• 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!

Will Michele Bachmann Win The GOP Nominiation?

Will Michele Bachmann win the GOP nominiation?


  • Total voters
    39
I respect your opinion as well and I believe that you bring up valid points that I agree with.

However, I view Obama in a similar light as Bachman. Bachman was a birther because she's a talking head for extreme right wing GOP talking points. However, I believe Obama is similar only on a different spectrum. I look at Obama's extreme rhetoric regarding the stimulus bill (scare tactics and promising unemployment below 8%) and his arrogant attacks towards the GOP (like laughing about the border and saying Repubs won't be happy unless we have a moat around Mexico). I think Obama clings to talking points as well. Given the current debt and direction of the country, I think Obama's presidency and administration is more harmful than what Bachman would do. If anything I think Bachman *could* act upon some of her points I agree with like lowering debt, decreasing spending, lowering taxes, and allowing economic recovery to happen. I don't support Bachman at all, but given the choice between her and Obama I would pick her as the lesser of two evils (or naive morons).

I'm literally stunned, and quite possibly in shock.
 
I respect your opinion as well and I believe that you bring up valid points that I agree with.

However, I view Obama in a similar light as Bachman. Bachman was a birther because she's a talking head for extreme right wing GOP talking points. However, I believe Obama is similar only on a different spectrum. I look at Obama's extreme rhetoric regarding the stimulus bill (scare tactics and promising unemployment below 8%) and his arrogant attacks towards the GOP (like laughing about the border and saying Repubs won't be happy unless we have a moat around Mexico). I think Obama clings to talking points as well. Given the current debt and direction of the country, I think Obama's presidency and administration is more harmful than what Bachman would do. If anything I think Bachman *could* act upon some of her points I agree with like lowering debt, decreasing spending, lowering taxes, and allowing economic recovery to happen. I don't support Bachman at all, but given the choice between her and Obama I would pick her as the lesser of two evils (or naive morons).

yeah but lets look at what you brought up
dont you think he thought unemployment would get better and with good reason from his side/advisors.
dont you think his moat comment is sarcasm?

again Im not deafening these things at all im just saying I dont look at them as "crazy" even if I disagree with them.

Those things on Micheles list along with being a birther I view as CRAZY, they are lunacy.

If my choice is ONLY between them two I vote Obama every singe time and feel said a person like michele could even make it to run for the presidency of the country I love.

I may not agree with Obama on stuff but again I dont think he is a whack job, me and him may disagree like I disagree with you. I can still see LOGIC and REASON behind the things you say even if I dont agree.

With SOME of Michelle comments I see pure idiocy, no logic, no rational just plain ignorance or stupidity. That will always be the BIGGER of the two evils or morons. I she honestly believes those things she said and convinced herself to be a birth nobody like that should ever dawn the oval office.

Damn it Digs theres a RED PHONE in there I dont want her picking it up to order pizza!
Or running a generator in there because theres no proof Carbon Dioxide is dangerous! :D

See i making a joke but to me this is the difference disagree with a different logic (obama) is different than disagree with idiocy(michelle).
 
I respect your opinion as well and I believe that you bring up valid points that I agree with.

However, I view Obama in a similar light as Bachman. Bachman was a birther because she's a talking head for extreme right wing GOP talking points. However, I believe Obama is similar only on a different spectrum. I look at Obama's extreme rhetoric regarding the stimulus bill (scare tactics and promising unemployment below 8%) and his arrogant attacks towards the GOP (like laughing about the border and saying Repubs won't be happy unless we have a moat around Mexico). I think Obama clings to talking points as well. Given the current debt and direction of the country, I think Obama's presidency and administration is more harmful than what Bachman would do. If anything I think Bachman *could* act upon some of her points I agree with like lowering debt, decreasing spending, lowering taxes, and allowing economic recovery to happen. I don't support Bachman at all, but given the choice between her and Obama I would pick her as the lesser of two evils (or naive morons).

The reason the stimulus didn't work is because the way it was done was through tax cuts and state grants instead of doing the real progressive thing of rebuilding America.

Wow
Those are just blurbs and of course context is important but if all those are true and not taken out of basic context, anybody that wants this lady near the white house needs to seriously rethink that crazy idea.

She is a nutcase, a walking talking point, all about shock factor (or ignorance), nothing more than hot air and obviously has diarrhea of the mouth lol

I think she seriously believes what she says. The religious right has be co-opted by many with power who think the constitution is god inspired, gays are gay by choice, capitalism is godly, people with power are there because god deems them worthy, only god can destory the world so we should just live like we (in side biblical principals) i.e. environmental harm be damned, etc

However, now that I think about it, this combination is beneficial to both sides. When ever the economy is in a slump, a person like her can win because, generally speaking, people will vote for the person they deem the most likely to fix the economy. This is why I worry about someone like her. I'd rather have Palin, who seems a bit more moderate on the social issues.
 
Can't decide if she's stupid, crazy or both but no. I don't want her anywhere near the White House.

In the poll you voted that you think she will win, and that you hope she does win. Sort of conflicts with your posts in the thread....<scratches head>



.
 
Michele Bachmann is a well educated, disciplined and very experienced politician who is well known by her former Minnesota opponents to be an extremely energetic and effective campaigner.

Chris Matthews on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last week predicted she would win the Republican nomination and I fear he's right.

Mitt Romney can't win in the South and Bachmann was born in Iowa. I think she'll do well in New Hampshire, too.

Why don't we have direct presidential elections in America? In my opinion it's because the founding fathers feared populists like Michele Bachmann.

As a Democrat I take her very seriously; she'll be a tough opponent for Obama.

This has to be a joke, a tough opponenet?
Is she not going to talk the whole time?

objectionable people will never put her in the white house, one debate or town hall meeting where she starts talking crazy and all the moderates, independents on objection people run far away. Now if she can some hoe magically change who she is and the things she says and make everybody forget she was a birth until about 2 months ago maybe. The birther issue alone is enough for me, I could never vote for anybody that void of logic and stupid on a subject that crazy..
 
In the poll you voted that you think she will win, and that you hope she does win. Sort of conflicts with your posts in the thread....<scratches head>



.

not if shes hoping that obama wins the easiest way possible ;)
 
For the last time, Obama did NOT promise unemployment below 8%. Period.
 
Sometimes she can't control her tounge, but make no mistake she is very intelligent. That was the same deal with George Bush, though Bush represents the country club big spending Republican faction and Bachmann represents the Tea Party fiscal sanity faction.

Cain is my first choice and Bachmann is my second.

Electing Romney or Huntsman would be better than Obama, but..........
I don't like it when the two choices are:
1-Shooting yourself in the head(Obama)
2-Shooting yourself in the foot(Romney or Huntsman)

I think the ideal ticket is Cain/Paul. Paul is perfect as long as he isn't in charge of foreign policy, and young people and moderates love him.
 
I don't think she'll win it. Not a savy enough politician and prone to too many gaffes. I also think, with no Democratic primary, independents and possibly even Democrats will be voting in the primaries more than in a normal year which I think will work against her as well. If it was a race of Her, Paul, and Romney I could see her winning it. With Pawlenty, Santorum, and Cain I think her voting base will be split more so than other candidates.

She's about 4 or 5th on my list (5th or 6th if we include Johnson) of those running that I'd want to see win it. Comes after Huntsman, Paul, Cain, and probably fights with Pawlenty for 4th and 5th followed by Romney, Gingrich, and then 20 steps back Santorum.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes she can't control her tounge, but make no mistake she is very intelligent. That was the same deal with George Bush, though Bush represents the country club big spending Republican faction and Bachmann represents the Tea Party fiscal sanity faction.

Cain is my first choice and Bachmann is my second.

Electing Romney or Huntsman would be better than Obama, but..........
I don't like it when the two choices are:
1-Shooting yourself in the head(Obama)
2-Shooting yourself in the foot(Romney or Huntsman)

I think the ideal ticket is Cain/Paul. Paul is perfect as long as he isn't in charge of foreign policy, and young people and moderates love him.

I fell bad for you bigfoot and NO this is not a jab. Im saying I feel bad for you because IMO that ticket has no chance.

While I agree that ALL politicians lose substance on the surface because of media etc but a Cain or Bachmann ticket will be viewed as a Shock Jock or Birther ticket.

IMO both those candidate never win because they are whats wrong with politics today. They will do nothing but attack, and use talking points with bias and partisan rhetoric and hyperbole.

now mind you they may LEAD a different way but that doesnt matter because they will RUN how I described above and the american people are done with that currently. That stuff will always be around in politics but right now objective people are totally fed up with these antics and it will drown any and all candidates that choose this route.
 
I fell bad for you bigfoot and NO this is not a jab. Im saying I feel bad for you because IMO that ticket has no chance.

While I agree that ALL politicians lose substance on the surface because of media etc but a Cain or Bachmann ticket will be viewed as a Shock Jock or Birther ticket.

IMO both those candidate never win because they are whats wrong with politics today. They will do nothing but attack, and use talking points with bias and partisan rhetoric and hyperbole.

now mind you they may LEAD a different way but that doesnt matter because they will RUN how I described above and the american people are done with that currently. That stuff will always be around in politics but right now objective people are totally fed up with these antics and it will drown any and all candidates that choose this route.

People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.

Nobody wants a moderate Republican.

This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.

When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.
 
People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.

Nobody wants a moderate Republican.

This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.

When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.

Reagan went after Carter but he also had an uplifting, positive message and a vision for America's future. I have yet to see anything positive or inspiring about Bachmann's message, in fact just the opposite.
 
Reagan went after Carter but he also had an uplifting, positive message and a vision for America's future. I have yet to see anything positive or inspiring about Bachmann's message, in fact just the opposite.

You wouldn't because you are a liberal. She is always talking about making America better. Did you watch the debate?
 
People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.

Nobody wants a moderate Republican.

This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.

When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.

I know nobody like this in real life. Not saying they dont exist just saying.
Everyone I know dem, rep, ind wants a candidate that has IDEAS not just attacking and not just talking points and they all want civility if the other option is moronic blind bias attacking.

Attacking will fail and cause Obama to win, just like blind attacking and no substance cause Bush jr to get his second term.

I made a bet with Babrtx that Cain will never be president Ill gladly make the same bet with you about cain and michelle
 
I know nobody like this in real life. Not saying they dont exist just saying.
Everyone I know dem, rep, ind wants a candidate that has IDEAS not just attacking and not just talking points and they all want civility if the other option is moronic blind bias attacking.

Attacking will fail and cause Obama to win, just like blind attacking and no substance cause Bush jr to get his second term.

I made a bet with Babrtx that Cain will never be president Ill gladly make the same bet with you about cain and michelle

You don't look for substance which is why you don't see it. You focus on seeing how often they are attacking. They all have plenty of substance and give Obama his shots when he deserves them.

Bush Jr. won again because Kerry was about as exciting as a puddle of mud.

I don't make bets, but Cain is who I will be supporting. Will he win? Who knows he has a shot.
 
You wouldn't because you are a liberal. She is always talking about making America better. Did you watch the debate?

Not all liberals are close-minded hacks. Perhaps I need to change my lean as 'slightly liberal' because I am always approached by those who are 'conservative' or 'very conservative' as being a blind partisan who can never see the other side, which simply is not the case. I just in that very post acknowledged that Ronald Reagan had a positive message, which was a large part of why he was able to look so attractive to independents and even Democrats. Obama had a very similar sort of appeal in 2008, like it or not. Currently, Jon Huntsman does as well - I know it's not resonating with folks like you because you'll never be able to look past his stances on, say, civil unions and cap and trade. But the fact of the matter is that, policy aside, he is sitting there advocating civility in our debate and a positive way forward for our country. As opposed to Gingrich and Bachmann and even Pawlenty who are nothing but doom and gloom and depression. Bachmann is barely a step above a bomb thrower like Hannity or Coulter. She does nothing but rail against government and everything it does and everyone in opposition to her as if they are enemies out to ruin America and piss all over everyone's liberties. That may rile up the base who hate Democrats and will always hate them. But it will do little to appeal to the moderates and independents she will need to win over if she's going to win a general election.
 
You wouldn't because you are a liberal. She is always talking about making America better. Did you watch the debate?

this is what i mean, you just made a blanket statement about liberals, america doesnt want this stuff and if cain and michelle do this (they already do) they will fail

then you just made an empty statement that "she talks about making america better" dont all candidates.

again not attacking just saying america wants substance
 
You don't look for substance which is why you don't see it. You focus on seeing how often they are attacking. They all have plenty of substance and give Obama his shots when he deserves them.

Bush Jr. won again because Kerry was about as exciting as a puddle of mud.

I don't make bets, but Cain is who I will be supporting. Will he win? Who knows he has a shot.

See this is what unobjective people do and why cain and michelle will fail.

I just gave them credit for how they MIGHT lead but said they cant win on their running style so I CLEARLY didnt say they have no substance personally I said they will be judged on how they run.

but since I said stuff you didnt like you just knee jerked ignored everything else and accused me of not looking for substance LMAO thats brilliant.

Never mind I see what I am dealing with now, I wanted an objective conversation.
 
This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.

The problem of course is not necessarily the attack but HOW the attacks are done. One can attack and still have a positive campaign.

Point out issues and differences in approach and give your own view on it. Compared how policies doen by one has failed and comparitively how the policy done by another has suceeded. Talk in more generalities when speaking about negatives, and keep it issue focused rather than veering off into either more personal or barely relevant things (like the birther issue) or into huge hyperbole (Will destroy our country, hates grandma, etc etc). And overall be positive in your message, positive of what America can be, of what America is, of the people. Make it out that your platform and agenda is going to fix things and make things better RATHER than focusing primarily that the opponents platform and agenda have made things worse. People know and realize things are bad, you don't have to retell them that. They will respond much better to you telling them it can get better rather than reminding them directly that its bad.

If you're an aquantince and I'm offering you a job, and I know you're being paid jack crap in your current job and its not helping you get your debt paid off I could go one of two ways (or a mix of both I guess). I could remind you that your current job is paying you crap and you're going more in debt and you should come work with me instead. OR I could tell you that you'll be making more with me and before long the extra money will help you get out of debt.

In one case, peoples natural reactions to become defensive of what is the norm comes into play. The natural reaction to immedietely see you as a critical and negative person also comes up. You also immediete put the individual into a negative frame of mind reminding them of their problems.

In the other case, a persons natural reaction to better themselves is brought more into play. You're more likely to be seen as a generous and likable person. You immedietely put that individual into a more positive frame of mind thinking about how much better things could be.

In both instances, you're attacking their old job. It just happens in one case you're doing it in a directly negative way by specifically mentioning that the job pays like **** and is leading to them being in debt. In the other case you're doing it in an indirect way by playing on the fact that the individual KNOWS they're being paid crappy already and implying you're better than that other job because you'll pay them better.

One can run a POSITIVE campaign while still going on the offensive. A positive campaign does not have to mean an attackless campaign. Indeed, its not just unwinnable...its almost impossible to run a political campaign against someone without identifying how you're different and why you're better, which is indirectly implying that the other person is bad (or at worst, worse than you).
 
The problem of course is not necessarily the attack but HOW the attacks are done. One can attack and still have a positive campaign.

I strongly agree. The following excerpts from Ronald Reagan's announcement of his Presidential candidacy in 1979 offers a vivid illustration:

There are those in our land today, however, who would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power; that we are weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other and no longer possessed of the will to cope with our problems.

Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle. We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done. They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where – because of our past excesses – it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true.

I don’t believe that. And, I don’t believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency...

The crisis we face is not the result of any failure of the American spirit; it is a failure of our leaders to establish rational goals and give our people something to order their lives by. If I am elected, I shall regard my election as proof that the people of the United States have decided to set a new agenda and have recognized that the human spirit thrives best when goals are set and progress can be measured in their achievement.
 
Not all liberals are close-minded hacks. Perhaps I need to change my lean as 'slightly liberal' because I am always approached by those who are 'conservative' or 'very conservative' as being a blind partisan who can never see the other side, which simply is not the case. I just in that very post acknowledged that Ronald Reagan had a positive message, which was a large part of why he was able to look so attractive to independents and even Democrats. Obama had a very similar sort of appeal in 2008, like it or not. Currently, Jon Huntsman does as well - I know it's not resonating with folks like you because you'll never be able to look past his stances on, say, civil unions and cap and trade. But the fact of the matter is that, policy aside, he is sitting there advocating civility in our debate and a positive way forward for our country. As opposed to Gingrich and Bachmann and even Pawlenty who are nothing but doom and gloom and depression. Bachmann is barely a step above a bomb thrower like Hannity or Coulter. She does nothing but rail against government and everything it does and everyone in opposition to her as if they are enemies out to ruin America and piss all over everyone's liberties. That may rile up the base who hate Democrats and will always hate them. But it will do little to appeal to the moderates and independents she will need to win over if she's going to win a general election.

Don't bother. I switched to 'mind your own business' and the crap continues.
 
People are fed up with Obama. They want an anti-Obama candidate. Nobody cares about civility.

Nobody wants a moderate Republican.

This election will be a referendum on Obama so attacking is the only way to go. Reagan went after Carter and the people loved it.

When it comes down to it people will vote for someone they can trust/relate to. It won't be Obama because his cover had been blown.

Yes, right on. Bigfoot88 opinion is exactly why I want Bachman to run as a Republican, i.e. I don’t like any of their other candidates as well as Obama.
 
Back
Top Bottom