Palin for Prez in 2012 likely suicide for GOP

[Alex Libman]

By 2012 the GOP won't need to appeal to the base as much - they'll be energized by their hate of Obama's left-wing lunacy. A charismatic centrist is what they'll want, and the economy will probably still be a top issue, so if I was a bettin' man Mitt Romney is the horse I'd bet on, with Obama squirming out a close win.

(Not that I vote or anything, democracy is a sham.)

 

[Dr Adequate]

By 2012 the GOP won't need to appeal to the base as much - they'll be energized by their hate of Obama's left-wing lunacy.

We were discussing the real world, not the silly fantasies in your head.

Do you have anything to contribute on the subject of reality? Y'know, stuff that exists?

 

[Alex Libman]

Sarah Palin exists but Mitt Romney doesn't. Got it.

 

[funk de fino]

Sarah Palin exists but Mitt Romney doesn't. Got it.

Democracy exists, those people following you do not.

 

[CFLarsen]

Mitt Romney is a figment of a comedian's imagination.

 

[Alex Libman]

And Sarah Palin is his 'shroom-induced nightmare.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Why? I doubt either party is waiting to get its 2012 campaign going and the Republicans no doubt are already getting articles of impeachment ready to go.

No one else is waiting; why should we?

And if the major political parties jumped off a cliff . . .


. . . wait, I kind of like that idea.



---

Ok. Y'all have fun.

 

[EGarrett]

They might as well send her. Unless Obama makes a MAJOR mistake...he's going to slaughter the 2012 election. He dominated this election despite having no resume, imagine him as the incumbent President?

It'd be like running against Elvis in Memphis.

 

[WildCat]

If Palin running for President in 2012 means suicide for GOP..

..where's the problem?

We've had Democrat-only rule here in Cook County for 50 years. The corruption this has produced isn't pretty. We have the maost wasteful, bloated government in the US, and some of the highest taxes. The highest sales taxes by far. And the budget is still bleeding red.

You need an opposition party. To recreate nationally what we have here wouldn't please many people reading this forum.

I don't want the death of the GOP, I want them to ditch the Christian right element of it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My thoughts are that if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate her for a 2012 presidential run, then they will essentially be committing political suicide.

Why do you assume that dumbness as an initial condition?

 

[geni]

I don't want the death of the GOP, I want them to ditch the Christian right element of it.

At the present time the two would have much the same effect in the medium to medium long term.

 

[WildCat]

At the present time the two would have much the same effect in the medium to medium long term.

No.

Most voters who used to lean Republican stopped voting for them after the Christian Right began to take over the party in the 90s. In fact, the Christian Right wasn't even a factor until Reagan courted them in the 80s as a swing group. problem was, somehow the swing group got control over policy and this has led to the downfall of the party.

There are far more voters who want fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and less intrusive government than who want the government trying to impose some moral code on the nation, as well as the truly ridiculous crap like teaching creationism in science classes.

 

[Tricky]

Most voters who used to lean Republican stopped voting for them after the Christian Right began to take over the party in the 90s. In fact, the Christian Right wasn't even a factor until Reagan courted them in the 80s as a swing group. problem was, somehow the swing group got control over policy and this has led to the downfall of the party.

Yes and no. I would say a lot of people who used to lean Republican held their noses and still leaned Republican all the way into the 2000's. Not all, of course. Fiscal conservative Republican crossovers were responsible for electing Clinton twice, but not because they were rejecting the religious right base. At least, not all of them.

There are far more voters who want fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and less intrusive government than who want the government trying to impose some moral code on the nation, as well as the truly ridiculous crap like teaching creationism in science classes.

I truly hope you are right.

For my part, I want to see a strong Republican party. One-party dominance inevitably leads to abuse. Besides, since it's a pretty sure bet that either the Dem or the Rep candidate is going to win, it would be nice if they BOTH were good candidates. I care more about the well-being of my country than I do for the Democratic party.

 

[Tricky]

Oh yes, and what discussion of politicians would be complete without Doonesbury weighing in.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20081128/ldb081128.gif
(And check out the whole week. You'll notice some familiar themes.)

 

[geni]

No.

Most voters who used to lean Republican stopped voting for them after the Christian Right began to take over the party in the 90s. In fact, the Christian Right wasn't even a factor until Reagan courted them in the 80s as a swing group. problem was, somehow the swing group got control over policy and this has led to the downfall of the party.

Downfall? 45% of the vote after one of the least popular Presidents of recent times? That isn't a downfall. That is a rather large group who appear to vote republican whatever. Take the social conservatives out of that group and the defeat would have been embarassing

There are far more voters who want fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and less intrusive government than who want the government trying to impose some moral code on the nation, as well as the truly ridiculous crap like teaching creationism in science classes.

Maybe but such voters wouldn't actualy have any motivation to vote republican based on their record of oh the last 50 years.

 

[GreyICE]

Why do you assume that dumbness as an initial condition?

Well with the current GOP, dumbness is not so much an initial condition as an ongoing malady.

 

[CFLarsen]

I find it interesting to see that it is accepted as a given that there has to be a two-party system in the US. There simply can't be a multiple-party system. How quaint.

If you have a two-party system, you are only one party away from a dictatorship. I kinda like the many parties systems we have in Europe. More freedom of choice. To each his own, I guess.

But, maybe it would be a good thing for the US if there were more than one party? It does take the break-up of at least one of the two parties, of course.

I don't know what "corruption" means, though.

 

[GreyICE]

I find it interesting to see that it is accepted as a given that there has to be a two-party system in the US. There simply can't be a multiple-party system. How quaint.

If you have a two-party system, you are only one party away from a dictatorship. I kinda like the many parties systems we have in Europe. More freedom of choice. To each his own, I guess.

But, maybe it would be a good thing for the US if there were more than one party? It does take the break-up of at least one of the two parties, of course.

I don't know what "corruption" means, though.

I find it interesting that you don't understand that the dynamics of the current voting method used by the United States are strongly favorable to the two-party system.

If you wish more than two parties, turn your eyes to the voting system.

 

[geni]

I find it interesting to see that it is accepted as a given that there has to be a two-party system in the US. There simply can't be a multiple-party system. How quaint.

A combination of first past the post post and the position of a non figurehead fairly dirrectly elected president counts against there being more than 2 parties on a national level.

I don't know what "corruption" means, though.

Ask your MEPs.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Plus it isn't as if our system forbids any parties beyond the two. In fact there are in fct several parties beyondthe big two. Its just that there are only two that have any realistic chance of getting their candidates elected. But there is nothing to stop people for voting for the Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, etc. Just nobody seriously expects them to win, so they tend to get ignored by the press and public alike.

I will say that it does create an unfortunate catch-22 though. Because the other parties attract only fringe canddates, people with mainstream views who want to get elected tend to flock to the Dems or Repubs, which leaves the other parties with only fanatics, loons and Idealogues. This strengthens their reputation as havens for fringe lunatics, which in turn makes more mainstream candidates even less likely to consider them, and so on. It's a vicous circle.