. "

1. After the midterm election, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the preceding midterm election. (FALSE)
2. The incumbent-party nominee gets at least two-thirds of the vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention. (TRUE)
3. The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. (TRUE)
4. There is no third-party or independent candidacy that wins at least five percent of the vote. (TRUE)
5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign. (Probably TRUE)
6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. (FALSE)
7. The administration achieves a major policy change during the term, on the order of the New Deal or the first-term Reagan “revolution.” (TRUE)
8. There has been no major social unrest during the term, sufficient to cause deep concerns about the unraveling of society. (TRUE)
9. There is no broad recognition of a scandal that directly touches the president. (TRUE)
10. There has been no military or foreign policy failure during the term, substantial enough that it appears to undermine America’s national interests significantly or threaten its standing in the world. (UNCERTAIN)
11. There has been a military or foreign policy success during the term substantial enough to advance America’s national interests or improve its standing in the world. (FALSE)
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. (FALSE)
13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. (TRUE)

If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. "

Election 2012: The
Click to expand...

The keys are still BS. But Obama will probably win due to the lack of competition.

The keys were wrong in 2000. Their argument was that Al Gore won the popular vote, but that is just an excuse they made up when they realized they predicted wrong.
 
Catawba said:
I agree with you here Maggie! So does quantitative historian, Allan Lichtman, and the mathematical system of prediction he developed for presidential elections:

"The 13 Keys to the Presidency"

"If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses. "
Click to expand...

Interesting list. Though I think a few things are still uncertain there and some I have a question about...

5. Considered by economists or by the general public?

7. This one seems a bit iffy, only because his major policy issue is one that seems to be unpopular (for different reasons) with both sides which is a bit different than Reagan or FDR

8. Social unrest....occupy and the tea party both make me wonder on this one

11. You could possibly say Osama could make this true, though unsure there with everything else. At least questionable imho.

13. Its not "more charismatic" but rather just charismatic. I think Newt has some charisma to him above the normal (I think that's largely how, despite his many personal flaws, he still is remaining relevant). I don't think Mitt has much more than the average politician. But I don't think you can write true or not here until the nominee is selected.
 
joko104 said:
I agree that is understood and why the field are all has-been political failures and losers. The best or strongest of the GOP potentials opted out.
Click to expand...


I agree that the choice of GOP candidates are Not the Cream of the Crop, however I would take any of the 3 highest GOP candidates running for President, over the Current president in office, I think to add another candidate at this time would only support the fact we don't believe in the choices we already have.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
33% of GOP Voters Say It Would Be Good If New Candidate Entered Presidential Race - Rasmussen Reports™

I was wondering when one of the polling entities was going to ask GOPs if they want the candidates they have been given thus far. If 33% of GOPs don't want them then it is fair to say that at least 50% of independents don't. Unless something changes, Obama's likely to win by a wider margin than in the last election.
Click to expand...
Really, you think it's fair to say? Romney has been all about getting the Independent vote, and he's not conservative. But now more independents are dissatisfied than conservatives? Makes perfect sense, uh huh. And 31% said it would be bad for the race, so I don't see the point here anyway.
 
Camlon said:
The keys are still BS. The keys were wrong in 2000. Their argument was that Al Gore won the popular vote, but that is just an excuse they made up when they realized they predicted wrong.
Click to expand...

"it has correctly predicted the popular vote outcome of every U. S. presidential election since 1984, including George H. W. Bush’s comeback from nearly 20 percent behind in the polls in 1988 and Al Gore’s narrow win in 2000."

But Obama will probably win due to the lack of competition.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is one of the keys.
 
Zyphlin said:
Interesting list. Though I think a few things are still uncertain there and some I have a question about...

5. Considered by economists or by the general public?

7. This one seems a bit iffy, only because his major policy issue is one that seems to be unpopular (for different reasons) with both sides which is a bit different than Reagan or FDR

8. Social unrest....occupy and the tea party both make me wonder on this one

11. You could possibly say Osama could make this true, though unsure there with everything else. At least questionable imho.

13. Its not "more charismatic" but rather just charismatic. I think Newt has some charisma to him above the normal (I think that's largely how, despite his many personal flaws, he still is remaining relevant). I don't think Mitt has much more than the average politician. But I don't think you can write true or not here until the nominee is selected.
Click to expand...

He has very specific criteria to determine the answer to each key, I've seen some of that described. I'll see if I can find it again and post it.

Edit: Here is what I found on the rationale he used to determine the answer to each key:

"Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.
4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom