Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Independents aren't mindless drones. They don't just vote for somebody else every other election when times are tough.

This Republican field polls horribly amongst independents.

Really? What your forgetting is Obama is doing worse and is loosing their support.

Independents Souring on President Obama, Poll Shows - Washington Wire - WSJ

HotAirPundit: Poll: Obama Loses Ground Among Independents

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Perry is the media darling, just like Palin was for a long time. Unless we do expereince a total economic collapse before Nov 2012, Obama is going to be reelected if Perry, ROmney, or Bachmann, is made the GOP nominee. THey just don't offer anything different, and scare the crap out of Dems, most indies, and even a lot of Reps. That isn't a recipe for victory. Perry likes to say he craeted a lot of jobs in TX, but they were Walmart type jobs. Oh boy, I can pay off my college loans working for Walmart or buy a new car!!!!!

Obama says he wants to create jobs and spent 800 billion and failed. Walmart jobs are better then no job at all.

[12thMan]

Sammy, you really think you guys will control all three branches? I'm falling out of my chair laughing. Seriously. I'd be surprised if Dems didn't cut your Tea Party majority in half, if not outright win back the House back. All we need is 24 seats. Voter turnout during a general will be significantly different next time around. It's over for the Tea Party.

The Senate could be a toss-up, but don't expect any blowouts. Democrats will definitely put Mass. and Wisconsin in play. I think we'll win both of those races. And if you think Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann will be running the country next November, I have a bridge in Anacostia I'd like to sell you.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Sammy, you really think you guys will control all three branches? I'm falling out of my chair laughing. Seriously. I'd be surprised if Dems didn't cut your Tea Party majority in half, if not outright win back the House back. All we need is 24 seats. Voter turnout during a general will be significantly different next time around. It's over for the Tea Party.

The Senate could be a toss-up, but don't expect any blowouts. Democrats will definitely put Mass. and Wisconsin in play. I think we'll win both of those races. And if you think Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann will be running the country next November, I have a bridge in Anacostia I'd like to sell you.

I'm not putting money on the Senate, but it is well within the realm of likelihood.

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » DEMOCRATS BLUE AS SENATE ACQUIRES A REDDISH TINGE

I don't see Rs losing the House

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » Channeling Truman? The Race for the House

Voter turnout will not be what it was in 2008. 2008 was a historic election, with a poor economy for the last 4 years (come 2012) many who voted for Hope & Change have seen changes they didn't count on and their hopes dashed under the flailing economy. Rs and those wanting change in the WH will have momentum in Nov. 2012 (barring a major economic recovery).

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm not putting money on the Senate, but it is well within the realm of likelihood.

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » DEMOCRATS BLUE AS SENATE ACQUIRES A REDDISH TINGE

I don't see Rs losing the House

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » Channeling Truman? The Race for the House

Voter turnout will not be what it was in 2008. 2008 was a historic election, with a poor economy for the last 4 years (come 2012) many who voted for Hope & Change have seen changes they didn't count on and their hopes dashed under the flailing economy. Rs and those wanting change in the WH will have momentum in Nov. 2012 (barring a major economic recovery).

Senate will be close for sure..but I'm expecting a swing in House. You guys completely overreached and will pay dearly.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Senate will be close for sure..but I'm expecting a swing in House. You guys completely overreached and will pay dearly.

I'm expecting another $ 100......if you're so confident

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm expecting another $ 100......if you're so confident

Oh, it's going to be a slog and I'm 90% confident, given the current GOP field, Obama's going to win. I'll leave the Vegas stuff up to you and Saden

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Sammy, you really think you guys will control all three branches? I'm falling out of my chair laughing. Seriously. I'd be surprised if Dems didn't cut your Tea Party majority in half, if not outright win back the House back. All we need is 24 seats. Voter turnout during a general will be significantly different next time around. It's over for the Tea Party.

The Senate could be a toss-up, but don't expect any blowouts. Democrats will definitely put Mass. and Wisconsin in play. I think we'll win both of those races. And if you think Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann will be running the country next November, I have a bridge in Anacostia I'd like to sell you.

With all the attention that the dems have put into the recalls and the man power that could not win any more the 2 of the 6 recalls. That's when all the dems gathered to win those 6 seats and had ton's of help from other states and unions.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

With all the attention that the dems have put into the recalls and the man power that could not win any more the 2 of the 6 recalls. That's when all the dems gathered to win those 6 seats and had ton's of help from other states and unions.

So the Dems win two seats in a solid -- I mean solid-- red districts and you don't think that's a big deal? That's two more they wouldn't have had, because Scott Walker believed his own hype. Now he's toast and so is the governor of Ohio. Gone.

[MTK]

Must have missed that day, I haven't seen gas prices that low in forever around me.

[12thMan]

I wanted to recap last night's GOP debate. Overall I was impressed with the flow of the discussion, the exchanges between candidates. I felt it was one of the better moderated debates I've seen in a while.

Governor Rick Perry's debuted on a national stage last night. My policies differences aside, I think Governor Perry more than held his own and came prepared to answer and respond to attacks on his record and controversial comments he's made in the past. A big part of doing well in these debates is being ready and looking the part. This one debate won't propel Governor Perry in the polls or convince voters that he's presidential material, but he did show he's ready for prime time. Quite frankly, it's a very long vetting process and voters get engaged in different phases. Perry's performance probably changed the calculus of the third tier candidates and how much longer they decide to stick around. If I'm Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul I'm thinking what's next.

Two things Gov. Perry said jumped out to me last night though. He actually gave President Obama props for keeping the country safe and crediting him (along with the Navy Seals) for killing Bin Laden. That's one little compliment the White House will stick in it's back pocket until the appropriate time. His rhetoric on Social Security continues to be baffling. He doubled down on referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. To look at this practically for a moment: Do I really want the Chief Executive referring to one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history, one that he will presumably oversee, as a Ponzi scheme? I don't care how brilliant Perry thinks he is, that just isn't a winning issue.

Mitt Romney was on his game. Again, policy aside he seems more comfortable and is chomping at the bit to get a piece of President Obama, one on one.

I think it's a two man race -- Romney and Perry.

Jon Huntsman is who I thought he was. Just another guy. He's just there, no discernible strategy other than I don't hate Obama and let's all be civil. Sorry, that's not going to cut it in a Republican primary.

Michelle Bachmann didn't do anything to hurt herself, but she didn't stand out like she did in the first two debates. She'll probably have enough base support to stick around to the bitter end, but her momentum seems to be fading. Still, I wouldn't underestimate her.

Congressman Ron Paul went out of his to explain how FEMA is a waste of money and time and serves no good purpose. Hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes be damned, Ron Paul wants us to go back to the '70s before FEMA was formed. I wonder if he were president during Katrina what his response would have been. His views on the TSA are about the same. Maybe it's just me, but I'm still a tad nervous and don't mind a random pat down at the airport to ensure a bomb doesn't find it's way onto a flight. I guarantee you that terrorists don't plot to kill Americans based on party affiliation or whether we're Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican. They hate all of us. One plane going down because of dumb policies is one too many.

Rick Santorum is more Catholic than the Pope. Can't he just be a pastor or something. Just do it, man. You'd be great at it.

Newt Gingrich sounds more and more like the substitute teacher who knows that he's smarter than the guy he's standing in for and is now becoming upset with the school board because he realizes they will never hire him full-time because the kids just don't take him seriously.

Hermain Cain is a talking point machine. I think he should run for Senate someday though, because he'll never be president.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I wanted to recap last night's GOP debate. Overall I was impressed with the flow of the discussion, the exchanges between candidates. I felt it was one of the better moderated debates I've seen in a while.

Governor Rick Perry's debuted on a national stage last night. My policies differences aside, I think Governor Perry more than held his own and came prepared to answer and respond to attacks on his record and controversial comments he's made in the past. A big part of doing well in these debates is being ready and looking the part. This one debate won't propel Governor Perry in the polls or convince voters that he's presidential material, but he did show he's ready for prime time. Quite frankly, it's a very long vetting process and voters get engaged in different phases. Perry's performance probably changed the calculus of the third tier candidates and how much longer they decide to stick around. If I'm Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul I'm thinking what's next.

Two things Gov. Perry said jumped out to me last night though. He actually gave President Obama props for keeping the country safe and crediting him (along with the Navy Seals) for killing Bin Laden. That's one little compliment the White House will stick in it's back pocket until the appropriate time. His rhetoric on Social Security continues to be baffling. He doubled down on referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. To look at this practically for a moment: Do I really want the Chief Executive referring to one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history, one that he will presumably oversee, as a Ponzi scheme? I don't care how brilliant Perry thinks he is, that just isn't a winning issue.

Mitt Romney was on his game. Again, policy aside he seems more comfortable and is chomping at the bit to get a piece of President Obama, one on one.

I think it's a two man race -- Romney and Perry.

Jon Huntsman is who I thought he was. Just another guy. He's just there, no discernible strategy other than I don't hate Obama and let's all be civil. Sorry, that's not going to cut it in a Republican primary.

Michelle Bachmann didn't do anything to hurt herself, but she didn't stand out like she did in the first two debates. She'll probably have enough base support to stick around to the bitter end, but her momentum seems to be fading. Still, I wouldn't underestimate her.

Congressman Ron Paul went out of his to explain how FEMA is a waste of money and time and serves no good purpose. Hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes be damned, Ron Paul wants us to go back to the '70s before FEMA was formed. I wonder if he were president during Katrina what his response would have been. His views on the TSA are about the same. Maybe it's just me, but I'm still a tad nervous and don't mind a random pat down at the airport to ensure a bomb doesn't find it's way onto a flight. I guarantee you that terrorists don't plot to kill Americans based on party affiliation or whether we're Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican. They hate all of us. One plane going down because of dumb policies is one too many.

Rick Santorum is more Catholic than the Pope. Can't he just be a pastor or something. Just do it, man. You'd be great at it.

Newt Gingrich sounds more and more like the substitute teacher who knows that he's smarter than the guy he's standing in for and is now becoming upset with the school board because he realizes they will never hire him full-time because the kids just don't take him seriously.

Hermain Cain is a talking point machine. I think he should run for Senate someday though, because he'll never be president.

The only reason that saying SS is a ponzi scheme could hurt him is that Americans are not smart enough to figure it out on their own.

On that note its still the 1st qtr and GB has 21 point and look like a well oiled machine.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Two things Gov. Perry said jumped out to me last night though. He actually gave President Obama props for keeping the country safe and crediting him (along with the Navy Seals) for killing Bin Laden. That's one little compliment the White House will stick in it's back pocket until the appropriate time. His rhetoric on Social Security continues to be baffling. He doubled down on referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. To look at this practically for a moment: Do I really want the Chief Executive referring to one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history, one that he will presumably oversee, as a Ponzi scheme? I don't care how brilliant Perry thinks he is, that just isn't a winning issue.

First my Disclaimer: Didn't watch the debate. Don't know much about the candidates yet except what I have gleaned here. From what I know, I would like to take bits and pieces from each candidate but don't fully endorse any of their complete agendas.

With that said, if Perry insinuated that SS reform needs to be done - good for him. SS functions on the same structures that drive ponzi schemes and, if such an investment structure was attempted by a private party, it would be an illegal. The difference, of course, is that a true ponzi scheme is created with the intent to defraud which most certainly is not the intent of SS. At the same time, while not created to defraud, it will, in the not-to-distant future, be unable to provide the benefits it currently guarrantees. While not fraud in the strictest sense, it is certainly not beyond the pale to point out the inherent untruthfulness of the current system.

To argue that pointing out inherent flaws of "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs" should be verbotten smacks of 1984's Newspeak and discourages accurate discussion about the problems created and faced by the Social Security system. In its current, the SS fund will be exhaused in 2036 and, after that on a pay as you go basis, it will only be able to pay 75% of the benefits it is currently promising to its "investors".

People entering the workforce should be made aware that, because of its basic Ponzi structure, SS cannot continue indefinitely without a drastic reduction in services or a hugely increasing the burden on current and future workers. Regardless, it is unlikely that current and future employees will get any where near the ROI they have been promised or expect from SS in its current form.

You're right, demagogues will undoubtedly use scare tactics to make it seem that any reform of SS is tantamount to an attack on the most vulnerable of society that will leave our elderly to die in destitution.

Do I worry that Perry sees "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history" for what it is - a legalized ponzi scheme? No.
I would rather my President have an accurate and honest understanding of the nature of our system for caring for the elderly rather than be afraid to advocate for its reform because it is "sacrosanct". The Social Security system fulfills to an important and necessary role in our society and to discuss it in anything but the most brutally honest measures does everyone - young and old - a disservice.

Okay, rant over.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First my Disclaimer: Didn't watch the debate. Don't know much about the candidates yet except what I have gleaned here. From what I know, I would like to take bits and pieces from each candidate but don't fully endorse any of their complete agendas.

With that said, if Perry insinuated that SS reform needs to be done - good for him. SS functions on the same structures that drive ponzi schemes and, if such an investment structure was attempted by a private party, it would be an illegal. The difference, of course, is that a true ponzi scheme is created with the intent to defraud which most certainly is not the intent of SS. At the same time, while not created to defraud, it will, in the not-to-distant future, be unable to provide the benefits it currently guarrantees. While not fraud in the strictest sense, it is certainly not beyond the pale to point out the inherent untruthfulness of the current system.

To argue that pointing out inherent flaws of "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs" should be verbotten smacks of 1984's Newspeak and discourages accurate discussion about the problems created and faced by the Social Security system. In its current, the SS fund will be exhaused in 2036 and, after that on a pay as you go basis, it will only be able to pay 75% of the benefits it is currently promising to its "investors".

People entering the workforce should be made aware that, because of its basic Ponzi structure, SS cannot continue indefinitely without a drastic reduction in services or a hugely increasing the burden on current and future workers. Regardless, it is unlikely that current and future employees will get any where near the ROI they have been promised or expect from SS in its current form.

You're right, demagogues will undoubtedly use scare tactics to make it seem that any reform of SS is tantamount to an attack on the most vulnerable of society that will leave our elderly to die in destitution.

Do I worry that Perry sees "one of the nation's most sacrosanct programs in modern American history" for what it is - a legalized ponzi scheme? No.
I would rather my President have an accurate and honest understanding of the nature of our system for caring for the elderly rather than be afraid to advocate for its reform because it is "sacrosanct". The Social Security system fulfills to an important and necessary role in our society and to discuss it in anything but the most brutally honest measures does everyone - young and old - a disservice.

Okay, rant over.

For the part I made bold; see Greece….

I too dont get why its taboo for a politic to call social security is a Ponzi scheme, when it is. All Perry is doing is being honest with the American people. SS is a sophisticated ponzi scheme although probably less so then Madoff’s or Allen Stanford’s. The only potential disqualifiers are like you said the intent of ss is not to defraud and ill add that with ss participation is mandatory if you work. Any attempt ive heard or read that trys to explain why its not a ponzi scheme uses completely flawed arguments.

I do disagree with Perry and agree with you in that I think also SS is a good/necessary thing. However like GW tried accomplish and what Romney referenced as the Chilean model, I would like the option to control some my contributions.

[saden1]

When did Ronald Reagen become a deity?

Rick Perry looked like GW out there with is smirking and facial expressions. I will declare him not electable for many reasons but his SS jabs is the most damaging. Is he expecting young people to vote for him?

Ron Paul was his ridiculous self. I do like the ads he was running though. Mr. Ron "Stick a Pork In the Bill and Vote Against the Bill" Paul might as well stick a fork in it already. I hope he doesn't plan to use an executive order to ban FEMA and all those other worthless government departments.

Mitt Romney said a lot, a lot of it lies that Obama will call him on. Unlike Obama he has worked in the real world as a business. It will help his cause that he was a more successful business man than Bush I am sure and unlike the Job Destroy in Chief he managed an equity firm that laid-off people before it hired them...or was it the other way around?

Jon Huntsman wasn't crazy enough last night and that's really admirable. Loved his stance on pledges, unfortunately the Republican mob likes its pledges as much as its flag pins. I am hoping he doesn't win cause he's reasonable enough to win independents and maybe even my vote.

Michelle Bachmann was her usual rambling self plus puffy hair. A few times she said things that were disconnected from reality and other times she said things that flat-out didn't make any sense. She needs a lot more training/education before she can even get to the general election. I'm crossing my fingers she's the one!

Hermain Cain, you make so many obvious points. How about you throw us a bone and give us some not so obvious ones? Give us something besides working in the real world as an asset. It's not like it's an advantage given that Obama has done it too and is currently the sitting president. You got to come harder and stronger than that.

Newt Gingrich, why won't you just fck-off? No one wants a snake in the big house! And that's not me saying that.

Rick Santorum, why is he running again? After Newt no one is less electable than this douchbag.

I never seen a more sad bunch of Candidates in my life. I mean, only two candidates, Perry and Huntsman, can win their home state for sure.


SS33, I am willing to give you a chance to buy back your bet at $50 right now. Let me know if you're interested in salvaging half of the money you've thrown away.