I will be here to watch GOP hopefuls, how about you?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Apr 2, 2011.

?

Which candidate will you vote for from the article's list?

Poll closed May 6, 2011.
  1. former Senator Santorum (main topic of article linked)

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. Gov. Barbour

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. former Gov. Romney

    4 vote(s)
    66.7%
  5. former Gov. Roemer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. 63dot, Apr 2, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    ...and I don't even plan to vote for any Republicans. But with the current president floating between 44-51% percent on approval ratings in Gallup and other polls, the USA may get a republican come January, 2013.

    With the mess in Libya, ongoing crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan, and uncertainty with gas and nuclear power, Obama has an uphill battle between now and election day 2012. I hope Obama wins but I have my doubts as to whether he can keep many promises he made in 2008 if he gets a second term. If Obama really screws up, and somehow I get very disillusioned with Greens or other third parties, I would, I guess, hold my nose and put in a vote for Newt. As much as I don't like Newt, he's the most respected and experienced politician of the bunch. I am basing my poll choices from what the article confirms as to who will be there at the GOP debate so far.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20049681-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.5

    Since the article was written, former Governor Buddy Roemer confirmed his appearance for the May 5th debate, so he's added in the poll.
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    I'm sure I'll check coverage of the debates, though not the debates themselves. I don't have any particular person I'll be following. Far as I'm concerned, they're all political train wrecks. Except for Santorum -- he's a political train wreck with a hazardous chemical spill.
     
  3. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    Yikes, that's a bad one. ;)

    If former Governor Palin were in this, she would be likened to a train without any track, but these others with deeper experience and personal gravitas have at least been on the track and have run, even though they have all crashed.:eek:
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    It's still a bit early for this. I don't believe we've heard from the eventual Republican nominee yet. The current bunch are all unelectable and that includes the list above plus Bachman, Palin, Trump and Pawlenty.
     
  5. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #5
    If I had to vote for one of the above, I'd vote for Romney.

    However, unless a dark horse candidate enters the field, I'll be voting for Obama again.
     
  6. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #6
    I'm not sure just because Obama's approval rates are what they are means he will lose(look at Bush's numbers in around 2004)

    But yea, if I had to vote for someone it would most likely be Romney, not in love with him, but he seems more interested in doing right then supporting party lines(and he seems less interested in social issues which is where the GOP really frightens me)
     
  7. FreeState, Apr 2, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011

    FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #7
    I'd vote for former Senator Santorum - just because it would be fun to watch. There is not a single republican I would consider voting for in the general election at this point.

    It's also way to early to look at poll numbers and draw any conclusion about Obamas chances of being reelected. I'd be surprised if he is not though.
     
  8. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #8
    Yes, Bush was a 30%-ish type of guy when we all saw Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11 and it would be a messy occupation coupled with crippling bad economy. And in second term, W fell on some polls to 19% percent which Nixon couldn't even do while in office.

    Truman finished only OK but had sub-20 point rating (Rasmussen) at one point, but James K. Polk still stands as America's least popular president, followed by our former man America stupidly put into office (twice), George W. Bush.

    Compared to Polk and Bush, Obama is hugely popular but nowhere near his 65% percent approval rating when the dems kicked out the GOP.
     
  9. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #9
    I think Mitch Daniels could be a good president.
     
  10. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #10
    I'd be interested to see Jon Huntsman, Jr. run.
     
  11. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #11
    While I have not time to do extensive research on him, what I have read seems promising.

    Mind you, any Republican candidate that Karl Rove doesn't like gets a bump in my book.
     
  12. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    I don't know, I wouldn't put it past the tea party to nominate someone completely crazy. I don't think the tea party is strong enough to actually win the general election though. My guess is someone crazy gets the Republican nomination which results in Obama winning 45+ states.
     
  13. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #13
    Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Bush administration? Doesn't have a chance. Especially when he estimated the price of the War in Afghanistan at $50-60 billion. :p

    As an Indianan, I really don't understand why Mitch Daniels is coming up in presidential candidate discussions. The state isn't in a huge budget crisis like others, but that's mainly because he cut pretty much everything and now Indiana isn't good at anything. Our school performances have plummeted under Daniels' governorship, especially.

    One thing I will give him, though: He isn't a complete idiot and there isn't any real controversy around him. So I will admit that he is certainly much better than the usual "candidates" who are coming up.
     
  14. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #14
    I could get behind that, he's seems like a less religious Romney(from the limited research I've done)
     
  15. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #15
    I don't know enough about Santorum or Roemer to know if they can go ultra right wing and fall off the political map into becoming that marginalized, but my guess is that GOP will try and run somebody safe. They can't take chances with an unknown.

    Typically, political announcements from challenging party has their serious candidates announce candidacy for their party's nomination the year before in February as to get enough money (as it takes more each election cycle) as to weather the primaries and election lest they run out of cash like Senator Liz Dole did. None of these republicans are running against Obama. They have to run against each other first and it's going to be as dirty as 2008 when the Democrats ran against each other in the most brutal primary season in memory.

    Obama went into the race in Feb of 2007 to gear up against Clinton, and then after that long battle, he had to get ready for John McCain. Any republican is going to have to field a test of five or six candidates and come out on top and it won't be easy. Romney has the recent name recognition, Giuliani (if he gets in and he better make up his mind this month) is strong with the millions of moderates who always vote, and Gingrich is the smartest of the pack and he should never be underestimated. A similar old dude was underestimated and he won the GOP nomination in 2008. :)

    If this were 1956 or 1960, I could understand waiting until this summer to throw in your name into the hell of primaries, but it's far too expensive and complex in this day and age (especially the primaries where America gets to see what you are made of) to enter the race in the summer of fall of the year before elections and expect to walk into a primary unannounced and expect to do well.

    If the Tea Party has someone in mind, like Palin or Jindal, they have to announce early and start making money fast. Palin's personal fortune of millions (thanks to Fox) won't even cover airfare for primaries and it may just cover wardrobe. We joked about how Palin had two suits for election in 2008, but McCain and Co. gave her a blank check for $150K just for clothes.

    This is the big time.
     
  16. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #16
    Politico has some articles on him, that's basically all I've read. He seems like an ok guy, though being largely unknown and having worked with Obama seem like two downfalls if he's serious about running.

    Let's hope he's considered that though since he's already resigned the Ambassadorship to China. :p
     
  17. 63dot, Apr 3, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2011

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #17
    Romney, as much as I don't like him or any republican, is still a political pro of the highest caliber.

    He may or may not be very religious, but he won't overplay that card in the general election. Romney, like McCain, can paint himself as anybody he wants and have the republicans believe it as if it were gospel.

    Republicans I talked to say his Mormonism is bad because is may piss off some Catholics and Protestants, but when it comes to the general election, they would pick a Romney (wherever he paints himself religiously or not) over an "atheist" or Muslim like Obama. ;)

    Too many people point to Obama's middle name as proof as to his Muslim-ness and the GOP will go that route again but not in such an obvious way to embarrass themselves like they did in 2008. What the GOP did in 2008 was learn about everything not to do in an election, and had McCain picked a more well known, and more moderate running mate, we may have a republican in the White House right now.
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    The next Republican President is probably going to be Brown from Mass. in 2016. But, as far as who is the best of the worst to run against President Obama, it would have to be Mitt Romney in my view.

    Hey voters: Don't buy the GOP argument that they can fix the economy.
    [​IMG]
     
  19. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #19
    I've already heard/ read the Dow Jones average is pretty much useless when it comes to gauging the market. :confused:

    One.

    Two.
     
  20. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #20
    Romney looks like somewhat of a moderate. Guess he's really from MA after all, lol.
    "RomneyCare" could attract enough Moderates and Democrats, and I don't think it'll be enough to put off Republicans and surely not enough to make 'em vote for Obama.
     
  21. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #21
    A Politico article with some interesting background information on Jon Huntsman.
     
  22. Pachang, Apr 4, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2011

    Pachang macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #22
    LOL nice try. Under clinton there was a huge speculative bubble. It crashed just after bush got in....and then you had september 11. This prompted bush to create another speculative bubble in the housing market (which doesn't show up on the dow as much) to prop up the economy.That crashed and was even worse than the dot com bubble.

    And then we have obama. With him there has been such a huge increase in the supply of money that the Dow is actually worth less measured in almost any other currency than the USD than when he got in. This is more directly the Fed's fault than obama though. But if the Fed hadn't been increasing the supply of money the US government would have been completely bankrupt (unable to pay interest on the debt) a year or so ago. It has gotten to the point where the entire US economy is a speculative bubble. Obama has added twice as much debt per year than bush and has no plan on paying back other than relying on the Fed to buy it all (it already is buying most of it). If that happens the USD will lose all of it's value and the economy will be hit much harder than it was in 2007/8.

    In summary:The story behind that graph is that neither party as done well in the last decade or so.
     
  23. StruckANerve, Apr 6, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2011

    StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
  24. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Cite?

    According to this Obama has added about $1.7T from year ending '09 to year ending '10. (You can't really compare '09 to '08 because the government's fiscal year straddles two presidential administrations, and most of '09 would have been under the '08 budget). By comparison, there were two year to year increases under Bush around $1.4T.

    1.7 is not 2x 1.4. But, if you have a cite, feel free to share.
     
  25. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25

Share This Page