PDA

View Full Version : chance that romney can win the race ? 25% ?



muddy123abc
09-21-2012, 08:37 AM
what chance do you give him ? thanks

Cedric
09-21-2012, 08:48 AM
what chance do you give him ? thanks

Hmmmm . . . good question muddy123abc. While the polling numbers are changing on a daily basis and several leftwing media sites have declared the contest over with Obama being the walk away winner, polling results produced by the most reputable sites keep coming back to the fact that as far as the majority of voters polled are concerned the contest remains pretty much neck and neck in their eyes.

My prediction is that this contest will essentially remain neck and neck for all practical purposes right down to election day and that probably the Electoral College will make the final decision. For a variety of reasons due primarily to Obama's presidential history I give Romney slightly favorable odds of one to two percentage points; but that's all.

Trinnity
09-21-2012, 09:00 AM
90%. I predict he will wing by 5 percentage points, or more.

coolwalker
09-21-2012, 04:21 PM
My true feelings...Obama will take the electoral college and Romney will squeek ahead with the popular vote. I'd prefer to see Obama's smug smirk wiped off his face, but unless it rains heavily in urban areas on that day, Romney won't have the chance. Not that I intend to stop stumping for him in my own form, but unless we see a miracle happen, like the debates being honest (for a change) in their questions, it's Obama.

Long wave The Red, White and Blue!

Trinnity
09-21-2012, 04:30 PM
What a difference in opinions....well, we'll see in about 45 days.

Captain Obvious
09-21-2012, 09:35 PM
Romney's campaign is on a definite downward spiral.

i heard a stat on the radio this afternoon, Mitt has more unpopular aspects than popular aspects with voters - worse than McCain 4 years ago.

This might be halftime and down two TD's, he's going to have to turn this around pretty quick if there's going to be any chance of victory. The debates will be huge for him - for good or bad.

GrumpyDog
09-21-2012, 11:02 PM
Using my Romney calculator... ah.. lets see..

Subtract 15% for reduction in capital gains tax, plus a further subtraction from 35% to 28% for income tax., multiplied by top 10%, then subtract 47% of population, then add Billionaire factor of Y/Z- campaign expenses, plus Cayman island 10% interest...

ah looks like Romneys chances are 125% return on campaign donations and 50% chance of winning the election.

Peter1469
09-21-2012, 11:47 PM
With the MSM working over time to get Obama reelected it is going to be a close race.

Captain Obvious
09-22-2012, 12:05 AM
Using my Romney calculator... ah.. lets see..

Subtract 15% for reduction in capital gains tax, plus a further subtraction from 35% to 28% for income tax., multiplied by top 10%, then subtract 47% of population, then add Billionaire factor of Y/Z- campaign expenses, plus Cayman island 10% interest...

ah looks like Romneys chances are 125% return on campaign donations and 50% chance of winning the election.

Brilliant!

Carygrant
09-22-2012, 01:59 AM
At this point in time the chances of Mutant toppling Bamaloo are zero .
( Either you think he will win or not win !! )
However a day is a long time in politics . Guess several more weeks is just that much longer.
But for sure , one more week like this last one will send Mutant cringing to the back of his kennel .
He needs drugs . Lots of them and fast .

Aristophanes
09-22-2012, 02:42 AM
90%. I predict he will wing by 5 percentage points, or more.It's amusing to see libs running around the Net claiming Owebama will win in a landslide. They get their agit prop slop fed to them by the LMSM and don't have a clue.

Just like the Scott Brown election.
Just like the midterms.
Just like the Wisconsin recall.
Just like Chick Fil A day.

The libs ran around claiming victory every time and got hammered.

This will be no different.

Hatred, poverty, mass unemployment and division are simply not in demand.

Trinnity
09-22-2012, 09:23 AM
Yeah, the media lies to us all every damn day. But people know in their gut that things are much worse now than 4 years ago.


The govt and media LIE, but peoples' gut instinct does not.

IMPress Polly
09-22-2012, 10:05 AM
Three months ago I would have estimated that Romney had at least a 60% chance of winning because 1) the Republicans seemed to have the momentum in the wake of the Walker recall defeat and 2) they, certainly including Romney, were predictably coming into a massive cash advantage (considering how many more wealthy friends Republicans typically seem to have these days). Last month, after the Ryan VP selection, I figured about 45% because his summer moderation was alienating many base supporters on the one hand, yet, in a very risky move, he selected a VP who could win them back over on the other, albeit potentially at the cost of independent voters (who are mostly suburban and centrist). In spite of Mr. Romney's obvious plans to avoid alienating independent voters, what with the downplaying of Mr. Ryan's core credentials (namely the Ryan budget), the predictable seems to have happened anyway, and to a larger degree than I could have imagined plausible at the time. Even I could not have anticipated that Mr. Romney would wind up embroiling himself in constant controversy (which always alienates moderate independents) over these post-convention weeks by, for example, taking the occasion of 9/11 to allege that the president supports terrorist actions against his own country and, as another example, getting caught characterizing everyone who doesn't vote for him as a lazy, worthless, tax-evading freeloader unworthy of his concern.* Who knew that such a seemingly bland CEO type had that much audacity? In retrospect, I think my earlier advice to Mr. Romney to get more ideological was misguided. This whole turning of the debate to Mr. Romney's far right views is actually what seems to be hurting his campaign the most right now, even more than the fact that people just don't trust him. I'm not even sure his campaign can be salvaged at this point. At this point, I'd consider 20% a generous, merciful estimate of his chances of becoming president. Things are going so well for Romney that his campaign co-chair quit just a couple days ago, with but a month and a half left before election day. What does that tell you?

* Speaking of which, I think we've all heard about that secretly-taped meeting the Republican presidential candidate hosted back in May with a bunch of wealthy campaign donors by now. (If you didn't see it, you'll find it included at the link anyway.) But a particularly notable part of his...rather egotistical commentary...was his explanation that the Obama camp is composed of non-taxpayers. This video segment DEMOLISHES that myth (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/49080673#49080528) by highlighting that 1) it is actually Mr. Romney's OWN voter base that's more likely to pay nothing in income taxes, 2) that his 47% statistic has no basis in reality when you factor in payroll taxes (which are the main taxes that MOST people pay), and 3) at the state and local level, the poor pay the largest proportion of their incomes in taxes, while the richest 1% pay the least. Lots of great charts and commentary. If you'd like to know what tax rate Mr. Romney thinks HE should have to pay is...well technically he's not running on the Ryan budget, but since he selected its architect as his running mate, I think the Ryan budget gives one a worthy clue.
(http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/)

Peter1469
09-22-2012, 10:57 AM
Three months ago I would have estimated that Romney had at least a 60% chance of winning because 1) the Republicans seemed to have the momentum in the wake of the Walker recall defeat and 2) they, certainly including Romney, were predictably coming into a massive cash advantage (considering how many more wealthy friends Republicans typically seem to have these days). Last month, after the Ryan VP selection, I figured about 45% because his summer moderation was alienating many base supporters on the one hand, yet, in a very risky move, he selected a VP who could win them back over on the other, albeit potentially at the cost of independent voters (who are mostly suburban and centrist). In spite of Mr. Romney's obvious plans to avoid alienating independent voters, what with the downplaying of Mr. Ryan's core credentials (namely the Ryan budget), the predictable seems to have happened anyway, and to a larger degree than I could have imagined plausible at the time. Even I could not have anticipated that Mr. Romney would wind up embroiling himself in constant controversy (which always alienates moderate independents) over these post-convention weeks by, for example, taking the occasion of 9/11 to allege that the president supports terrorist actions against his own country and, as another example, getting caught characterizing everyone who doesn't vote for him as a lazy, worthless, tax-evading freeloader unworthy of his concern.* Who knew that such a seemingly bland CEO type had that much audacity? In retrospect, I think my earlier advice to Mr. Romney to get more ideological was misguided. This whole turning of the debate to Mr. Romney's far right views is actually what seems to be hurting his campaign the most right now, even more than the fact that people just don't trust him. I'm not even sure his campaign can be salvaged at this point. At this point, I'd consider 20% a generous, merciful estimate of his chances of becoming president. Things are going so well for Romney that his campaign co-chair quit just a couple days ago, with but a month and a half left before election day. What does that tell you?

* Speaking of which, I think we've all heard about that secretly-taped meeting the Republican presidential candidate hosted back in May with a bunch of wealthy campaign donors by now. (If you didn't see it, you'll find it included at the link anyway.) But a particularly notable part of his...rather egotistical commentary...was his explanation that the Obama camp is composed of non-taxpayers. This video segment DEMOLISHES that myth (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/49080673#49080528) by highlighting that 1) it is actually Mr. Romney's OWN voter base that's more likely to pay nothing in income taxes, 2) that his 47% statistic has no basis in reality when you factor in payroll taxes (which are the main taxes that MOST people pay), and 3) at the state and local level, the poor pay the largest proportion of their incomes in taxes, while the richest 1% pay the least. Lots of great charts and commentary. If you'd like to know what tax rate Mr. Romney thinks HE should have to pay is...well technically he's not running on the Ryan budget, but since he selected its architect as his running mate, I think the Ryan budget gives one a worthy clue.
(http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/)

A few points:

Romney has close to 50% chance of being elected, and he would have a much larger chance if we actually had an unbiased media in this country. The economy is in the tank. Yes, it was when Obama took over, but he has made it worse through increased debt spending and increased bail outs to those who crashed the economy at the expense of the taxpayer (or future taxpayer).

I think that the Ryan selection was a good move. It brought back independents (from the right of the GOP) like the Tea Party(ies). It is a bit strange, because Ryan really isn't a true fiscal conservative. He is a hard core Keynesian and his budget does not cut spending (it cuts the projected growth of spending). That is totally unacceptable. But most people don't understand this stuff, so I still think it is a net gain for the pick. Had Romney picked someone that the right perceives to be a moderate, your projections of his chances of winning would be spot on. (I imagine you won't agree with that!)

Romney simply said that 47% don't pay federal income taxes. That is essentially correct, although some point out that the real number is 46.4% so Romney is a huge liar.... Polly, to try to add in the payroll tax is disingenuous for two reasons. (1) the payroll tax is supposed to only pay into social security; (2) congress has raided the social security fund for decades and there is no money in it at all. So to add the payroll tax into Romney's point is really an acknowledgement that Congress is stealing from the fund. Do you endorse that?

Obama did support terrorists. He gave al Qaeda our air force in Libya; he supported the uprising in Egypt- which had Islamist support. And he is using SoF and our Intel assets to assist the Free Syrian Army, which has many Islamist groups in it. This is supporting terrorists. There is no way around that. Obama's Middle East strategy is based on some sort of belief that they will like the US because of Obama. It has failed. We need some realpolitik back in our foreign policy.

Anyway Polly, thanks for your hard work in posting here. It is a shame that too many people dismiss your admittedly left position with bland one liners that say more about them than you.

IMPress Polly
09-22-2012, 02:50 PM
Peter wrote:
Romney simply said that 47% don't pay federal income taxes. That is essentially correct, although some point out that the real number is 46.4% so Romney is a huge liar....Polly, to try to add in the payroll tax is disingenuous for two reasons. (1) the payroll tax is supposed to only pay into social security; (2) congress has raided the social security fund for decades and there is no money in it at all. So to add the payroll tax into Romney's point is really an acknowledgement that Congress is stealing from the fund. Do you endorse that?

In case you missed it, the lie was that its essentially people voting against him -- people in the Obama camp -- who don't pay income taxes.

Another layer of dishonesty that I sought to highlight though was the contextual implication that people who don't pay income taxes are all tax evaders; people who simply take government money without paying anything out to state coffers. That's why I brought up the payroll tax: to highlight that that's just not true.


I think that the Ryan selection was a good move. It brought back independents (from the right of the GOP) like the Tea Party(ies). It is a bit strange, because Ryan really isn't a true fiscal conservative. He is a hard core Keynesian and his budget does not cut spending (it cuts the projected growth of spending). That is totally unacceptable. But most people don't understand this stuff, so I still think it is a net gain for the pick. Had Romney picked someone that the right perceives to be a moderate, your projections of his chances of winning would be spot on. (I imagine you won't agree with that!)

Well I don't know if I agree or disagree with it. What I feel that I know right now is that Mr. Romney desperately needs to toe back in a more centrist direction in terms of how he seeks to appeal to people. Even a lot of his more moderate campaign staffers are quitting now (including, as I pointed out before, his campaign co-chair Tim Pawlenty). He can't afford to have this kind of chaos going on on the inside of his campaign this late in the game. He needs to re-establish a unified campaign above all else. But like I said, I'm not even sure there's a way to salvage his campaign at all this late in the game.

Admittedly, I haven't traditionally thought of the Tea Party movement as being politically independent. Since at least 2010, it's come across to me as basically being an arm of the Republican Party. Presently, I recognize the existence of four GOP factions: the establishment faction (i.e. the Romney/Rove/Bush/Murdoch group), the two main Tea Party organizations (which counts as one faction in my book), the social conservatives (Mike Huckabee and the Southern Baptist Convention and the related Values Voters Convention people, etc. ...the people still backing Todd Akin's Senate campaign, in other words), and the libertarian movement (Ron Paul people basically). There's considerable overlap between these factions, but they are all distinct and nominally independent, even though they're all BASICALLY branches of the Republican Party.

Well anyhow, I gather what you mean and would personally place Paul Ryan as someone who is ACTUALLY more like GOP Establishment: The Next Generation than he is an authentic Tea Partier or whatever. The thing is that he's radical enough to be generally embraced by the Tea Partiers on the one hand, but sorta neo/semi-Keynesian enough to still be seen by the existing party establishment as a serious candidate. So he's the kind of guy who can bridge the gap that exists between these two factions. But while he may be kind of an ideologically in-between guy by the standards of Republicans, by the standards of those outside the Republican Party he's pretty radical.


He gave al Qaeda our air force in Libya; he supported the uprising in Egypt- which had Islamist support. And he is using SoF and our Intel assets to assist the Free Syrian Army, which has many Islamist groups in it.

Not that I've ever really been a supporter of our participation in the Libya War (I've always been opposed to our participation in it) and that sort of thing, but there's a huge leap of logic involved in simply one-sidedly proclaiming that these respective movements in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are essentially defined by their terrorist/Al Qaeda components. They are not. These are and have been (as applicable) popular, revolutionary movements for the establishment of democracy, reactionary minority elements notwithstanding. I support the democracy movements, though I believe that their fight should be indeed THEIR fight, not ours, to wage and to oversee. And the president has NEVER supported aid to anti-American terrorist elements.

Peter1469
09-22-2012, 03:24 PM
In case you missed it, the lie was that its essentially people voting against him -- people in the Obama camp -- who don't pay income taxes.

Another layer of dishonesty that I sought to highlight though was the contextual implication that people who don't pay income taxes are all tax evaders; people who simply take government money without paying anything out to state coffers. That's why I brought up the payroll tax: to highlight that that's just not true.



Well I don't know if I agree or disagree with it. What I feel that I know right now is that Mr. Romney desperately needs to toe back in a more centrist direction in terms of how he seeks to appeal to people. Even a lot of his more moderate campaign staffers are quitting now (including, as I pointed out before, his campaign co-chair Tim Pawlenty). He can't afford to have this kind of chaos going on on the inside of his campaign this late in the game. He needs to re-establish a unified campaign above all else. But like I said, I'm not even sure there's a way to salvage his campaign at all this late in the game.

Admittedly, I haven't traditionally thought of the Tea Party movement as being politically independent. Since at least 2010, it's come across to me as basically being an arm of the Republican Party. Presently, I recognize the existence of four GOP factions: the establishment faction (i.e. the Romney/Rove/Bush/Murdoch group), the two main Tea Party organizations (which counts as one faction in my book), the social conservatives (Mike Huckabee and the Southern Baptist Convention and the related Values Voters Convention people, etc. ...the people still backing Todd Akin's Senate campaign, in other words), and the libertarian movement (Ron Paul people basically). There's considerable overlap between these factions, but they are all distinct and nominally independent, even though they're all BASICALLY branches of the Republican Party.

Well anyhow, I gather what you mean and would personally place Paul Ryan as someone who is ACTUALLY more like GOP Establishment: The Next Generation than he is an authentic Tea Partier or whatever. The thing is that he's radical enough to be generally embraced by the Tea Partiers on the one hand, but sorta neo/semi-Keynesian enough to still be seen by the existing party establishment as a serious candidate. So he's the kind of guy who can bridge the gap that exists between these two factions. But while he may be kind of an ideologically in-between guy by the standards of Republicans, by the standards of those outside the Republican Party he's pretty radical.



Not that I've ever really been a supporter of our participation in the Libya War (I've always been opposed to our participation in it) and that sort of thing, but there's a huge leap of logic involved in simply one-sidedly proclaiming that these respective movements in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are essentially defined by their terrorist/Al Qaeda components. They are not. These are and have been (as applicable) popular, revolutionary movements for the establishment of democracy, reactionary minority elements notwithstanding. I support the democracy movements, though I believe that their fight should be indeed THEIR fight, not ours, to wage and to oversee. And the president has NEVER supported aid to anti-American terrorist elements.


In case you missed it, the lie was that its essentially people voting against him -- people in the Obama camp -- who don't pay income taxes.

I disagree. What Mitt was doing was responding to a question about campaign strategy: how to get people in the "dependent" class to vote for him. Romney said, that they won't vote for him- he is largely correct. Romney's tax plan will not help these people at all, directly at least (it should grow the economy and help them that way.) So Romney was saying that he wanted to focus on winning the votes of 5-7% of independents to push him to 50.1% so he can win.

There was nothing insidious about his statements, although worded poorly. This is really the discussion that this nation needs at this time. We simply cannot continue to increase the numbers of those who rely on the treasury. That will lead to a collapse of the system.

But the dems run on increasing State support for people. This will necessarily lead to a collapse of the system. That is what Mitt is alluding to.


Another layer of dishonesty that I sought to highlight though was the contextual implication that people who don't pay income taxes are all tax evaders; people who simply take government money without paying anything out to state coffers. That's why I brought up the payroll tax: to highlight that that's just not true.

Correct, but that is reading too much in Mitt's comments. He specifically was referring to the federal income tax. We know that there are lots more taxes out there. People pay the payroll tax to fund social security payments for current retirees, not to fund Medicare Part D, or Obamacare. We should be able to agree on that, at least.....


Mr. Romney desperately needs to toe back in a more centrist direction in terms of how he seeks to appeal to people.

Disagree. The GOP's problem since Reagan was this insane need to move to the center. Conservative ideas (talking fiscal conservatism, not religious right) win ever time they are ran on. Moving to the mushy middle either loses or ends up racking up the national debt as we saw under Bush the Younger.



Admittedly, I haven't traditionally thought of the Tea Party movement as being politically independent.

The Tea Party(ies) toyed with the idea of being 100% independent and gave up on that idea because of our political system that only allows for 2 parties. They are trying to subvert the establishment GOP- take it over- change it. I support that. The establishment needs to go. The religious right need to be relegated to state and local politics. The Neocons should be ejected and given back to the dems.

I agree with what you say about Ryan- he is a sort of transition from the old to the new. That makes him a good VP pic.


Not that I've ever really been a supporter of our participation in the Libya War (I've always been opposed to our participation in it) and that sort of thing, but there's a huge leap of logic involved in simply one-sidedly proclaiming that these respective movements in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are essentially defined by their terrorist/Al Qaeda components. They are not.

Yes and no. In a completely fair political race you would be correct. But Obama's Libya policy was so flawed and so ignorant of the reality on the ground (that al Q was a major part of it) that it is completely legitimate to state that Obama gave al Q our air force. That was a Carteresque blunder. They have not intervened in Syria for this very reason. They have learned.


And the president has NEVER supported aid to anti-American terrorist elements.
Of course he did. The only question is whether he understood this at the time or not. He probably didn't, and this links back to your position that the right shouldn't tar him with helping al Q take out Qaddafi. But hey, the President wears big boy pants and if he can't take the heat....

GrassrootsConservative
09-22-2012, 03:56 PM
70% chance for Romney to win, I say.

Carygrant
09-22-2012, 04:42 PM
70% chance for Romney to win, I say.


Buy tissues .

GrassrootsConservative
09-22-2012, 05:35 PM
Buy tissues .

Get a job.

Carygrant
09-22-2012, 05:50 PM
Running three companies which I own outright is clearly not enough for you .
You kids just haven't a clue .
I am 70 years old . Sleep an average of 4 hours and would be amazed if you could last 10 seconds in my anger . I admit that I would not last trading punches , which is why I bury people quickly .Knock them out or break their arms .
So ,go away .

wvtravlr
09-22-2012, 10:04 PM
Most folks I know... are not really voting "for" Romney...

But they are voting "against" Obummer.....

Captain Obvious
09-22-2012, 10:08 PM
Most folks I know... are not really voting "for" Romney...

But they are voting "against" Obummer.....

Add me to your list.

IMPress Polly
09-23-2012, 07:49 AM
wvtravlr wrote:
Most folks I know... are not really voting "for" Romney...

But they are voting "against" Obummer.....

I was kind of under the impression that most ideological rightists were just more essentially voting for Ryan than Romney. You make it sound totally negative. :wink:

Peter

I disagree with most of what you stated in your most recent post, but it was well-stated nonetheless. Had to give you props for that. I think we've largely reached a point where, concerning this particular discussion anyway, we just have to agree to disagree. There was one specific that I wanted to respond to though:


Disagree. The GOP's problem since Reagan was this insane need to move to the center. Conservative ideas (talking fiscal conservatism, not religious right) win ever time they are ran on. Moving to the mushy middle either loses or ends up racking up the national debt as we saw under Bush the Younger.

Every candidate for president runs on two tracks precisely because they always select a vice presidential candidate. More often than not, if a party ideologue (someone who appeals to the average party member) wins the presidential nominee, he will select a more moderate person (someone who it's believed can appeal to the average centrist independent) as his running mate, and vice versa, such as to unite the party. That's just how it usually goes. It's a sound election strategy. Both sides of inner-party politics thus usually get some representation in their party's presidential campaign. The only question that really follows is what billing the respective sides will get: priority billing (the presidential nomination) or secondary billing (the VP slot). This year one of the less ideological Republicans won the priority billing because the party ideologues (the Tea Partiers and social conservatives namely) couldn't find a candidate to stick to. (Plus Mr. Romney just simply bought some of key later races against Mr. Santorum. You can do that now in post-Citizens United America.)

Whether it's more strategically advantageous to pick a party ideologue or a party moderate as the presidential candidate, and thus place them front and center in the campaign, is a matter of what the political directionality of the times are. You highlight Reagan's successful runs for the presidency in the '80s in making your case for always stressing partisan ideology. Well we could always turn the page of history back to the '60s and see that the Republicans overall had better luck in that era fielding more moderate candidates (like Richard Nixon) than they did with their more extreme, ideological candidates (like Barry Goldwater). There are lots of other examples we could go through like this, but I think you can see what I mean: In the '80s, the political center of gravity, both here and around the globe, was shifting in a rightward, neo-liberal direction, whereas in the '60s though the opposite was true. The Republicans had to match their candidates with the times in order to capitalize on them. They had to go with the flow of history to win. You can't just boil all the factors that go into viability into a simplistic formulation. One must understand the times to understand what can and cannot work politically.

Now in the last several election cycles...indeed pretty much ever since the Reagan era...it is true to say that the Republicans have wound up nominating what are considered their more moderate candidates in an overall sense. Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr. twice, McCain, Romney. None of these people were by any means the most hardcore partisan ideologues. Some of them won and some of them lost. Whether Mr. Romney wins the election methinks depends on whether his views are closer to those of moderate independents (basically white suburbanites) than the president's and on whether people learn to trust him. Evidence is piling up that as much is unlikely. But we will see what happens in the now-upcoming presidential debates.

Peter1469
09-23-2012, 08:31 AM
I was kind of under the impression that most ideological rightists were just more essentially voting for Ryan than Romney. You make it sound totally negative. :wink:

Peter

I disagree with most of what you stated in your most recent post, but it was well-stated nonetheless. Had to give you props for that. I think we've largely reached a point where, concerning this particular discussion anyway, we just have to agree to disagree. There was one specific that I wanted to respond to though:



Every candidate for president runs on two tracks precisely because they always select a vice presidential candidate. More often than not, if a party ideologue (someone who appeals to the average party member) wins the presidential nominee, he will select a more moderate person (someone who it's believed can appeal to the average centrist independent) as his running mate, and vice versa, such as to unite the party. That's just how it usually goes. It's a sound election strategy. Both sides of inner-party politics thus usually get some representation in their party's presidential campaign. The only question that really follows is what billing the respective sides will get: priority billing (the presidential nomination) or secondary billing (the VP slot). This year one of the less ideological Republicans won the priority billing because the party ideologues (the Tea Partiers and social conservatives namely) couldn't find a candidate to stick to. (Plus Mr. Romney just simply bought some of key later races against Mr. Santorum. You can do that now in post-Citizens United America.)

Whether it's more strategically advantageous to pick a party ideologue or a party moderate as the presidential candidate, and thus place them front and center in the campaign, is a matter of what the political directionality of the times are. You highlight Reagan's successful runs for the presidency in the '80s in making your case for always stressing partisan ideology. Well we could always turn the page of history back to the '60s and see that the Republicans overall had better luck in that era fielding more moderate candidates (like Richard Nixon) than they did with their more extreme, ideological candidates (like Barry Goldwater). There are lots of other examples we could go through like this, but I think you can see what I mean: In the '80s, the political center of gravity, both here and around the globe, was shifting in a rightward, neo-liberal direction, whereas in the '60s though the opposite was true. The Republicans had to match their candidates with the times in order to capitalize on them. They had to go with the flow of history to win. You can't just boil all the factors that go into viability into a simplistic formulation. One must understand the times to understand what can and cannot work politically.

Now in the last several election cycles...indeed pretty much ever since the Reagan era...it is true to say that the Republicans have wound up nominating what are considered their more moderate candidates in an overall sense. Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr. twice, McCain, Romney. None of these people were by any means the most hardcore partisan ideologues. Some of them won and some of them lost. Whether Mr. Romney wins the election methinks depends on whether his views are closer to those of moderate independents (basically white suburbanites) than the president's and on whether people learn to trust him. Evidence is piling up that as much is unlikely. But we will see what happens in the now-upcoming presidential debates.

Yes you are correct, we are at the point where we must agree to disagree. But it was fun.

I am not so sure that VPs are chosen in the GOP to make an ideological link so much as a regional link. Like picking a southerner if the presidential candidate is a northern. (Not the case with Ryan- he clearly is a tea party(ies) link).
But maybe that is the same thing since the northerners are more liberal than the southerners.

Back to your point since Reagan. Had the republicans ran a true conservative in the 1990s we likely would never know about all the women Bill Clinton abused. And we still would have gotten welfare reform!

birddog
09-23-2012, 12:45 PM
Running three companies which I own outright is clearly not enough for you .
You kids just haven't a clue .
I am 70 years old . Sleep an average of 4 hours and would be amazed if you could last 10 seconds in my anger . I admit that I would not last trading punches , which is why I bury people quickly .Knock them out or break their arms .
So ,go away .


I like that even if you are a lib! I'm 65 with a bad ticker, and I say, "I can whip any man around if I can do it within three seconds, because then I run out of air!" :laugh:

wvtravlr
09-23-2012, 10:58 PM
I was kind of under the impression that most ideological rightists were just more essentially voting for Ryan than Romney. You make it sound totally negative. :wink:

Peter

I disagree with most of what you stated in your most recent post, but it was well-stated nonetheless. Had to give you props for that. I think we've largely reached a point where, concerning this particular discussion anyway, we just have to agree to disagree. There was one specific that I wanted to respond to though:



Every candidate for president runs on two tracks precisely because they always select a vice presidential candidate. More often than not, if a party ideologue (someone who appeals to the average party member) wins the presidential nominee, he will select a more moderate person (someone who it's believed can appeal to the average centrist independent) as his running mate, and vice versa, such as to unite the party. That's just how it usually goes. It's a sound election strategy. Both sides of inner-party politics thus usually get some representation in their party's presidential campaign. The only question that really follows is what billing the respective sides will get: priority billing (the presidential nomination) or secondary billing (the VP slot). This year one of the less ideological Republicans won the priority billing because the party ideologues (the Tea Partiers and social conservatives namely) couldn't find a candidate to stick to. (Plus Mr. Romney just simply bought some of key later races against Mr. Santorum. You can do that now in post-Citizens United America.)

Whether it's more strategically advantageous to pick a party ideologue or a party moderate as the presidential candidate, and thus place them front and center in the campaign, is a matter of what the political directionality of the times are. You highlight Reagan's successful runs for the presidency in the '80s in making your case for always stressing partisan ideology. Well we could always turn the page of history back to the '60s and see that the Republicans overall had better luck in that era fielding more moderate candidates (like Richard Nixon) than they did with their more extreme, ideological candidates (like Barry Goldwater). There are lots of other examples we could go through like this, but I think you can see what I mean: In the '80s, the political center of gravity, both here and around the globe, was shifting in a rightward, neo-liberal direction, whereas in the '60s though the opposite was true. The Republicans had to match their candidates with the times in order to capitalize on them. They had to go with the flow of history to win. You can't just boil all the factors that go into viability into a simplistic formulation. One must understand the times to understand what can and cannot work politically.

Now in the last several election cycles...indeed pretty much ever since the Reagan era...it is true to say that the Republicans have wound up nominating what are considered their more moderate candidates in an overall sense. Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr. twice, McCain, Romney. None of these people were by any means the most hardcore partisan ideologues. Some of them won and some of them lost. Whether Mr. Romney wins the election methinks depends on whether his views are closer to those of moderate independents (basically white suburbanites) than the president's and on whether people learn to trust him. Evidence is piling up that as much is unlikely. But we will see what happens in the now-upcoming presidential debates.


There you go again...

basing your discussion,,on a false premise,,that Reagan was a centrist...

IMPress Polly
09-25-2012, 06:30 AM
wvtravlr wrote:
There you go again...

basing your discussion,,on a false premise,,that Reagan was a centrist...

...I neither said nor implied anything of the sort! I thought I made it quite clear that I understood Mr. Reagan and Mr. Goldwater to have been examples of the far right wing of the GOP having won the party's nomination.