GOP Candidates: Who does the best against Obama?

[Denny Crane]

I thought he did extremely well in the debate last night.

 

[STOMP]

2. The Republicans are going to really struggle to come up with a candidate who will both appease the Tea Party crowd and still be electable among the 70% or so of American voters who don't have Tea Party leanings.

seems to me the solution to this political quandary is to have a moderate candidate joined with a Tea Party VP candidate

then once (by hook or by crook) they get the ticket elected the moderate meets an untimely death or suffers an epiphany and the business gets done to the US

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

Although I have more respect for Ron Paul than for most of the R candidates, as a democrat I'd be very happy to have him be the candidate. Very, very happy.

barfo

Why?

 

[julius]

This guy.

 

[julius]

I can say this, and not in the least bit feel funny...

I'd love some of that Johnson.

 

[MrJayremmie]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ing_republican

This guy.

Been a fan of his for a few months, and considered him when I wrote my post.

 

[Denny Crane]

Paul and Johnson are the only two candidates I'd consider at this point. Odd that they're Republicans, since I've repeatedly been told that Libertarians (both are) clearly must favor Democrats.

I've had numerous discussions with other Libertarians, and my suggestion was to spend all the party's efforts and money on one big prize, like governor of California, or one of the state's two senate seats. My thinking is that having one powerful voice in an influential office would be the best way to have the principles heard and gather popularity, rather than just losing all but a few lesser races and having the ideas not heard at all.

Fortunately, the Democrats and Republicans are the best spokespeople for the Libertarian Party. At some point, people will (as Johnson says) realize that electing the same sorts of people over and over again isn't making anything any better. To this end, Paul's rise in popularity the past couple of elections is exactly because there is a voice to be heard and the press covers the republican (and democratic) debates a lot more than they do the Libertarian Party ones.

It remains to be seen who the LP runs. I have no clue why they nominated Bob Barr last time around - he's no Libertarian.

 

[barfo]

Why?

Why ask why? Isn't it obvious?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Paul and Johnson are the only two candidates I'd consider at this point. Odd that they're Republicans, since I've repeatedly been told that Libertarians (both are) clearly must favor Democrats.

I guess you are trying to be provocative or something? I've never heard anyone say that. It's pretty clear that the Libertarians are much more closely aligned with the Republicans at this point (so close, in fact, that it is somewhat difficult to tell them apart).

I've had numerous discussions with other Libertarians, and my suggestion was to spend all the party's efforts and money on one big prize, like governor of California, or one of the state's two senate seats. My thinking is that having one powerful voice in an influential office would be the best way to have the principles heard and gather popularity, rather than just losing all but a few lesser races and having the ideas not heard at all.

I think you are on the right track. Your party needs to shed the loser label somehow if it is ever going to matter.

Fortunately, the Democrats and Republicans are the best spokespeople for the Libertarian Party.

And the Green Party, the Pirate party, the Satanic party, etc.

At some point, people will (as Johnson says) realize that electing the same sorts of people over and over again isn't making anything any better. To this end, Paul's rise in popularity the past couple of elections is exactly because there is a voice to be heard and the press covers the republican (and democratic) debates a lot more than they do the Libertarian Party ones.

It remains to be seen who the LP runs. I have no clue why they nominated Bob Barr last time around - he's no Libertarian.

You follow Libertarian politics pretty closely to not have any clue why they nominated Barr, don't you think?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Barr certainly has more name recognition than most of the other guys who've been the nominee, but he barely talks like a Libertarian some of the time. He has a long track record as congressman that points to him not being so much a Libertarian.

That's why I don't have a clue why they nominated him.

You might look at how the LP was started - it was all disaffected Republicans in the Nixon era. And Nixon was a liberal republican. There is no Liberty Caucus in the Democratic Party, but there is one in the Republican Party.

http://www.rlc.org/

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I know I may get flak for this, but I think the smartest of the group is Newt. But he is unelectable.

It'll be a difficult task to beat Obama. He has lost a lot of the independent vote he had last election, but I think they will gravitate more to a moderate like Romney. But He doesn't sit well with hard line conservatives or tea party candidates and they may not come out to vote for him.

Paul is too old. Palin too stupid. I think it'll be Huckabee as the nominee. I also think he represents the GOP standard and status quo, so it'd be a "same old" vote.

 

[Denny Crane]

Four years ago at this point it seemed like a wide open race. Hillary was probably the favorite, then McCain and then probably Obama and Romney in a tie for third.

I guess a lot of that is not having an incumbent president or a sitting VP running in 2008, as opposed to now. Still, it's kind of shocking that there aren't one or two people even being seriously mentioned as a favorite Republican candidate at this point.

It demonstrates pretty clearly to me two things:

1. Being the favorite at this point doesn't necessarily entitle you to anything. Hillary was and she lost.

2. The Republicans are going to really struggle to come up with a candidate who will both appease the Tea Party crowd and still be electable among the 70% or so of American voters who don't have Tea Party leanings.

My sense is that Tea Partiers, and consequently the whole party, would rather see a Barry Goldwater type Pyrrhic victory of a True Believer, than have somebody who is more moderate make it a close race.

The Democrats were in a very similar situation in 1992. GHW Bush was riding outrageously high approval ratings and there was no front runner in the race. Bill Clinton, failed governor of a tiny state went on to win the nomination. He was sorta the Dems' tea party guy, see the DLC.

How'd that work out?

 

[Minstrel]

The Democrats were in a very similar situation in 1992. GHW Bush was riding outrageously high approval ratings and there was no front runner in the race. Bill Clinton, failed governor of a tiny state went on to win the nomination. He was sorta the Dems' tea party guy, see the DLC.

How'd that work out?

If the Republicans' best hope is a miracle run equivalent to Bill Clinton's, more power to them. Clinton was also one of the most talented campaigners in recent history. There is a guy like that in the 2012 field, but he's the sitting President.

I don't think anyone thinks Obama is guaranteed to win re-election, but it doesn't look good for the Republicans. A basketball team that's trailing by 20 in the fourth quarter can look to examples of teams overcoming such deficits, but that doesn't mean they're in a good position to win.

 

[Denny Crane]

If the Republicans' best hope is a miracle run equivalent to Bill Clinton's, more power to them. Clinton was also one of the most talented campaigners in recent history. There is a guy like that in the 2012 field, but he's the sitting President.

I don't think anyone thinks Obama is guaranteed to win re-election, but it doesn't look good for the Republicans. A basketball team that's trailing by 20 in the fourth quarter can look to examples of teams overcoming such deficits, but that doesn't mean they're in a good position to win.

Clinton was able to beat the likes of Al Gore, who was not an unknown. The flaw in your thinking is that some unknown guy is not a good campaigner. How can you know the unknown?

 

[Minstrel]

Clinton was able to beat the likes of Al Gore, who was not an unknown. The flaw in your thinking is that some unknown guy is not a good campaigner. How can you know the unknown?

That isn't a flaw in my thinking, because I never said any such thing. I simply said that betting on a miracle (that some unknown happens to be one of the best campaigners of a political generation) is not a particularly strong situation to be in. It could certainly happen. It's within the realm of the possible, which is precisely why I said no one believes that a second term is already in the bag for Obama.

 

[Denny Crane]

What I see is the republican party establishment picks their candidate and push him through the primaries. The closest thing to a guy getting in who wasn't the establishment's choice would be McCain in 2000. If they're going to insist upon pushing the social conservative agenda, then their best campaigner to date (Paul) isn't going to be the nominee. In all the debates last time around, people thought Paul won. He raised enormous amounts of money for an end of the bench candidate.

Combine Paul and (believe it or not) Palin (not as VP even), and you may see republicans raise as much as Obama. And I don't think Obama was that great a campaigner or communicator, just that he had an unprecedented amount of money.

 

[maxiep]

I could only wish those that favor limited government had someone as smart and politically savvy as Bill Clinton.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Clinton was also one of the most talented campaigners in recent history.

I think when Clinton was elected it had zero to do with his campaigning and all to do with Bush's complete indifference and the way the democrats shut down congress. And since then the congress has basically followed the same pattern.

 

[barfo]

I could only wish those that favor limited government had someone as smart and politically savvy as Bill Clinton.

Perhaps it's not an accident that they don't.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

The people that favor limited government that have real talent you generally find in the private sector. If you were of the mindset that government wasn't all that effective, why would you participate in it?

 

[Minstrel]

The people that favor limited government that have real talent you generally find in the private sector. If you were of the mindset that government wasn't all that effective, why would you participate in it?

To change it in the way that you and they favor (i.e. limit it)?

 

[maxiep]

To change it in the way that you and they favor (i.e. limit it)?

It's small potatoes to making your mark in the private sector. For those on the Left, making their mark in government is their highest calling.

 

[Minstrel]

It's small potatoes to making your mark in the private sector.

If it's not particularly important to you guys, why do you complain so much about government?

 

[maxiep]

If it's not particularly important to you guys, why do you complain so much about government?

Your little game is boring. Go find someone else to play.

 

[Minstrel]

Your little game is boring. Go find someone else to play.

No, I was just highlighting your attempt to have your cake and eat it too: pretend that government is far too unimportant for real achievers yet, on the other hand, speaking in dire tones about how Obama (and "the Left") is destroying our children's futures.

As usual, though, when your lack of logic is exposed and you can't defend your position, you hit the eject button of "you bore me, please stop talking to me." No worries, I'll keep pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and you can keep pretending that you're bored by it.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't see why it's hard to understand that someone who's successful in the business world might want to contribute something back to society by performing public service. Schwarzenegger could have made a lot more money making movies than being governor.

 

[barfo]

I don't see why it's hard to understand that someone who's successful in the business world might want to contribute something back to society by performing public service. Schwarzenegger could have made a lot more money making movies than being governor.

And he would have been contributing more to society, too.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And he would have been contributing more to society, too.

barfo

Yeah, by not sticking the taxpayers with the bill for the losses we incur for green energy programs.

 

[maxiep]

No, I was just highlighting your attempt to have your cake and eat it too: pretend that government is far too unimportant for real achievers yet, on the other hand, speaking in dire tones about how Obama (and "the Left") is destroying our children's futures.

As usual, though, when your lack of logic is exposed and you can't defend your position, you hit the eject button of "you bore me, please stop talking to me." No worries, I'll keep pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and you can keep pretending that you're bored by it.

Yeah, that's right; you got me. I understand why people on the Left can't see my point--why wouldn't someone want to work in government, even to downsize it?--but like I said, you're just playing a little game and I'm not interested in playing.

 

[maxiep]

I don't see why it's hard to understand that someone who's successful in the business world might want to contribute something back to society by performing public service. Schwarzenegger could have made a lot more money making movies than being governor.

Do you really believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is the kind of person of which I'm speaking? And what if someone believes that "public service" is a self-congratulatory title given by people who wish to suck off the teet of the citizenry? Jesus, how much more privatizing of gains and socializing of losses by people who don't understand the inner workings of their own businesses (paging Misters Willumstad and Blankfein, paging Misters Willumstad and Blankfein) can we take?

It may be surprising to some, but there are people who (gasp!) may be even more brilliant and eloquent than our Washington masters who believe that Washington is a waste of time and the best way to deal with it is simply to try to avoid it as much as possible.