• 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.

The Gingrich Surge Has Come

hmmm, but we didn't see that happen when Cain sprung up, or (as I recall), with Perry.

I think there are greater ideological differences between Romney and Perry and Cain, than there is between Romney and Gingrich. Or at the very least, perceived differences, as Cain and Perry are often portrayed as more Conservative than Gingrich is.
 
I don't understand how in a nation of 311 million people you guys couldn't come up with one single person you actually liked for the job...
 
I don't understand how in a nation of 311 million people you guys couldn't come up with one single person you actually liked for the job...

Voting in America is not rational. Huntsman is the best candidate out of everyone. Obama included. He will not get the nomination.
 
You are correct about Cain, but not about Perry. Perry made Romney decline from 25% to 16-18%.

This was of course before he started speaking.

ah. thank you for the reminder.
 
I don't understand how in a nation of 311 million people you guys couldn't come up with one single person you actually liked for the job...

well, the 2006/2008 election cycles sadly didn't leave us with the deepest possible bench - and then our best guy (Daniels) decided he didn't want the job.
 
I don't understand how in a nation of 311 million people you guys couldn't come up with one single person you actually liked for the job...

the people don't have control over who runs... just over who they will vote for among the candidates.

there are tons of people who i like for the job... but not one of them will run, 'cuz they aren't rich and haven't sold their souls to special interests.
 
well, the 2006/2008 election cycles sadly didn't leave us with the deepest possible bench - and then our best guy (Daniels) decided he didn't want the job.

the people don't have control over who runs... just over who they will vote for among the candidates.

there are tons of people who i like for the job... but not one of them will run, 'cuz they aren't rich and haven't sold their souls to special interests.

Out of 311 million people it's hard to believe that not one decent candidate wanted to be president of the most powerful nation in the world...

I think it's a different problem. I think the party has this weird split and the two groups want such totally opposite things that no candidate can satisfy both. Half of your party seems to want to change the GOP into something totally different. Sort of a collecting house for conspiracy theories and wild, irresponsible, half baked policy initiatives. Like a Glenn Beck party. And then you have half the party that seems to want to go back to the old prudent, sensible, Republicans of the 80s, perhaps with a modernized social policy. No candidate can really appeal to both, and the middle point between the two- a half insane/half prudent person- isn't really going to appeal to anybody...
 
Out of 311 million people it's hard to believe that not one decent candidate wanted to be president of the most powerful nation in the world...

I think it's a different problem. I think the party has this weird split and the two groups want such totally opposite things that no candidate can satisfy both. Half of your party seems to want to change the GOP into something totally different. Sort of a collecting house for conspiracy theories and wild, irresponsible, half baked policy initiatives. Like a Glenn Beck party. And then you have half the party that seems to want to go back to the old prudent, sensible, Republicans of the 80s, perhaps with a modernized social policy. No candidate can really appeal to both, and the middle point between the two- a half insane/half prudent person- isn't really going to appeal to anybody...

That's not it at all. It's not that none of the candidates running can fully appeal to the GOP - it's that none of the candidates running are really good.

Plenty of good candidates would be able to appeal to enough of the party to get nominated. Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, and Bobby Jindal to name a few. However, none of them are ambitious enough to want to go through the hassle of running for President (with the exception of Daniels, whose wife wouldn't let him).
 
You are correct about Cain, but not about Perry. Perry made Romney decline from 25% to 16-18%.

This was of course before he started speaking.

No one has mentioned where the losers supporters will go and thats the KEY to the primary....Paul, Bachman, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum together is the winning number of supporters for the eventual winner.....if a perry and cain becomes apparent they cant win....all those voters combined will choose the winner...where will they go ? thats what should be discussed
 
Last edited:
That's not it at all. It's not that none of the candidates running can fully appeal to the GOP - it's that none of the candidates running are really good.

Plenty of good candidates would be able to appeal to enough of the party to get nominated. Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, and Bobby Jindal to name a few. However, none of them are ambitious enough to want to go through the hassle of running for President (with the exception of Daniels, whose wife wouldn't let him).

I don't know about that. Jindal for example had that whole bizarre exorcism thing... He is very charismatic, but I think that if he put his hat in the ring for real he would have ended up at the crazy table with Bachmann and Trump. Paul Ryan has generally suffered from low approval ratings. Last I saw he was at like 40% in his home district even and very possibly not going to be re-elected. Mitch Daniels I don't know much about.

One thing that I think is pretty revealing is the tea party's response to Ron Paul. On paper, he has been fighting for everything the tea party says they want for his whole life. Nobody is more aggressively in favor of hyper tiny government than Ron Paul. But they denounce him as a liberal. A freaking liberal. Ron Paul. What that says to me is that they aren't actually looking for a particular policy position, they're looking for crazy and stupid. And while Ron Paul supports all their purported policy, he is only half crazy and he is very smart, so they don't like him. They don't want somebody that has a realistic picture of the world. They see realistic pictures of the world as being "too liberal". They want somebody that is as out of touch with reality as Glenn Beck, I really think they do. Bachmann and Trump, for example, clearly fall in Glenn Beck land and they loved them.

But somebody like Beck could never win in a general election, and half the party is disgusted with people like Beck. So I don't see how a candidate could satisfy their apparent lust for crazy while still satisfying the more sensible end of the party, let alone winning in the general.. I dunno. I mean, ultimately somebody will win the primary, and both sides will try to get behind them, and then both sides will claim that the candidate was a RINO when it turns out he sucks... But I do think there is a fracture in the GOP. It's like they're forced to be in the same party because we have a two party system, but they're really more naturally be two parties I think.
 
I don't know about that. Jindal for example had that whole bizarre exorcism thing... He is very charismatic, but I think that if he put his hat in the ring for real he would have ended up at the crazy table with Bachmann and Trump. Paul Ryan has generally suffered from low approval ratings. Last I saw he was at like 40% in his home district even and very possibly not going to be re-elected. Mitch Daniels I don't know much about.

One thing that I think is pretty revealing is the tea party's response to Ron Paul. On paper, he has been fighting for everything the tea party says they want for his whole life. Nobody is more aggressively in favor of hyper tiny government than Ron Paul. But they denounce him as a liberal. A freaking liberal. Ron Paul. What that says to me is that they aren't actually looking for a particular policy position, they're looking for crazy and stupid. And while Ron Paul supports all their purported policy, he is only half crazy and he is very smart, so they don't like him. They don't want somebody that has a realistic picture of the world. They see realistic pictures of the world as being "too liberal". They want somebody that is as out of touch with reality as Glenn Beck, I really think they do. Bachmann and Trump, for example, clearly fall in Glenn Beck land and they loved them.

But somebody like Beck could never win in a general election, and half the party is disgusted with people like Beck. So I don't see how a candidate could satisfy their apparent lust for crazy while still satisfying the more sensible end of the party, let alone winning in the general.. I dunno. I mean, ultimately somebody will win the primary, and both sides will try to get behind them, and then both sides will claim that the candidate was a RINO when it turns out he sucks... But I do think there is a fracture in the GOP. It's like they're forced to be in the same party because we have a two party system, but they're really more naturally be two parties I think.

They don't like his foreign policy. The usual line you hear is...
(here are two vids)



 
Last edited:
the people don't have control over who runs... just over who they will vote for among the candidates.

there are tons of people who i like for the job... but not one of them will run, 'cuz they aren't rich and haven't sold their souls to special interests.
One of the rare times I will disagree with you bud. People do have control over who runs. The problem is that there are not anywhere near enough of us who get deeply involved in the local level and in the lead up to the primary elections. We have allowed our party heads to place their chosen candidate up and then we the people vote on that person. The GOP is nauseating me more than ever with Romney. He is not conservative, does not have the party excited about him, yet the establishment is tearing apart everyone else from the inside out. There isn't as big of a split with the GOP in terms of ideology as has made out to be. Currently the only split is between the ideology of most people who are members of the GOP who are conservative vs. the establishment which is anything but. The GOP is looking to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory in 2012.
 
I don't know about that. Jindal for example had that whole bizarre exorcism thing... He is very charismatic, but I think that if he put his hat in the ring for real he would have ended up at the crazy table with Bachmann and Trump.

A single incident he once wrote about - and did not draw any conclusions about - does NOT qualify him for the "crazy table". Merely having executive experience puts him above Bachmann and Trump, and most of the field in fact. And having GOOD executive experience puts him even higher.

Paul Ryan has generally suffered from low approval ratings. Last I saw he was at like 40% in his home district even and very possibly not going to be re-elected.

Absolutely untrue. Paul Ryan is hugely popular in his home district. He wins every election by a comfortable margin.

One thing that I think is pretty revealing is the tea party's response to Ron Paul. On paper, he has been fighting for everything the tea party says they want for his whole life. Nobody is more aggressively in favor of hyper tiny government than Ron Paul. But they denounce him as a liberal. A freaking liberal. Ron Paul. What that says to me is that they aren't actually looking for a particular policy position, they're looking for crazy and stupid. And while Ron Paul supports all their purported policy, he is only half crazy and he is very smart, so they don't like him. They don't want somebody that has a realistic picture of the world. They see realistic pictures of the world as being "too liberal". They want somebody that is as out of touch with reality as Glenn Beck, I really think they do. Bachmann and Trump, for example, clearly fall in Glenn Beck land and they loved them.

They don't (usually) smear Ron Paul as a liberal. They just don't take him seriously as a candidate because of his foreign policy. That's a very different thing. When he talks about economic/domestic policy he always gets huge applauds from Tea Party crowds.
 
A single incident he once wrote about - and did not draw any conclusions about - does NOT qualify him for the "crazy table". Merely having executive experience puts him above Bachmann and Trump, and most of the field in fact. And having GOOD executive experience puts him even higher.

I wouldn't say that he is already qualified for the crazy table, I'm saying that that is a pretty creepy sign that once he got the scrutiny presidential hopefuls get, he'd wind up at the crazy table. It's more of a guess about what would come out. "More like that exorcism thing" is my guess.

Absolutely untrue. Paul Ryan is hugely popular in his home district. He wins every election by a comfortable margin.

Actually, you may be right. The approval rating story I was thinking of is for Wisconsin as a whole, not just his district in Wisconsin.

Poll: Paul Ryan Unpopular Back Home In Wisconsin | TPMDC

They don't (usually) smear Ron Paul as a liberal. They just don't take him seriously as a candidate because of his foreign policy. That's a very different thing. When he talks about economic/domestic policy he always gets huge applauds from Tea Party crowds.

Maybe that reveals part of the problem. They want ultra small government, but they also want the government to be able to either destroy or occupy any or every country in the world at the drop of a hat, they want every inch of our 19 thousand miles of border to be thick with border patrol agents, they want government making personal decisions for people about what pregnancies they carry to term and who they marry, and many of them want brutal crackdowns on crime and more prisons... So they have conflicting goals. They think they want "small government", but then they describe a massive, incredibly expensive, super invasive, world wide police state as their goal... But of course those are incompatible, so no smart person can promise them both those things at once. Ron Paul won't do it. He's sticking to his principles and actually favoring small government. The ones that are willing to campaign on the "massive small laissez faire totalitarian government" platform the tea party types are calling for end up being crazy or morons because the position they're expected to take is total nonsense.
 
I have a comprehensive list of newt baggage. Just waiting for the right time to post it.

You and everybody else. Newt is a non-factor. Huntsman will end up challenging Romney for the nomination unless he (Huntsman) just has no political instinct at all; which may very well be the case.
 
You and everybody else. Newt is a non-factor. Huntsman will end up challenging Romney for the nomination
:lamo

You know that Huntsman is polling at 1%, and many of his supporters are Romney supporters?
 
:lamo

You know that Huntsman is polling at 1%, and many of his supporters are Romney supporters?

I think Huntsman is the best candidate for the GOP. Hell, I might even vote for him. Personally, I think the most progressive (and yes any decision is progressive unless it is regressive) decisions are made under middle ground.
 
I think Huntsman is the best candidate for the GOP. Hell, I might even vote for him. Personally, I think the most progressive (and yes any decision is progressive unless it is regressive) decisions are made under middle ground.
I like him, but you are seriously deluded if you think he has a chance.
 
I'm talking about the nomination.

Ah, do you agree has a chance vs Obama though? I personally think he is the only real chance. I mean everyone else but Romney has completely lost it mentally. Romney, IMHO, can't get enough of the swing vote to win.
 
I don't understand how in a nation of 311 million people you guys couldn't come up with one single person you actually liked for the job...

I would vote for any republic candidate over BO. We are fine tuning who is the right guy for the conservatives and the moderate conservatives.
 
I think Huntsman is the best candidate for the GOP. Hell, I might even vote for him. Personally, I think the most progressive (and yes any decision is progressive unless it is regressive) decisions are made under middle ground.
Please. Your signature claims you are a socialist, you would vote for Huntswoman.....is there any wonder why Huntswoman is polling below 2% with the republican party?

I see a Newt/Cain, Cain/Newt combo platter on a the horizon.
 
Please. Your signature claims you are a socialist, you would vote for Huntswoman.....is there any wonder why Huntswoman is polling below 2% with the republican party?

I see a Newt/Cain, Cain/Newt combo platter on a the horizon.

Newt, are you serious? That guy even looks like a troll.
 
Out of 311 million people it's hard to believe that not one decent candidate wanted to be president of the most powerful nation in the world...

I think it's a different problem. I think the party has this weird split and the two groups want such totally opposite things that no candidate can satisfy both. Half of your party seems to want to change the GOP into something totally different. Sort of a collecting house for conspiracy theories and wild, irresponsible, half baked policy initiatives. Like a Glenn Beck party. And then you have half the party that seems to want to go back to the old prudent, sensible, Republicans of the 80s, perhaps with a modernized social policy. No candidate can really appeal to both, and the middle point between the two- a half insane/half prudent person- isn't really going to appeal to anybody...

the GOP isn't my party... I'm a registered and active Libertarian.

it's been a very long time since a decent candidate, from the 2 major parties, wanted to be President
 
Back
Top Bottom