2012 GOP Nomination

#151
#151
sjt18 said:
The only advice I would give is to not let the MSM limit your decisions through biased reporting. Listen to what they say in context and make up your own mind.

I'm not convinced any of them are right either... I am still listening. If the primary were held today, I would likely issue a GOP protest vote for Paul.
Click to expand...
Believe me, I'm listenting as much as I can stand to. The media is trash.
 
#153
#153
sjt18 said:
No. He doesn't. Any marginal gain he made with the "independents" would be lost from the base.

I will not vote for him. Period. If he is the nominee then I am voting 3rd party. I may vote that way anyway but I am DONE voting for the "lesser of two evils".

That's not to say someone has to line up "perfectly". But they have to convince me that they really stand for something rather than being "politicians".

The longer we vote for one side because he's not the other side... the longer both sides get to give us Barack Obamas, Bushes (both of them), Doles, Kerrys, Gores,... To the best of my ability, I am going to vote "for" people going forward and not simply against.
Click to expand...

Good for you, but like I said. Does not matter.

Romney is the stronger candidate in the general election.
 
#154
#154
golfballs03 said:
Good for you, but like I said. Does not matter.

Romney is the stronger candidate in the general election.
Click to expand...

You can say anything you want. His appeal to the swing voters will be no better than Dole's or McCain's... which will put them in play for Obama. If they have a choice between an Obama they don't like (Romney) and an Obama who has failed but they do like (Barry)... they're going to vote for BO.

You are still operating on the notion that the middle swings according to ideology... that they are waiting for someone to agree with them. That simply isn't true. They gave Reagan a landslide re-election. They re-elected Bush IMO because Kerry was such a whiney dweeb.

They WILL vote for a fairly extreme liberal or a fairly extreme conservative (who can get their message through MSM cannon fire).

They are a blend of voters ranging from extremely pragmatic to impulsive. They are who they are because they are not tied to a particular set of unchanging political beliefs/principles. Some voted for Clinton because they thought he was good looking... others because he seemed to be doing a "good job" with the economy. Both views were detached from reality. Clinton did do some good things but he also benefitted from the tech revolution's new wealth. Clinton may have been attractive personally to some people... but that had little to do with being potus.

Swing voters know what Obama offers. If the GOP candidate does not differentiate themselves from Obama then they will not give them a reason to change.
 
Last edited:
#155
#155
The vote is one against Obama. Swing voters just need a reasonable alternative. Romney is it. Perry and the rest of them are clowns
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#156
#156
golfballs03 said:
The vote is one against Obama. Swing voters just need a reasonable alternative. Romney is it. Perry and the rest of them are clowns
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Keep doing the same thing... keep getting the same result.

If the vote is on Obama then it makes no sense to elect Obama lite. He is NOT a reasonable alternative.

You may think they are "clowns" but that's you. They will make their own case as best they can.

But to your point... I am not going to vote against Obama. It is stupid to keep doing the same thing over and over. We complain because we get the same kinds of politicians and no real change for the better then let demagogues destroy good people who would make change... we let parties run guys like Obama, Romney, et al.

I am not insane... I'm not making the same mistake again if I can help it.

I read a good article off of realclearpolitics earlier today. It was about "voodoo economics". Though I completely disagreed with the major conclusions, the analysis of the economic philosophies of the various GOP candidates was pretty much dead on. Romney represents a continuation of the same idiotic Keynesian approach that got us to where we are.

If you see BO's economic policies as a failure then you have no good reason to vote for Romney. IF you think they're successful then you still have no good reason to vote for Romney. IMHO, I think BO's camp knows that and is trying to influence the race in Romney's favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#157
#157
My personal view is negative of Romney. But that's irrelevant.

Last election it wouldn't have mattered who the GOP candidate was, it was a vote against Bush.

This time around will be similar in that people want to vote against Obama, they just need a reasonable alternative. Perry is a cowboy politician and the outward similarities will be too close to Bush for most swing voters to handle.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#158
#158
golfballs03 said:
My personal view is negative of Romney. But that's irrelevant.

Last election it wouldn't have mattered who the GOP candidate was, it was a vote against Bush.

This time around will be similar in that people want to vote against Obama, they just need a reasonable alternative. Perry is a cowboy politician and the outward similarities will be too close to Bush for most swing voters to handle.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Now that IS a reasonable point but I tend to believe he can diffentiate himself from Bush... and besides... the Bush economy doesn't look so bad right now. The deficit has tripled and somewhere around 3 million more people are unemployed.
 
#159
#159
I don't think people were voting against Bush. They were voting against McCain/Palin.
 
#160
#160
Weezy said:
I don't think people were voting against Bush. They were voting against McCain/Palin.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think that analysis was right. Not just Bush- the whole Republican brand really... but primarily Bush.

The GOP blew it. They had solid majorities. But instead of behaving like conservatives, they behaved like Dem-lite. This, btw, disproves the very notion that "moderate" is preferred over either liberal or conservative... by moderates. The GOP tried to be "not as liberal" as liberals... and the voters chose "liberal". Once they agreed to the idea that the debate was to be about what more gov't would offer, do, and.... spend. They were never going to out-promise or out-spend Dems.

By the same token, the GOP needs to keep the debate about what and how much will be cut. Do that... and the Dems are NEVER going to out small gov't conservatives.
 
#161
#161
lawgator1 said:
The problem is that, historically, Christian evangelical or fundamentalist types seem to have a hard time separating out their religious dogma from policy-making.

Don't want a fanatic of any type in the WH. Its bad enough they can isolate a district and get into the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...

Doesn't everyone's religious beliefs inform their decisions? I mean, if you are an atheist, aren't you more likely to support mainstream science-based decisions? If you don't believe in absolute truth, aren't you more likely to adopt an anything goes attitude towards social topics? Do you really have a problem with someone letting their religion help them make decisions, or do you just have a problem with christians?
 
#162
#162
RespectTradition said:
Doesn't everyone's religious beliefs inform their decisions? I mean, if you are an atheist, aren't you more likely to support mainstream science-based decisions? If you don't believe in absolute truth, aren't you more likely to adopt an anything goes attitude towards social topics? Do you really have a problem with someone letting their religion help them make decisions, or do you just have a problem with christians?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I try hard not keep an open mind - I am agnostic and my girlfriend was raised catholic. My first Easter Vigil was interesting to say the least.
 
Last edited:
#168
#168
Abe Hoffman said:
If George Wallace were still alive he would make a perfect nominee for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Maybe if ol' Woodrow were alive he'd make the perfect Dem nominee, huh?

You guys are incredible with the race baiting sometimes. I mean really... you ARE the cause we can't fully reconcile. I run into very, very few conservative unwilling to treat people as equals regardless of race.
 
#169
#169
sjt18 said:
Yeah. Maybe if ol' Woodrow were alive he'd make the perfect Dem nominee, huh?

You guys are incredible with the race baiting sometimes. I mean really... you ARE the cause we can't fully reconcile. I run into very, very few conservative unwilling to treat people as equals regardless of race.
Click to expand...

Ya - but do any of us really go trolling through trailer parks looking for trouble? :)

Low-Class Southern Suburban Bigotry ~ Warning Racist Content - YouTube

Not agreeing with any views in this video btw.
 
#171
#171
Jpmorgan came out today with a prediction of 9.5% unemployment in the 3rd Q of 2012. Obama is toast
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#173
#173
are these the same conservative elites (ie gop establishment apologists) who saddled us with McCain in 2008?
 
#175
#175
the problem I'm having now is that it's the left who is calling out for the GOP to run a statesman like Reagan. It's amazing how much affection they suddenly have for RWR, I guess they've forgotten all those "Reagan=antichrist" rants of the '80's.

I'm not enamored of any of the current field, but it seems to me that the left knows it can't support Obama based on his record, so they're going to have to zero in on whoever the GOP nominates and engage in the largest and most vile campaign of character assassination since the Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall days.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top