Urban planning community

Poll results: What do you think the outcome of tomorrow's presidential election will be?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama wins electoral and popular vote

    20 76.92%
  • Romney wins electoral and popular vote

    2 7.69%
  • Gary Johnson wins electoral and popular vote :thumb:

    0 0%
  • Obama wins electoral vote, Romney wins popular vote

    4 15.38%
  • Romney wins electoral vote, Obama wins popular vote

    0 0%
  • Obama and Romney tie in the electoral vote

    0 0%
+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 69 1 2 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 1725

Thread: The First 2012 Presidential Election Thread

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Emeritus Bear Up North's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Northwestern Ohio
    Posts
    9,327

    The First 2012 Presidential Election Thread

    Go ahead and bash me with statements along the lines of "....way too soon to discuss the next Presidential election." Yeah, it may be too soon for some of you but you can bet dollars to donuts that there are focus groups and party wonks that are already looking at the potential candidates for the 2012 Presidential Election. And I would assume that Ms. Palin's venture into news analysis on Fox News is akin to buying a gown for the ball.

    Early on I see Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin as front-runners. Mitt Romney may sneak back into the pack. Mike Huckabee will have trouble getting back into contention because of his stained reputation due to his release of a convict who later went on a killing spree.

    If the Republican Party continues to splinter, that could be good news for fans of President Obama (if he runs again) or any other candidate that would replace Obama. Many "tea party" Republicans (some Democrats, many independents) are unhappy with what they term "progressive" Republicans. If that splinter is major league, look for Ms. Palin or......hold the Kleenex.....Glen Beck.....to carry the Tea Party banner.

    Mark Sanford won't be available, unless the "polling booth" is located in South America.

    These are just a few off-the-Bear's-cuff comments. A lot of water will go under the bridge between now and election day. If I had to make a prediction.....Sarah Palin will be the candidate......and (see comments below....).....

    I mentioned this in another thread, a while back. In the great movie The Godfather II, Michael Corleone is talking with Hyman Roth, a Jewish gangster, about potential problems with operating casinos in late 1950 Cuba. Michael had just witnessed a rebel blow himself up and he was concerned. Michael's quote was "They could win."

    Sarah Palin could win.
    _____

    Time for your thoughts. What say you?

    Bear
    Occupy Cyburbia!

  2. #2
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,668
    Blog entries
    1
    I love Sarah Palin. I'm currently reading her book and she's the down-to-earth person to lead this country. From her small-town roots, to her leadership in Alaska, to always challenging the status quo including with the morons who ran McCain's campaign, to her faith, to raising a large family including a child with down syndrome and a child who is serving in war, she represents the heart and soul of Middle America. She is a real conservative, and as we all know conservative Republicans are the only Republicans that ever win. Look around at the Republican party...she's the only major star right now. The only reason John McCain was ever ahead in the polls at anytime during the 2008 election was because of her. A lot of Republicans like her. I remember volunteering for the party in 08 and people by the droves refused McCain yard signs unless they had Sarah Palin's name on it too. Unfortunately those signs had not been printed yet...one of the many mistakes of the McCain campaign.

    I think the Fox News thing will be great for her. The only other major hang-up to convince some Republicans on is her credibility and her knowledge, which she has a lot of, but was put through the runner by the liberal media in 2008, where her gaffes were blown way out of proportion. Mike Huckabee seems way too kooky and fake, so I'm hopeful that his little scandal will steer more conservatives to Sarah's side.

    But right now, people in this country are fed up with the massive debt, the out-of-control spending, and the failure to ignite the economy so that private sector jobs can be created. This is why the Democrats lost by huge margins in Virginia and New Jersey. Unless Obama and the Democrats in Congres can get unemployment back to 5 or 6%, avoid losing Afghanistan, get spending under control, prevent any major terrorist attack from happening, and not touch issues like gun control, I think that Obama will lose. Now I'm not like Rush. I do want Obama to succeed, because I want our country to succeed. I just want a decent paying job when I graduate college this spring and be able to get married, start a family, support my family, and be confident about my future and the security of our country. I really could care less who's leading it, but right now, I just don't think his policies are working.

    Nevertheless, I think Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee and the people who voted for Obama in 2008 purely out of white guilt or because they were in college and thought it was the cool thing to do, will have wised up by the time 2012 comes around when they realize Obama and his policies have still not fixed the economy. What we are experiencing right now is very similar to the early 1980s recession and Reagan managed to turn that around by 1984. Whether Obama can do that will determine whether he gets re-elected.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  3. #3
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,739
    I will be the first to admit that I am not neutral towards some people. I think that I would be willing to consider a Repub in the 2012 election if they could find someone that actually was worth running. To me, if they put Sarah Palin up, she will lose. Not only is she the most unqualified person they could choose, but she is polarizing, and honestly extremely annoying. Her attempt at trying to espouse certain principles while allowing those exact things to happen (i.e. everyone should be abstinent, but my child got pregnant) is not only hypocritical, but downright funny.

    I find it funny that after the last year, I might be willing to vote for a republican, but they need to move the party to where they can win... the middle. This incredibly dense belief that the reason John McCain lost was because he was too far in the middle is not only off base, but just plain wrong. The reason he lost was Sarah Palin. If he would have chosen someone who had more reasonable, centric beliefs, he might have been able to pull it off. Having a President, who is moderate, and a VP who is off her rocker to the right, seemed a bit of an odd dichotomy.

    So although I could not disagree more with IllinoisPlanner about how she was "put through the runner by the 'liberal' media" (don't get me started on that junk), I think the Republicans will probably try to make it work with her. Sad really. If they put up a moderate Republican they might be able to win, likely easily. Someone like.. I don't know maybe Dede Scozzafava... oh wait, she isn't allowed in the party anymore...

    I think Obama will win again unless the Republicans can do two things...
    A.) Find a fiscally conservative (everyone wants the government to spend less right now), socially moderate (at least support civil unions and some women's rights) person who isn't morally corrupt and
    B.) Kick the old party members who are muddying the water (i.e. those who keep saying the party should be MORE conservative) and try to unify their base on the economic strength of the party, not the moral b.s. they can't seem to actually follow themselves.

    I still look forward to see how that race plays out, as I think the landscape will change a ton in 2 years, and if Obama is successful on even a couple of his agenda points, he will not be easy to beat. Once the economy turns round, that race will be a completely different ballgame.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    7,035
    Oh help me, do we have to start this already? It's barely 2010 so we'll have 2 1/2 years of this.
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  5. #5
    Cyburbian PrahaSMC's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Couch Surfing
    Posts
    128
    Love politics; never to early to start thinking about the next election.

    Re: Sarah Palin. IMO, she has no chance of being the GOP nominee in 2012. Zero, zilch, nada. A couple of reason's why:
    1. First and foremost, while she is adept at delivering a prepared message, she has demonstrated a total inability to engage in any type of substantive discourse. In her debate against Joe Biden, she was completely disengaged and basically recited lines from her stump speech, regardless of how they fit the topic at hand. Further evidence of this flaw was on display in the Katie Couric interview; not being able to name a single newspaper or periodical you read is frightening. Over a 20 month campaign, where she'll be forced to debate more than a dozen times, this will be exploited.
    2. In the new media age, having a high profile years before the campaign isn't necessarily an advantage. In fact, if you're a polarizing figure like Palin, it can actually be a severe disadvantage (just ask Hilary). Just about everyone has already formed an opinion on Sarah Palin, whether it be positive of negative... I can't see her changing a lot of minds. By contrast, one of the keys to Obama's success in 2008 was his ability to craft his own image as the campaign evolved.

    Republican's are smart-- the base isn't going to fracture, they will nominate the candidate with the best chance to win. Period. That won't be Palin. So who will it be? My bet is on Tim Pawlenty, but I can see a very convincing case for Mitt Romney. The economy is going to be a crippling burden for Obama in 2012; we are down nearly 8 million jobs from full employment (and still shedding more). There's just about no way, even with the most optimistic forecast, that the economy can make up even half those losses in the next two and a half years. Chances are, we'll be looking at greater than 8-percent unemployment still. That's not going to play well.

    Romney was on Morning Joe this morning and you could already see the early seeds of his campaign message. To paraphrase: "When I was in the business world, I was involved in a lot turn-around situations. The most important thing to do is zero-in on a clear, specific message. In this case, the President's focus should have been job creation and clearly he's failed." Whether you agree with his point or not, he delivers it very well. As Massachusetts residents are finding out today (and saw first hand with Romney years prior), never underestimate the appeal of a good looking, articulate suit.

    Approximatley half the electorate is split between the two parties from the start; winning an election is all about appealing to the independent middle. To my dismay, the Obama administration has failed in this regard so far. There is still time to change, but things don't look good for 2012, especially with the impending collapse of the healthcare bill.

    But it's early. Real early.

  6. #6
         
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way out there
    Posts
    175
    It's sad to see a political party become so enamored with anti-intellectualism that it will actually consider nominating someone like Sarah Palin, she who embodies the kind of outright ignorance that both political parties once chastised.

    Of course, this is the same party that tried to make a big hurrah over the number of pages in the health care bill. I am ashamed of and for those people. They want a health care bill that reads no more complex than 'See Spot Run'. Legislating is a complex business with complex questions that require complex answers. When a party's front-runner can't answer a complex question like 'What newspapers do you read', I fear for that party and--even more so--for our country under that party's leadership.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    It seems to me like the only place where Sarah Palin is 'polarizing' is among lefties who don't want anyone but the left-most candidate to win. Among conservatives (note, I did not say 'Republicans'), she's like the second coming of Reagan - and *EVERY* time the left attacks her in any way, her 'stock price' goes *UP*.

    In fact, I am fairly convinced that the margin in 2008 would have been far closer if the names on the 'R' ticket were reversed.

    Of the other names that I can sense, I cannot see Huckabee nor Romney getting the nomination, Romney due to the religion thing - MANY Evangelical-Protestants will not support anyone who they consider to be a 'cultist' (an E-P friend of mine used that very word) and Huckabee is a has-been.

    One dark horse on the 'R' side could be USHouse Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-1) - a FAST rising star in the party and a solid Reagan protogé.

    Mike

  8. #8
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    I'm gonna go a little further than I should and say that anyone who would vote for Palin is not only a clueless moron but a worthless human being.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian JimPlans's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gone to a better place (in my mind)
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    One dark horse on the 'R' side could be USHouse Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-1) - a FAST rising star in the party and a solid Reagan protogé.

    Mike
    I think Mike may be right in that most of us probably haven't heard of the likely Republican front-runner yet. We already saw the established candidates before (many of whom will probably run again) and we weren't very impressed.

    I don't see Sarah Palin being able to turn around her political fortunes between now and 2012, though if she is able to perhaps the faith that so many people have in her might not be misplaced. I don't see this happening, however. I don't think she has it in her.

    As for Tim Pawlenty, I have a problem seeing the governor of Minnesota being accepted by the ultra-right wing establishment that controls the Republican primary process. He's just too moderate for them, and if he tries to "butch up" his right-wing cred over the next two years he'll just come across as another Romney.

    No, I see someone the 2012 Republican nomination going to someone who is from the south, has had a lifetime of "proper" Christian conservative politics behind him (emphasis on him), and is backed by the right-wing establishment. I also see another female VP pick (but not Sarah) because that got a lot of attention from moderates.

    As for the Dems, Obama will run again, but I won't be surprised if Biden isn't invited back to the party and there is a female VP on that ticket, too.

  10. #10
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    17,815
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I'm gonna go a little further than I should and say that anyone who would vote for Palin is not only a clueless moron but a worthless human being.
    Moderator note:
    (Maister) Don't be a jerk/troll!
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  11. #11
    Cyburbian kalimotxo's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    It seems to me like the only place where Sarah Palin is 'polarizing' is among lefties who don't want anyone but the left-most candidate to win. Among conservatives (note, I did not say 'Republicans'), she's like the second coming of Reagan - and *EVERY* time the left attacks her in any way, her 'stock price' goes *UP*.
    I beg to differ. My dad is a lifelong conservative Republican and could hardly be considered a "lefty" by any measure. He has (somewhat jokingly) called me a pinko since I was in high school. He, like most thinking and responsible voters, looks at the prospect of a Sarah Palin candidacy with nothing less than trepidation, despite some common political beliefs (aside: from watching Palin, I can't tell if she believes in anything other than her own awesomeness). IME, those of us who think Palin is a blithering idiot come from all political backgrounds.
    Process and dismissal. Shelter and location. Everybody wants somewhere.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    It seems to me like the only place where Sarah Palin is 'polarizing' is among lefties who don't want anyone but the left-most candidate to win. Among conservatives (note, I did not say 'Republicans'), she's like the second coming of Reagan - and *EVERY* time the left attacks her in any way, her 'stock price' goes *UP*.
    I live in conservative West Michigan, and in my opinion, you couldn't be more wrong. I've heard both "Republican" and "conservative" women mock her.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  13. #13
    Cyburbian Plus dandy_warhol's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2005
    Location
    meh.
    Posts
    8,339
    Quote Originally posted by danthonyjr View post
    It's sad to see a political party become so enamored with anti-intellectualism that it will actually consider nominating someone like Sarah Palin, she who embodies the kind of outright ignorance that both political parties once chastised.
    OT: Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Great flick!
    In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King Jr.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally posted by dandy_warhol View post
    OT: Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? Great flick!


    Saw the movie, great flick, well worth seeing, its a great pay-per-view or rental movie flick with plenty of popcorn and beer.

    On a more serious note, it would be what America would look like after a Palin presidency. I doubt if the Repubicans nor Democrats have any good answers or policies to fix the economy. If people want to change politics in this country, tea-bagging ain't the way to go. Try getting all the big money out of politics, then you would have some real change, on both sides of the political spectrum.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,826
    Quote Originally posted by danthonyjr View post
    It's sad to see a political party become so enamored with anti-intellectualism that it will actually consider nominating someone like Sarah Palin, she who embodies the kind of outright ignorance that both political parties once chastised.

    Of course, this is the same party that tried to make a big hurrah over the number of pages in the health care bill. I am ashamed of and for those people. They want a health care bill that reads no more complex than 'See Spot Run'. Legislating is a complex business with complex questions that require complex answers. When a party's front-runner can't answer a complex question like 'What newspapers do you read', I fear for that party and--even more so--for our country under that party's leadership.
    I totally agree. My issue with Sarah Palin is that though she touts a "regular person" and "straight talking" personality, she tries to parlay this into criteria for becoming president. While those may be desirable qualities to a sector of an electorate, it cannot substitute for having an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. Now, I am not saying one must be Ive League educated, but they should at least have the kind of intellectual rigor, curiosity and drive that leading our country requires. In fact, we had an Ivy League president who also had a very limited interest in considering all sides on important issues, and look where it got us.

    What I do not see from Sarah Palin is any effort to immerse herself in the topics to a level where I feel confident that she knows what she's talking about. To me, she seems just as ill-informed as she did during last year's campaign. If she is serious about her potential future political role, I would expect her to speak more intelligently about issues than a year ago. I also would have expected her to complete her term as Governor. She claims that scandal had made her a lame duck governor. Well, our own governor was embroiled in a "pay to play" scandal that is still playing out (and which cost him to Commerce Secretary job), but he is still governor and very focused on his job. And he was a presidential candidate as well. I think quitting her job as governor of Alaska was a huge mistake.

    I am extremely skeptical of anyone who seems to say about issues in our country "look, its simple..." If it were simple, we would have addressed it a long time ago and moved on. The fact is (to me) that it is far from simple, so a simplistic response will most likely fail.

    Palin has compared herself to other presidents that came from humble roots, but the difference is that those other presidents and leaders strove to be something more than their past. They had a thirst for knowledge, for understanding issues, for bettering themselves through education (and I don't just mean schooling - I mean reading up on all side of an issue, being informed, understanding the details, etc.). They recognized the shortcomings their uprbringing had and worked to fill those gaps with experience and information. I don't see that from Sarah Palin and it scares me.
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  16. #16
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Among conservatives (note, I did not say 'Republicans'), she's like the second coming of Reagan - and *EVERY* time the left attacks her in any way, her 'stock price' goes *UP*.
    I take offense to this statement. Ronald Reagan is/was my political hero and I've studied him a lot, read his own writing, listened to his speeches (including his radio serial from the late 70's). Reagan was a communicator. It's what he did for a living. He did it well as president. He might not have been an intellectual heavyweight, but he was well read in both history and then-current affairs and understood what others were bringing forth at the time (I encourage all doubters to read Reagan In His Own Hand, a collection of his personal writings he used for his radio serial). His clear advantage was being able to explain these things to the nation as a whole and wrap them up together in a holistic context.

    Sarah Palin may hold many of the same political positions as Reagan and have an equally charismatic personality, but that is where the similarities end. For Palin to become the next Reagan, she needs to do a lot of reading and learn how to communicate - not in a way that [only] she understands as a "rogue", but in a way that reaches out to the nation as a whole and brings them to some common goal or understanding.

  17. #17
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,279
    Personally, I'd keep an eye out for a Pawlenty/Romney ticket, in either order. By practice, that would be a relatively moderate Republican ticket with some street cred as far as the economy goes (always the #1 issue, regardless of election), legitimate executive branch experience for dealing with domestic issues, and they would not be a 'firebrand' that polarizes like other candidates would (Palin, Gingrich). I think those two could attract the very large group of voters that self-identify as socially liberal/moderate (pro-gay union of some kind, not using abortion as a litmus test) and fiscally conservative. I can tell you that such a ticket would get my attention and really force me to assess the performance of Obama against the potential of the Republican ticket.

    I'm happy with Obama's foreign policy. We moved back up the chain of admiration in the world, which has been nice, even though we haven't really changed tactics all that much. I liked his methodical approach. He's had a few hiccups, but in general it has been good. He has been honest about the couple of homeland security mishaps, which I appreciate. I like having a President that does not believe that his administration is infalliable. While I don't think he especially earned the Nobel Peace Prize, I think if it took him getting the prize for him to deliver that speech in Oslo that really summarized effectively the U.S.'s foreign policy on entanglements and the necessity of war in some cases, then it was worth it.

    However, there are three big domestic policies I care about, and none have seen the type of progress I had hoped for. I have been disappointed in his hands-off approach on healthcare, which I think is going to be the bill's undoing. I don't think it effectively addresses the increasing costs of healthcare and the disparity in costs between the US and other developed countries. I know the blood is on Congress's hands, but Obama should have stepped in sooner and given more specific guidance and really owned it as a leader. As it stands, that bill is a pretty weak example of reform. He has not done jack on gay rights--not even in regards to Don't Ask-Don't Tell. If I were homosexual, I'd probably be pretty pissed right now. And finally, putting a damn leash on the financial industry slid off his radar the second he entered the Oval Office and marginalized those members of his campaign team that had the expertise and guts to strike with meaningful reform while the iron was hot. He didn't move forward with those reforms, and that has allowed the financial industry to reclaim the high ground and gain support to discourage regulatory reforms.

    Not enough for me to want to kick him to the curb by any wild stretch, but enough that I will be very interested in what the other party brings forward, whether it appears that they have broadened their tent toward social moderation, and whether it is apparent that they have learned from the mistakes of the Bush administration. It'll take a lot to sway me, but I'm willing to listen. While my 2008 vote for Obama was issues-based, there was a part of me that completely turned off the GOP because I wanted them to be taught a lesson in hopes that they might learn and come back as a more viable, inclusive party. I'm a big believer in having at least two strong parties so that they are each required to put their best foot forward in order to earn votes. I think the Democrats allowed themselves to become a bit complacent after 2008.

    And TexanOkie is right in his assessment of Palin... She may think she is some kind of Reagan-esque second coming, but she could not hold his jockstrap. I may not have been a fan of Reagan for policy reasons, but he was more than just charisma. Right now, that is all Palin has, and even it is pretty weak sauce.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  18. #18
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,668
    Blog entries
    1
    To those that think that the Republicans have a shot at winning with another moderate candidate:

    Was Ronald Reagan a moderate? No. He was very conservative. But like TexanOkie said, he was better at communicating with people and getting his point across.
    Was George W. Bush a moderate? A little bit. Excessive domestic spending was his only moderate flaw, which was very significant though. However, he was pretty conservative, at least when it comes to social conservatism and national defense.
    And Dick Cheney certainly was as conservative as they come.
    Richard Nixon? Dwight Eisenhower? Pretty conservative if you ask me.
    Gerald Ford? George H.W. Bush? They were moderate and that's why they didn't get re-elected.

    Conservative Republicans are the only Republicans that have a shot at winning the Presidency.

    Sure, 2008 wasn't that long ago, and people still have what they know of Sarah Palin based purely on what the liberal media's preconceived notions about her on the mind, but like others in this thread have said, a lot can happen in 2 years or so. But as it looks right now, Palin looks to have the best shot. I agree though, someone else not currently a talked-about prospective candidate could emerge.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  19. #19
         
    Registered
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Way out there
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    To those that think that the Republicans have a shot at winning with another moderate candidate:

    Was Ronald Reagan a moderate? No. He was very conservative. But like TexanOkie said, he was better at communicating with people and getting his point across.
    Was George W. Bush a moderate? A little bit. Excessive domestic spending was his only moderate flaw, which was very significant though. However, he was pretty conservative, at least when it comes to social conservatism and national defense.
    And Dick Cheney certainly was as conservative as they come.
    Richard Nixon? Dwight Eisenhower? Pretty conservative if you ask me.
    Gerald Ford? George H.W. Bush? They were moderate and that's why they didn't get re-elected.

    Conservative Republicans are the only Republicans that have a shot at winning the Presidency.

    Sure, 2008 wasn't that long ago, and people still have what they know of Sarah Palin based purely on what the liberal media's preconceived notions about her on the mind, but like others in this thread have said, a lot can happen in 2 years or so. But as it looks right now, Palin looks to have the best shot. I agree though, someone else not currently a talked-about prospective candidate could emerge.
    I would challenge your assertions regarding a few of the previous Presidents.

    1) Richard Nixon was not a down-the-line conservative. Unless you think the EPA, the Clean Water Act, deficit spending, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, and abortion rights are 'conservative' issues, then you'd probably agree. Nixon agreed with, supported, and/or implemented all of those things.

    2) Dwight Eisenhower was not really a 'conservative' in the modern sense of the word. As is the case with most Presidents with military backgrounds, Eisenhower was a pragmatist, and his record clearly indicates that.

    3) Gerald Ford lost his bid for election (not re-election) because the economy was not in good shape and because he was--in the public's mind--associated with Richard Nixon.

    4) George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid largely because of the economy and the entry into the race of Ross Perot. That race (1992) saw three moderates all fighting to be the most relevant and interesting character. Mr. Bush certainly failed to be either.

  20. #20
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,558
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    To those that think that the Republicans have a shot at winning with another moderate candidate:

    Was Ronald Reagan a moderate? No. He was very conservative. But like TexanOkie said, he was better at communicating with people and getting his point across.
    Was George W. Bush a moderate? A little bit. Excessive domestic spending was his only moderate flaw, which was very significant though. However, he was pretty conservative, at least when it comes to social conservatism and national defense.
    And Dick Cheney certainly was as conservative as they come.
    Richard Nixon? Dwight Eisenhower? Pretty conservative if you ask me.
    Gerald Ford? George H.W. Bush? They were moderate and that's why they didn't get re-elected.

    Conservative Republicans are the only Republicans that have a shot at winning the Presidency.

    Sure, 2008 wasn't that long ago, and people still have what they know of Sarah Palin based purely on what the liberal media's preconceived notions about her on the mind, but like others in this thread have said, a lot can happen in 2 years or so. But as it looks right now, Palin looks to have the best shot. I agree though, someone else not currently a talked-about prospective candidate could emerge.
    Reagan, by today’s standards would not be considered a true conservative. He expanded social programs, raised taxes, believed in large amounts of foreign aid, and never once proposed a balance budget. Reagan worked with Democrats. Reagan understood the principle of big tent Republicanism...that is why he won...Reagan Democrats were not overly conservative. They were pro national defense, wanted strong anti-crime legislation and felt that Carter and Mondale went to far left with there New Deal style programs. The Reagan Democrats returned to the Democratic Party and vote for Clinton in the 1990's.

    As for W, do you remember compassionate conservatism? W ran as a social moderate, fiscal conservative; get the US out of the world affairs, in 2000.

    Last time I checked Cheney was never President...although he got to play one from time to time.

    If you look at the platform of the person that one the presidency they won by trying to include a wide range of coalitions. Reagan was a master of this, as was Clinton. Even Bush in 2004 courted those that were not traditional Republican voters. Obama supporters were as diverse as Reagan’s.
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

  21. #21
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,668
    Blog entries
    1
    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    Reagan, by today’s standards would not be considered a true conservative. He expanded social programs, raised taxes, believed in large amounts of foreign aid, and never once proposed a balance budget. Reagan worked with Democrats. Reagan understood the principle of big tent Republicanism...that is why he won...Reagan Democrats were not overly conservative. They were pro national defense, wanted strong anti-crime legislation and felt that Carter and Mondale went to far left with there New Deal style programs. The Reagan Democrats returned to the Democratic Party and vote for Clinton in the 1990's.

    As for W, do you remember compassionate conservatism? W ran as a social moderate, fiscal conservative; get the US out of the world affairs, in 2000.

    Last time I checked Cheney was never President...although he got to play one from time to time.

    If you look at the platform of the person that one the presidency they won by trying to include a wide range of coalitions. Reagan was a master of this, as was Clinton. Even Bush in 2004 courted those that were not traditional Republican voters. Obama supporters were as diverse as Reagan’s.
    Reagan would not be a true conservative? Really? Actually, he usually didn't work with the Democrats. He despised them. Instead, as the Great Communicator, he spoke directly to the American people who then put the pressure on the Dems in Congress to work with Reagan. And most presidents aren't textbook conservative or liberal on everything and they occasionally have to work with the other side. Is Obama not a liberal because he's calling for a surge in Afghanistan? No, of course not.

    As for George W. Bush, sure he may have effectively run as a moderate in 2000. But in actuality, he is very conservative, and stood up for gun owners, pushed through the partial birth abortion act, appointed two reliable conservative Supreme Court justices, and rallied conservatives who voted down gay marriage in several states in 2004. While to you, it may seem as if he ran as social moderate, fiscal conservative, he governed as the opposite. Granted, much of it was necessary due to all the crises our country endured under his presidency. However, he still pushed through tax cuts.

    -----------------

    But back on topic...so tonight the Republicans took a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy's seat to be exact. The first time in nearly six decades the Republicans have held that particular seat...and the first time in more than three decades that the Republicans have had a Senate seat in Massachusetts. Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts...all going red. 2010 is looking good for Republicans. I wonder if the momentum will continue through to 2012. I think that will all depend on the economy and also whether Obama and the Democrats choose to work with Republicans and work for the American people or whether they choose to continue to ram through the healthcare bill that nobody wants and other reckless behavior such as having closed-doors meetings about important issues.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  22. #22
    Cyburbian Marine Corps Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Naples Italy
    Posts
    27

    Nice

    "Reagan would not be a true conservative? Really? Actually, he usually didn't work with the Democrats. He despised them"

    IP: Wow.... that's great.... a president who despised half of the country! I'm stationed in Japan and I don't think ANY service member want's a president that despises us. Here at MC Air Station Iwakuni many of my fellow Marines are African American, Latino, Asian and a few are white too, and we really like Obama.

  23. #23
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,739
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    Reagan would not be a true conservative? Really? Actually, he usually didn't work with the Democrats. He despised them. Instead, as the Great Communicator, he spoke directly to the American people who then put the pressure on the Dems in Congress to work with Reagan. And most presidents aren't textbook conservative or liberal on everything and they occasionally have to work with the other side. Is Obama not a liberal because he's calling for a surge in Afghanistan? No, of course not.

    I think that will all depend on the economy and also whether Obama and the Democrats choose to work with Republicans and work for the American people or whether they choose to continue to ram through the healthcare bill that nobody wants and other reckless behavior such as having closed-doors meetings about important issues.
    I enjoy discourse. Especially political discourse. But sometimes it is just disingenuous. Honestly, Reagan was an average president. He did some things well, but others extremely poorly. These rose colored glasses by some on the R side just bewilders me. I don't want the next coming of Reagan, I want a president who can work in TODAY's world. Not the world of the 70's.

    I find it funny that any President would "despise" the other party. I really think that is problem. Hannity always says "Reagan didn't want a moderate party, he wanted vibrant colors not pale pastels" or some crap. His argument is that what each party should do is more clearly define themselves and their beliefs and THAT will get you votes. But to me, that isn't the solution. Being transparent and clear about your goals is great, and honestly everyone should do that anyways, but following some stupid party line does not make you a better choice for America.

    I think I enjoy looking at this so much because there are always going to be people who are engaged in the political process and are willing to understand both sides and look at it evenly. I think that some news outlets (the evil "liberal" media) do this pretty well. Some people work the system to create political fodder (Fox News, MSNBC) and some people just spew the same lines back that some talking head gave them. To me, saying Reagan was a great president without having real reasons other than the fairly vague memories by talking heads, and believing that anything a democrat does is wrong, or that any race won by a republican is a referendum on the president, or that there is no good by the other side, is not only disingenuous, but pretty sad. This is why the country is where it is at today. We have so much parity in the parties. Moderation is the key. I will never stop believing that a moderate candidate on either side will win every election. If we had a moderation party, it would never lose. Some years this would be social moderation and some fiscal, but most people don't sit with wackjobs on either side.

    I say we retire the words Socialist, "Liberal Media", Fascist, Commie, and all the other words that really don't have anything to do with the debate and talk about the real issues without the muddied waters. Wouldn't it be incredible to hear Nancy Pelosi say, "Although I disagree with your viewpoint, it does add to the discusssion. Maybe we can work something into the bill." Or any conservative say, "Obama is going at this all wrong, but I honestly believe that he is doing the best that he can on what he was given."

    I hope the 2012 election will find a way to get someone to run who isn't about party lines, and more about what this country wants. Being a moderate shouldn't be a dirty word.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  24. #24
    Cyburbian Veloise's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan (Detroit ex-pat since 2004)
    Posts
    4,763

    Verbatim transcript excerpt

    From the veep debate

    PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

    Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It's not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.
    http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/pr...al-debate.html

  25. #25
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,845
    Quote Originally posted by Veloise View post
    From the veep debate

    PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

    Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It's not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.
    http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/pr...al-debate.html
    Wow-she said absolutely nothing. Dead air and silence would have made more sense.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 69 1 2 11 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 75
    Last post: 19 Mar 2014, 9:50 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last post: 17 Jun 2011, 3:41 PM
  3. Replies: 1638
    Last post: 17 Nov 2008, 12:33 PM
  4. Replies: 62
    Last post: 05 Mar 2008, 2:44 PM