The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: TVDOC on December 15, 2011, 09:07:01 PM
-
It's actually better than most. Ron Paul is making a fool of himself (as usual), but Newt, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney are making good showings.
doc
-
Holy crap. Paulbots are wackjobs.
-
I'm catching the latest part with Bachmann attacking Dr. Nuts.
I'm going to be so embarassed for my home state if Paul wins or finishes in the top 3.
-
This just popped up on Facebook... I wonder how old it is.
At least RP is down at the bottom where he belongs. :p
The Townhall.com Presidential Straw Poll
The results for voters' second choice.
Michele Bachman: 25.4%
Newt Gingrich: 20.6%
Mitt Romney: 20.4%
Rick Perry: 18.2%
Ron Paul: 15.4%
-
The good part about his recent surge is it means he will actually be the focus of the attacks for once, instead of the sane candidates beating up each other.
I hate caucus primaries, they disproportionately reward the candidate whose followers are willing to go to the most outright gangsterism and skulduggery.
-
Newt just gave a devastating narrative on the Keystone pipeline issue.....
doc
-
I'm not familiar with caucuses. I would appreciate anyone that has participated in one to describe the process or any experiences they've had.
-
The good part about his recent surge is it means he will actually be the focus of the attacks for once, instead of the sane candidates beating up each other.
I hate caucus primaries, they disproportionately reward the candidate whose followers are willing to go to the most outright gangsterism and skulduggery.
I haven't been here for a caucus for quite a while, but I can't envision any Paul-bots converting anyone. I even wonder if all those stoners even can find and/or show up on January 3rd.
-
Perry is doing very well tonight.....far better than his early debates. His comments on energy subsidies are spot on.
doc
-
Holy crap. Paulbots are wackjobs.
It's hard to expect anything else considering their candidate. He actually stated that he didn't believe that Iran was enriching Uranium......what a kook....
Border issues coming up.
doc
-
Perry is doing very well tonight.....far better than his early debates. His comments on energy subsidies are spot on.
doc
Perry on "Fast and Furious", insists Holder should resign.
doc
-
I'm not familiar with caucuses. I would appreciate anyone that has participated in one to describe the process or any experiences they've had.
A politically-active friend who had been through them in Iowa explained his experiences to me while I was deployed with him a couple of years ago.
It depends on the precinct, of course, as some of them are the model of Norman Rockwell townhall Populist democracy that the originators of them intended. Others, unfortunately, are as full of bullying, intimidation, double-dealing, and downright trickery as the War of the Roses. It essentially involves a lot of jaw-jacking, verbal infighting, and straw polls with a lot more jaw-jacking, infighting, and deal-making between the straw poll rounds (Until someone comes out with a majority for the precinct? Not sure what happens when there's a multi-way deadlock), as I recall; it's definitely not something you can drop into, cast a vote, and then leave for home, so from the git-go, it is dealing with a much different population than actually exists in the state as a whole, or than will be voting in the general election.
-
Perry and Santorum are having a good debate. Too little too late?
-
Perry and Santorum are having a good debate. Too little too late?
Santorum was nver a serious candidate.....not so for Perry, he's having a good noght.
doc
-
Caucuses, because they require extended participation, aren't really reflective of the voters.
Most people drive to the polls and vote in a primary and then leave, five, ten, minutes, tops.
But as caucuses involve prolonged meetings, generally only party activists show up for them.
So caucuses are more reflective of the wishes of the party activists, not of the average voters.
-
Newt proposes cutting off funding to any and all "sanctuary cities".
doc
-
Newt proposes cutting off funding to any and all "sanctuary cities".
doc
There's nothing wrong with that idea.
If they don't want to follow the laws, they shouldn't get the goodies either.
-
Romney on "God, guns and gays"....won't back off his position supporting gay marriage. He's waffling on guns and an assult weapons ban.
doc
-
Caucuses, because they require extended participation, aren't really reflective of the voters.
Most people drive to the polls and vote in a primary and then leave, five, ten, minutes, tops.
But as caucuses involve prolonged meetings, generally only party activists show up for them.
So caucuses are more reflective of the wishes of the party activists, not of the average voters.
Sounds like March Madness and fantasy brackets with a bunch of arm-twisting and haranguing. Yeah, no thanks.
I guess they thought this was a good idea when people had a lot of time to waste between harvesting crops.
-
I think the reason Romney can't get more than 25% support is becoming obvious tonight.....slick, but not unlike Obama, an empty suit with no core conservative principles.
doc
-
I think the reason Romney can't get more than 25% support is becoming obvious tonight.....slick, but not unlike Obama, an empty suit with no core conservative principles.
doc
His father was kind of that way too, I guess.
-
Bachmann keeps pounding the life issue....overall in the general election it's a loser.
doc
-
Bachmann keeps pounding the life issue....overall in the general election it's a loser.
doc
I know it's all subjective, but which one looks like a winner at the moment?
-
His father was kind of that way too, I guess.
You said a mouthful.
-
I know it's all subjective, but which one looks like a winner at the moment?
IMHO, I think Newt did ok. Bloodied, but still standing. Romney's numbers are going to go down. Perry might come up.
Just my two cents.
-
IMHO, I think Newt did ok. Bloodied, but still standing. Romney's numbers are going to go down. Perry might come up.
Just my two cents.
That's what I wanted to know, sir. Thanks!
-
I know it's all subjective, but which one looks like a winner at the moment?
The way I'd call it:
Newt (by a wide margin)
Perry (really did himself some good tonight)
Romney (speaks well, answers the questions, but isn't convincing)
Bachmann (did very well, but too much emphasis on evangelical issues)
Paul (a waste of good airtime)
doc
-
I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast. Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England. Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy. I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed. Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.
-
I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast. Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England. Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy. I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed. Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.
I think this year might be a surprise......the old guard is losing control of the party (they saw the handwriting on the wall last year). Romney may well win in New Hampshire, but then comes the momentum generated by the southern primaries, both SC abd FL, Newt has a commanding lead right now.
It's still early, but I'm not ready to hand over control to the "Old guard" yet.
doc
-
I hope you're right. This bad habit the GOP has of picking the next guy in line needs to end. They've been doing it since 1988 and then some.
-
I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast. Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England. Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy. I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed. Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.
I have not committed to anyone yet (Thanks Herman).
Newt would be my favorite at the moment...Bachmann & Santorum have no chance.
I'll post another thread once the actual caucus crap is about to get closer.
As long as Barry loses, I'm good with that...(D'uh!)
-
I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast. Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England. Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy. I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed. Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.
IMHO, all of Newt's personal stuff has been discussed and parsed to death. He's done a pretty solid job explaining/apologizing/etc...thus far.
-
The way I'd call it:
Newt (by a wide margin)
Perry (really did himself some good tonight)
Romney (speaks well, answers the questions, but isn't convincing)
Bachmann (did very well, but too much emphasis on evangelical issues)
Paul (a waste of good airtime)
doc
That is the way I see it with the exception of Bachmann She did not do herself any good going negative. Voters want to know who has the best ideas and who can trounce Obummer. Newt wins that one.
-
His father was kind of that way too, I guess.
I wouldn't say that.
I was just a youngster when George Romney was governor of Michigan and a pre-teen when he made his run for the Republican nomination for prez in 1968.
I recall him being fairly popular as governor, even in a blue state. Of course, he was fairly big in the auto industry in the Fifties, and I think was the CEO of the American Motors Corporation (Rambler, anyone?).
He wound up foundering against Nixon for some fairly dumb statements he made during the campaign. Had to do with Vietnam and "brainwashing" or some such, IIRC. He also wasn't eligible to become president, as he was born in a Mormon enclave in Mexico. Kinda funny how that worked against him then, and it doesn't really apply for the current president today, but I digress....
-
I think this year might be a surprise......the old guard is losing control of the party (they saw the handwriting on the wall last year). Romney may well win in New Hampshire, but then comes the momentum generated by the southern primaries, both SC abd FL, Newt has a commanding lead right now.
It's still early, but I'm not ready to hand over control to the "Old guard" yet.
doc
Yeah, Romney will likely win NH, but it certainly won't be by anywhere near the expected margin. Hell, it is possible he doesn't win at all--he didn't in 2008, and frankly, he MUST pull NH by double-digits to remain a viable candidate. At that point, he's going to get his ass handed to him in SC, Florida, and all but a couple of states (Michigan, Maine) before Super Tuesday. He's going to be seriously struggling against Newt.
Romney needs to win and win decisively in a majority of states prior to Super Tuesday, because that day has states like Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia--states which Romney will NOT win, no way, no how. He needs to come out of ST with significantly more delegates than Newt, or he can take that fork he combs his hair with and stick it in his campaign.
-
IA and NH are both aberrations, IA because of the stupid caucus system and NH because it's just a wild card, and in the general election both are small-population states with a tiny number of EC delegates. It is an unfortunate distortion of everything that makes sense that they come first.
-
I thought that there were two "high points" to last night's debate.
The first was when Megan Kelly with Fox (a lawyer BTW) asked Gingrich a "gotcha" question about his position on the judiciary........Newt brought the house down with his answer that the 9th Circuit should be abolished as the most warped and ineffective of the appellate courts, and that the founders never envisioned that the judiciary should actually ever "make law". Those that do should be dragged before congress and held accountable, with enough frequency to keep the others in line. He referred to it as the "tyranny of lawyers", and cited several early presidents that fired (or impeached) a considerable number of federal judges for the same reasons. His position was that the founders very specifically planned that the "separation of powers" never meant that the judiciary should be "superior" to the legislative branch regarding the making of law and public policy......always secondary.
The second was when Bachmann called out Ron Paul on his foreign policy.......she really got in his face, even calling him a liar. Paul sputtered and spit and then put on his "tin foil hat" for the world to see.....it was delectable.......Paul's response was even booed by the crowd......
doc
-
Neal Boortz covered your first instance on today's show. Brilliant. The SC makes me nervous as hell. We now have one guy who's going to decide all of America's healthcare destiny. This was never envisioned by the founders.
-
Neal Boortz covered your first instance on today's show. Brilliant. The SC makes me nervous as hell. We now have one guy who's going to decide all of America's healthcare destiny. This was never envisioned by the founders.
Not if the Congress can force Kagan to recuse. At that point, it becomes 4-4 at worst
-
I thought that there were two "high points" to last night's debate.
The first was when Megan Kelly with Fox (a lawyer BTW) asked Gingrich a "gotcha" question about his position on the judiciary........Newt brought the house down with his answer that the 9th Circuit should be abolished as the most warped and ineffective of the appellate courts, and that the founders never envisioned that the judiciary should actually ever "make law". Those that do should be dragged before congress and held accountable, with enough frequency to keep the others in line. He referred to it as the "tyranny of lawyers", and cited several early presidents that fired (or impeached) a considerable number of federal judges for the same reasons. His position was that the founders very specifically planned that the "separation of powers" never meant that the judiciary should be "superior" to the legislative branch regarding the making of law and public policy......always secondary.
I loved that; betcha liberal heads exploded after hearing that loony judges might be purged.