|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 20:22:59 GMT -5
if the recent electoral season is any indication, the Republicans were wrong to field Romney.. as I said before, Republicans would have voted for anybody with an R by their name.. you never really answered my question earlier this year when I asked who you would nominate for the Republican nominee Personally, I think the best thing they could've done long term was nominate Santorum. He would've lost. He would've been the polar opposite of Obama. He would've shown that the party being run by the right wing religious nuts is not sustainable and not a good idea at all. He also would've given us a pretty clear choice between him and Obama. The two are nothing alike. I'm exhausted by the Ron Paul discussion. We obviously disagree on the issue and neither side is willing to make concessions. I need more explanation on why you would want Santorum to run if we was a bad candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Nov 8, 2012 20:39:53 GMT -5
Personally, I think the best thing they could've done long term was nominate Santorum. He would've lost. He would've been the polar opposite of Obama. He would've shown that the party being run by the right wing religious nuts is not sustainable and not a good idea at all. He also would've given us a pretty clear choice between him and Obama. The two are nothing alike. I think that was already on display during the primary, if they needed a general election to see that then I'd have (even less) hope in that party. But I understand what you're saying. I'm betting Santorum will be back in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 8, 2012 21:43:34 GMT -5
No, they would've either stayed home or the party would've split with a legit 3rd party candidate. Republicans would rather a guy in office who they can work with (Obama) than a guy in office who they can't work with (Paul). Besides that, the Obama campaign would've tarred and feathered Paul as a complete whack job from day one. In any case, it's a moot point since the Republican voters rejected Paul at the polls in every single primary. Yeah, they would've just "stayed home" and not voted for PRESIDENT. Okay. WHAT third party? And no, they didn't reject him in every primary. He was blatantly screwed in Maine and he also won the Virgin Islands primary. If Paul was indeed so popular, then why was he rejected over and over again at the polls? A poll of just Obama vs Paul isn't realistic at all given that the party is not going to back him at all in reality. There is no way in seven hells Paul could ever unify the party. Polls said otherwise over and over again, but you always know better, right? Just like when Paul wasn't going to win Minnesota. Just like when he was going to concede his delegates prior to the RNC. You know best. Why would the party back a guy who was rejected at the polls in every single primary? Ask the people who answered the polls in every in' state. Ron Paul wasn't HATED like you seem to believe he was. As someone who has worked very hard within the party for over a year now, I can tell you that the biggest reason that people said that they didn't support Paul is because they thought he "didn't have a chance to win the nomination." As such, those voters would choose someone else who was a little more moderate that they believed could still fulfill (at least most of) their principles. Someone that the media called more "electable." But theoretically, if Paul had won the nomination, the polls all showed that the Republicans would have voted for him. They may not have loved everything about him, just as they didn't with Romney, but they would have voted for him because he's "not Obama." But Paul would've also pulled votes from Obama in a way that Romney could have never hoped to. This "not going to work with them" concept is WAY overthinking it. Your average voter is a complete idiot who votes "D" or "R" without ever looking at anything more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 22:05:50 GMT -5
Right. Paul wasn't rejected at the polls. He just finished last place over and over again. But that's not the voters rejecting. That's him being screwed. Got it.
Yes he won the Minnesota primary. Oh wait. He didn't. Santorum won 45% of the vote. Paul wasn't rejected there. Paul not conceding his delegates just show that he doesn't play well with others given that every single other candidate did give up their delegates. But not Paul. 'Cuz he's such a team player.
You can talk about all the polls that Paul won, but he didn't win a single poll that actually counted - the primary polls. I'm sorry, but your theory that people really wanted to vote for Paul and then went out to the polls and voted for other people is just silly and ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 22:26:16 GMT -5
Personally, I think the best thing they could've done long term was nominate Santorum. He would've lost. He would've been the polar opposite of Obama. He would've shown that the party being run by the right wing religious nuts is not sustainable and not a good idea at all. He also would've given us a pretty clear choice between him and Obama. The two are nothing alike. I'm exhausted by the Ron Paul discussion. We obviously disagree on the issue and neither side is willing to make concessions. I need more explanation on why you would want Santorum to run if we was a bad candidate. Basically because Santorum running would force the Republicans to get their crap together and not cater to the religious right of their party.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 8, 2012 22:26:34 GMT -5
Did he finish last place ANYWHERE?
And yes, Paul did win a primary.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 8, 2012 22:28:00 GMT -5
I'm exhausted by the Ron Paul discussion. We obviously disagree on the issue and neither side is willing to make concessions. I need more explanation on why you would want Santorum to run if we was a bad candidate. Basically because Santorum running would force the Republicans to get their crap together and not cater to the religious right of their party. I actually agree with this. Then again, these people are ing idiots. So it might've just made them say, "WE NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN SANTORUM!"
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 22:31:20 GMT -5
I'm exhausted by the Ron Paul discussion. We obviously disagree on the issue and neither side is willing to make concessions. I need more explanation on why you would want Santorum to run if we was a bad candidate. Basically because Santorum running would force the Republicans to get their crap together and not cater to the religious right of their party. Whats the difference with that scenario and where they are now? I'm still confused as to how that scenario works for Republicans. Lose on purpose?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 22:49:56 GMT -5
Basically because Santorum running would force the Republicans to get their crap together and not cater to the religious right of their party. Whats the difference with that scenario and where they are now? I'm still confused as to how that scenario works for Republicans. Lose on purpose? Because next year the right wing religious right will have a strong candidate again and the party will cater to them.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 23:11:49 GMT -5
Whats the difference with that scenario and where they are now? I'm still confused as to how that scenario works for Republicans. Lose on purpose? Because next year the right wing religious right will have a strong candidate again and the party will cater to them. That's simply not true. It's not a message that resonates with the masses and Republicans know that. They aren't intellectually- disabled. They are in another spot where they are evaluating themselves and the candidates they nominate. Two of these, as you define them, right wing religious nuts, lost their respective elections on Tuesday. The republicans know that they need to change course, but not dramatically as to compromise their personal beliefs. The main concern for Americans, I believe, in two years will still be the economy. If it's still bad, then it will hurt the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Nov 8, 2012 23:13:56 GMT -5
vintage mittens
|
|
Joe Delta
Main Eventer
Generic Dad sells well
Joined on: Jan 28, 2005 16:30:07 GMT -5
Posts: 2,534
|
Post by Joe Delta on Nov 8, 2012 23:28:24 GMT -5
In other news, Exide, Lockheed Martin, and Caterpillar announced huge lay-offs today.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 9, 2012 0:13:55 GMT -5
In other news, Exide, Lockheed Martin, and Caterpillar announced huge lay-offs today. This is only the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 9, 2012 7:25:20 GMT -5
Because next year the right wing religious right will have a strong candidate again and the party will cater to them. That's simply not true. It's not a message that resonates with the masses and Republicans know that. They aren't intellectually- disabled. They are in another spot where they are evaluating themselves and the candidates they nominate. Two of these, as you define them, right wing religious nuts, lost their respective elections on Tuesday. The republicans know that they need to change course, but not dramatically as to compromise their personal beliefs. The main concern for Americans, I believe, in two years will still be the economy. If it's still bad, then it will hurt the Democrats. I hope you're right, but I don't think you are. I suspect the GOP will run more right wing nutjob candidates in 2014 and in 2016 we will see a viable right wing nutjob candidate for President. Whether they win or not is a different thing, but I predict we'll see one.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Nov 9, 2012 7:42:53 GMT -5
My prediction would be Santorum if it were to happen. But I just think (and hope) that the party isn't that dumb. It'll scare away just about every Independent or fence sitting voter there is, which can be really important in battleground states. Hell, I'm betting Obama's re-election hopes were probably at their highest when Rick Santorum was plastered all over the news.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 9, 2012 8:01:32 GMT -5
My prediction would be Santorum if it were to happen. But I just think (and hope) that the party isn't that dumb. It'll scare away just about every Independent or fence sitting voter there is, which can be really important in battleground states. Hell, I'm betting Obama's re-election hopes were probably at their highest when Rick Santorum was plastered all over the news. I would bet money that someone like Santorum, if not Santorum himself is a serious contender in 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Nov 9, 2012 9:11:02 GMT -5
If the Republicans want to further remove themselves from power that is certainly one way to go about things. The Moral Majority has gotten louder, but also smaller.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 9, 2012 10:06:18 GMT -5
If the Republicans want to further remove themselves from power that is certainly one way to go about things. The Moral Majority has gotten louder, but also smaller. I don't think the Republicans get it. I think they have really, really lost touch with the average American. The Democrats have their whack job fringe like any other party, but they keep them under control and they don't dictate party policy. I disagree with a crap ton of stuff the Democrats come up with, but they do keep their fringe in check. One thing that is holding the Libertarians back is that they let the fringe basically run the party. There was a Libertarian who ran for Congress here and every single question he was asked he took back to the Federal Reserve and harped about how that was the most important issue we are facing. The Reserve must be audited. That's not something that's going to resound with anyone in the mainstream as this country has far, far bigger problems. Two years ago the local Libertarians ran a guy who's main campaign issue was legalizing drugs. Again, this doesn't relate at all to the common man on the street and we have way bigger problems to solve in this country. The Republicans are moving that direction I think. If Santorum had stayed in it he could've caused problems for Romney at the convention if he wanted to. That fact alone shows that the fringe of the party has too much power.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Nov 9, 2012 10:12:34 GMT -5
My prediction would be Santorum if it were to happen. But I just think (and hope) that the party isn't that dumb. It'll scare away just about every Independent or fence sitting voter there is, which can be really important in battleground states. Hell, I'm betting Obama's re-election hopes were probably at their highest when Rick Santorum was plastered all over the news. I would bet money that someone like Santorum, if not Santorum himself is a serious contender in 4 years. In the eyes of the GOP yes, because it'll be his "turn" just like with Mitt Romney, just like with John McCain, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 9, 2012 10:48:58 GMT -5
I would bet money that someone like Santorum, if not Santorum himself is a serious contender in 4 years. In the eyes of the GOP yes, because it'll be his "turn" just like with Mitt Romney, just like with John McCain, etc. And this is why I think the GOP has lost touch. Santorum is not an electable candidate because of how extreme he is. But he does have the support of a certain segment of the party.
|
|