Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

MattusMaximus said:
So if Gingrich takes Iowa, South Carolina, AND Florida - with a strong 2nd place showing in New Hampshire - I don't see how Romney has a chance. Ah well, there's a few weeks yet to go; we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...
Ya know, Romney is no political wallflower. If he does perceive the primary landscape that way, I think we'll see some pretty brutal anti-Gingrich ads in those southern states nailing him on his moral turpitude. He's very weak in the "family values" department.

The fat lady is not even on stage yet.
 
I didn't expect change this quick. Going to my regular site, I got a startling change from only this morning:

Gingrich 31.3 %
Romney 20.3
Cain 13.0
Paul 7.8
Perry 7.0
Bachmann 4.8
Santorum 3.3
Huntsman 2.3
Undecided 10.2
 
Last edited:
So, side-by-side, how do Gingrich and Romney differ on key points? Romney from what I've read on him seems OK for a 21st century Republican.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
So, side-by-side, how do Gingrich and Romney differ on key points? Romney from what I've read on him seems OK for a 21st century Republican.
Click to expand...

It really depends upon which Romney you are talking about. Candidate Romney is not much different, but Governor Romney was much more centrist.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that Romney would get trounced in the general election. I am seeing now a lot that reminds me of the Democratic primaries in 2004. Kerry got the nomination because he was seen as centrist and electable, but did not appeal to the base and so did not drive liberal voters to the polls. And we have all seen how well that turned out for the Dems in 2004.
 
cwalner said:
It really depends upon which Romney you are talking about. Candidate Romney is not much different, but Governor Romney was much more centrist.
Click to expand...
It also depends on which Newt you're talking about. He's just as much a flip-flopper as Mittens, he just doesn't carry the same level of notoriety about it.
 
Is it a sad thing when liberals (such as myself) would feel slightly relieved to have a Republican candidate that only does the normal things Republicans do that we hate, instead of adding on a whole new level of insanity?
 
gnome said:
Is it a sad thing when liberals (such as myself) would feel slightly relieved to have a Republican candidate that only does the normal things Republicans do that we hate, instead of adding on a whole new level of insanity?
Click to expand...

It is a sad thing for our Nation.

We absolutely depend on two strong, loyal, politely adversarial parties to strive with each other for the best solution the the country's needs.

We have not had that since, well, since Gingrich's "Contract with America."

The politeness stopped.

And the point ceased to be finding a way to preserve the country, but finding a way to preserve political power.
 
I share your sadness, but I really must ask when you think we had the politeness.
 
gnome said:
I share your sadness, but I really must ask when you think we had the politeness.
Click to expand...

Well, I have paid attention to political matters since I was a child, and I simply do not recall anything like the rancor and truculence we see today until the mid 1990s. Maybe I was just blind to it, but I really think we were more civil.
 
SezMe said:
It also depends on which Newt you're talking about. He's just as much a flip-flopper as Mittens, he just doesn't carry the same level of notoriety about it.
Click to expand...

Newt's worse, IMO. Remember when he demanded that Obama help the Libyan rebels? 24 hours later after Obama did so, he blasted Obama for taking sides.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Newt's worse, IMO. Remember when he demanded that Obama help the Libyan rebels? 24 hours later after Obama did so, he blasted Obama for taking sides.
Click to expand...

If you flip-flop fast enough, a lot of people won't even have had time to hear your first position before your second one takes hold. It's like that "recall and replace with a new message" option in MS Outlook.
 
looking at my usual site today, I see that Gingrich's lead continues to grow, while whatever votes Cain might throw his way are gradually declining in number. Paul seems to be moving up into the number three position. Were Cain to throw his votes Paul's way, then Paul would, using the present figures, have 22% and would pass Romney:

Gingrich 33.8%
Romney 20.8
Cain 12.5
Paul 9.5
Perry 7.3
Bachmann 5.0
Santorum 3.5
Huntsman 2.3
Undecided 5.3
 
TubbaBlubba said:
So, side-by-side, how do Gingrich and Romney differ on key points? Romney from what I've read on him seems OK for a 21st century Republican.
Click to expand...

Gingrich is all about starting new wars in the Mideast. First Iran then Syria. I suppose later he will attack Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood takes hold, ditto for Libya.

Romney is all about the economy.
 
SezMe said:
It also depends on which Newt you're talking about. He's just as much a flip-flopper as Mittens, he just doesn't carry the same level of notoriety about it.
Click to expand...

Gingrich has gone back and forth on several issues; at heart he has always been a Rockefeller Republican. Romney has genuinely moved from liberal moderate to conservative moderate over a period of time.

There is a difference.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, I have paid attention to political matters since I was a child, and I simply do not recall anything like the rancor and truculence we see today until the mid 1990s. Maybe I was just blind to it, but I really think we were more civil.
Click to expand...

It can seem that way, but comparatively speaking, I think there have been worse times.

In the 1950s, there were times when the mere accusation of communist sympathies had tremendous political force. Sustained, such charges could destroy a career fairly easily. Today's hair-trigger calls of "socialism!" are really kind of tame in comparison and usually shrugged off by their targets. Sometimes they drop a few points in the polls.

A little while after that domestic political violence was common and more severe than now. The treatment of OWS protestors has been in some cases reprehensible, but starkly different from when fire hoses and dogs were openly turned on civil rights protestors, or when compared to the deadly shootings such as happened at Kent State. As well, the radicals opposing the government were more likely to use violence and occasionally bombings to get what they wanted.

Examples can probably be taken from the 70s and 80s as well. We might see events of similar significance and rancor now, but I think it may be a mistake to suppose that the level of "uncivil" political strife has worsened.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, I have paid attention to political matters since I was a child, and I simply do not recall anything like the rancor and truculence we see today until the mid 1990s. Maybe I was just blind to it, but I really think we were more civil.
Click to expand...

The late 1960s were the most recent uncivil period since the Civil War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom