SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - In which we discuss the 2012 Republican Primary

Posted: Jan 23 2012 02:48 pm

I'm switching discussion over to a new thread. Honestly, I feel a bit weird talking about it in the Herman Cain thread when Cain's campaign has been dead for some time.

So how about that South Carolina primary? I knew Mitt would probably lose, but I didn't figure that it would be that bad a loss. This gives Gingrich a lot of momentum going into Florida and it would seem that some establishment types are pushing really hard to kill him early. It's a waste of time, if you ask me. It's true that Gingrich is wholly unelectable, but if Romney can't beat him, the odds are that he probably won't be able to beat Obama either. I say they should let it play itself out.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Romney is the only one with a chance in hell in the actual election. Republican voters do seem very split between hard-liners and moderates, and Romney is the only popular candidate that can capture both (since hard-liners will just vote Republican anyway). The problem is that once these records or beliefs are looked at with any kind of scrutiny, I don't see a single one of these candidates lasting:

-Gingrich alienating anybody but upper-class whites, and being the original modern slimebag politician.
-Paul's ideas just being way too out there. Everybody not eating algae on a house boat is on government help in some form.
-Someone needs to give Santorum the notice that it's not 2005, and you can't just run entirely on that "I got Christian family values" shpiel. I see Iowa as his only victory in the primaries.
-The fact that Romney would buy and sell anybody he wanted for a dollar while in the private sector.

I can't even call it at this point. I figure Gingrich has the best chance with Romney just barely missing it.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 04:18 pm

Yeah. I think that the longer this thing goes on, the real winner is Barack Obama. It's just a weak field.

That said, I think Romney is going to win the primary. He may lose Florida, but even if he does, only a fool would bet against him in Nevada (the next state). I'm not sure what comes after that, but Virginia and Missouri are close up and Gingrich isn't on the ballot in either one.

Quote:

-Gingrich alienating anybody but upper-class whites, and being the original modern slimebag politician.
-Paul's ideas just being way too out there. Everybody not eating algae on a house boat is on government help in some form.
-Someone needs to give Santorum the notice that it's not 2005, and you can't just run entirely on that "I got Christian family values" shpiel. I see Iowa as his only victory in the primaries.
-The fact that Romney would buy and sell anybody he wanted for a dollar while in the private sector.

That's about the most accurate way I've heard it put yet. I'll also add that you can plug any issue into Youtube and find Mitt Romney on both sides of it. He's the "I'm going to say whatever it takes to be elected" stereotype of a politician that everyone jokes about.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

It's all gotten even more depressing now. Enough people in my party thinking Newt is a viable candidate is disconcerting. The newest Rasmussen poll in Florida puts Newt up ten points. Sure, Romney has Nevada in the bag, but who knows how much momentum that slimeball Newt can carry on with. He damn well better explode like usual soon.

With the economy and our national debt in such a dire position, this is such an important election. Yet, my party doesn't have anyone worthy enough to carry the party's flag. As I've said before Romney is my default choice, but Newt shouldn't have even been able to touch him. At the core though, Romney & Newt are the same: they're only after it all for the power & prestige. Romney just has the better image while doing it.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

He's the "I'm going to say whatever it takes to be elected" stereotype of a politician that everyone jokes about.

Yep, which is why I've said that Romney is the Republican John Kerry. Flip-flops in the direction of wherever the wind is blowing.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 04:45 pm

I like Newt Gingrich because he has the biggest balls. Filing for divorce from your wife as she deals with cancer? Asking for an open marriage when you look like the Meineke Man? And all while saying we need to protect the sanctity of marriage. Now that's a real man. We need some courage like that in the White House.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 04:54 pm

He's the Republican John Kerry because of his attitude. He thinks that the President is so unpopular that he can show up and win by default. It wasn't anymore true for Obamba than it was for Bush. The American people won't replace something with nothing, and nothing is about all Romney's got, since he's never stood for anything consistently.

Quote:

With the economy and our national debt in such a dire position, this is such an important election.

I'll say this: I think that once this election's over, and if Obama wins, Republicans and Democrats are going to get serious about debt talks. They both want to do something about it, but they're so busy posturing for the upcoming election that they can't work together. Once Republicans realize that they're stuck with Obama, and Obama realizes he's stuck with Republicans, you'll start to see some Clinton-esque cooperation. Gingrich and Clinton worked out a balanced, budget, but it took Clinton being reelected first.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 06:32 pm

Here's the problem. The Republican party is in the middle of a civil war right now. On the one hand, you have the traditional Republican party, filled with people who are actually students of politics and people who know how to run general election campaigns. These are the ones who push guys like McCain and Romney. They want candidates who are established public figures with notable political experience and mild skeletons in their closets. You know, candidates who have a shot at winning.

Then you have the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party doesn't have any ideas or ideas what a candidate should be. They're good fundraising and getting mentioned on cable news, but they're not good at a single other thing, up to and including wiping their own asses. They want a candidate who will kiss their asses, and that's why their candidate changes every fucking week. Romney is not the type of guy to let morons hold his candidacy hostage, so he refuses to play ball with them. So the Tea Party is intent on destroying his campaign. And they will probably fail, because they are idiots.

In 2010, the Tea Party forced incumbent U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski to drop out of the Republican primary for her Senate seat by nominating their own candidate, the Palin-sponsored Joe Miller. After the Libertarians refused to nominate her, Murkowski ran and won as a write-in candidate.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 07:01 pm

Pretty damn good summary, Syd.

Catt, I'm curious why Romney is your default choice. I have no issue with that; I'm genuinely wondering. Mostly because, if I was voting in the primary, I would have NO clue who I'd want. I mean, '08 was easy--McCain was a very good and solid choice. There's no one even remotely like him in this field, at least as far as this outsider can tell. I'm honestly not thrilled with Obama, and would consider voting Republican if a McCain were to step forward, but there's just no one there. At this point, I'll be voting for Obama again by default because there's no real viable alternative from where I sit.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 07:17 pm

He's probably going with Romney because the man is, at the end of the day, still a conservative (at least this year). Obama isn't, although I'd hesitate to call him a liberal. By default, that makes him the best choice.

Paul is nuts, and advocates too radical a direction of government to be taken seriously. Santorum is the kind of Bible thumper that people are tired of and Gingrich is...well...Gingrich. So that pretty much leaves Romney.

I'll be voting Obama myself, but that's because I'm a moderate Democrat and I appreciate the fact that a moderate Democrat has the White House. But that said, politics is what watch instead of sports and the Republicans are hosting the best game in town.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 07:22 pm

My roommates have been following the primaries, and that is about the only way I've heard anything about these candidates. I don't really see any presidential material in any of them, but then I didn't, and still don't, in Obama so what do I know? About the only thing I've heard any of them say that I actually agreed with was the repealing of ObamaCare. I just hope someone other than Obama gets elected really. Another 4 years of a completely sunk economy would be really shitty.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

So you don't see presidential potential in them or obama but they are better than obama because?

Posted: Jan 23 2012 08:08 pm

I never said they were better than Obama? I don't care for Obama, and I would rather take a shot on someone new who might do something to solve the economic/debt problems than hope that a guy who has done practically nothing for going on four years suddenly decides to do something. I don't really honestly care if it is one of these jokers or if it is an independent at this point, just want someone new.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 08:24 pm

The thing about Romney is that while he may not be the most consistent politician, he was a consistently successful businessman. And honestly, part of being a successful businessman is NOT being a consistent politician. You have to be able to adapt to changing times, markets, and problems to keep a business solvent. And that's the type of guy we need running America. The guy who's concerned with the bottom line and doing whatever it takes to get our financials out of the red and into the black.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

The reason I think Gingrich will get it is that this is Republican-only voting, and they haven't been able to deal with a half-white president since early 2008. I don't think they can handle sending up someone coming from a culture that they really don't understand. Gingrich is known for using hate to keep himself relevant, and shit sticks. Also putting down ten bucks on him claiming to be solely responsible for the economic upturn in the '90s, but not for the subsequent recession.

I think Republicans can't pull anti-intellectualism off anymore (if they're running for president, at least). Say what you want about the plans pushed through over the past few years (for or against), but trying to put out a 20 page bill for health care reform and debt reduction just makes you look lazy, stupid, and disconnected from problems that non-millionaires are facing. Some Republicans are still complaining Palin didn't run. Never mind what I think of her, how long would she have lasted just yelling "I believe in American Mama Grizzly Values," if she decided to give up her book/speaking gravy train?

The problem is that save for their professional records or skeletons in the closet, the Republicans are basically identical when in front of the camera. We love Reagan (for reasons that don't exist), we support real families (thank you Cain and Gingrich, plus hate-monger Santorum), Obama's running the country into the ground (as his approval ratings rise), and the rest of the points that they either can't get to stick, or lost steam five years ago.

In my eyes, Huntsman deserves it, but nobody can win it anyway unless Barack shows up in a black beret.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Beach Bum wrote:

I never said they were better than Obama? I don't care for Obama, and I would rather take a shot on someone new who might do something to solve the economic/debt problems than hope that a guy who has done practically nothing for going on four years suddenly decides to do something. I don't really honestly care if it is one of these jokers or if it is an independent at this point, just want someone new.

I would rather stay with the person there hoping they can bring things together as opposed to someone else try and rework it from scratch hoping it fixes.

Posted: Jan 23 2012 09:41 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

I would rather stay with the person there hoping they can bring things together as opposed to someone else try and rework it from scratch hoping it fixes.

Have you ever seen Wag The Dog?

Posted: Jan 23 2012 11:22 pm

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

I never said they were better than Obama? I don't care for Obama, and I would rather take a shot on someone new who might do something to solve the economic/debt problems than hope that a guy who has done practically nothing for going on four years suddenly decides to do something. I don't really honestly care if it is one of these jokers or if it is an independent at this point, just want someone new.

I would rather stay with the person there hoping they can bring things together as opposed to someone else try and rework it from scratch hoping it fixes.

I'm just afraid that if we don't change it up we'll spend another 4 years with an economy that still hasn't recovered from a collapse that occurred 4-5 years ago or around there now. Our current president talks a good game, but I've yet to see any real results so I have very little confidence in him. If I felt that someone could even begin some sort of economic recovery or at the very least start solving the debt problem I'd vote for him in a heartbeat because that is the problem I see being the major one in the country right now. Romney seems to be about the closest I'm going to get so I might end up voting for him, at least he has some business experience and might be able to do something about the debt.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3475

I'd vote for Ron Paul for the lulz.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

JRA wrote:

I'd vote for Ron Paul for the lulz.

Seems like the sentiments of the average Paul supporter.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3475

Greg the White wrote:

JRA wrote:

I'd vote for Ron Paul for the lulz.

Seems like the sentiments of the average Paul supporter.

Pretty much, it's like the inverse equivalent of Eddie Murphy's standup bit on Jesse Jackson being the first black president.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

My opinion... wait, why am I even in this thread? I wasn't going to vote for the Republicans anyway.

AH HA HA

More seriously, if I did have to vote for the Republicans, it'd be for Ron Paul. The little I've gleaned about him and Romney suggests that Paul has more of my interests in mind.

Posted: Jan 24 2012 01:32 am

Drew Linky wrote:

My opinion... wait, why am I even in this thread? I wasn't going to vote for the Republicans anyway.

Me either, and I started the thread.

Quote:

More seriously, if I did have to vote for the Republicans, it'd be for Ron Paul. The little I've gleaned about him and Romney suggests that Paul has more of my interests in mind.

You're young. How do you figure?

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

SoldierHawk wrote:

Catt, I'm curious why Romney is your default choice. I have no issue with that; I'm genuinely wondering. Mostly because, if I was voting in the primary, I would have NO clue who I'd want. I mean, '08 was easy--McCain was a very good and solid choice. There's no one even remotely like him in this field, at least as far as this outsider can tell. I'm honestly not thrilled with Obama, and would consider voting Republican if a McCain were to step forward, but there's just no one there. At this point, I'll be voting for Obama again by default because there's no real viable alternative from where I sit.

Hmm, that's interesting because Romney & McCain seem fairly similar to me. Both are moderate republicans that everyone says has the best chance of winning in the general election. One is just from the free market wing of the party, the other from the strong foreign policy wing of the party.

Everyone has pretty much covered all the reasons why someone would support Romney, but I might as well explain myself. There hasn't been any good candidate for us this year. Romney is simply the best of poor choices. He may be a flip-flopper, but he's moderate enough to attract the all-important independent voters, plus his main issue/skill is in the economy, and that's the all-important issue this year. It helps that he looks presidential, which can help with the segment of society that seems to only pay attention to the superficial, unfortunately.

As said above, Paul has some good economic opinions, but the rest is crazy talk, especially in this day and age. Santorum is a bible-thumper, which I have no tolerance for. Gingrich is a hypocrite. He prosecuted Clinton for exactly the same thing he's been doing his entire life (actually Gingrich is worse, cuz he cheats on critically ill wives). On top of that, he's a pompous asshole who hasn't held a political position in over ten years after resigning in shame, and has been a lobbyist since then, to such companies as Fannie & Freddie.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

Quote:

More seriously, if I did have to vote for the Republicans, it'd be for Ron Paul. The little I've gleaned about him and Romney suggests that Paul has more of my interests in mind.

You're young. How do you figure?

Mind you, the little I know is all second hand knowledge. I don't like politics, so I haven't done any real research. All I know is Santorum is fucking nuts.

But the reason Paul:

Legalizing medicinal marijuana, supports generic stem cell research, would allow same sex marriage (as long as they don't impose this on others, which is perfectly understandable), among others... basically, one phrase of his sticks out: "... the Constitution grants American citizens the right to do "controversial things" as long as they do not hurt or defame other people and that the federal government should not infringe on those rights."

The economic stuff? For me, that all seems to be a very touch and go thing, even at the best of times. We can have a plan, sure, but it seems to me that fate likes to fuck us over when it comes to things like the economy, regardless of what we try to do. It's one of those things that will have to fix itself, somehow.

I know that doesn't sound smart in the slightest, but I'm not good at explaining how I feel about it. What I'm really trying to say is that things have a way of self organizing themselves, no matter what we predict about it. So instead of try to decide how the economy should be fixed, I'll let someone else fret about it and watch it get better. Or worse, I won't really know till it happens.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Personally I don't see how Obama crashed the economy in any worse way than the Republicans did, but I agree he's only decent at best.

But the Republican Party just seems full of complete fucking retards, so even with an ok guy like Mitt Romney I can't get myself to ever support them as they are right now.
Guys like Syd and Cattivo seem to be a small minority. Or maybe I just don't hear about them because they're less interesting to watch than the weirdos.