Elections Paging Conservatives: The 2012 Republican POTUS Candidates - Page 7

Direckshun · 09-26-2012, 08:23 AM

This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

Pawnmower · 09-26-2012, 04:36 PM

Maybe the GOP were too scared to put up a real candidate in 2008 .....AND 2012.

Thats the only thing I can think of...maybe they thought it would be better if a dem won in 08 so that the economic bad news blame could be shifted....and they would take a pounding in the hose & senate for a long time...

Well...I mean thats the only real simple intentional reason I could see.....

but

More likely:

The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him.

He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway.

**** politics.

Oh and not to mention that the GOP is divided within by religious extremists as well.....basically the party is doomed unless they can unite under more moderate and less religious leadership.

**mlyonsd** · 09-26-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Why didn't he run, if he could have secured the nomination so easily?

It isn't his time yet and he know it. As is evident from the polls America isn't ready for his type of reforms. In 4 years they will.

Also he promised his state he wouldn't run for any public office this election cycle.

You watch, he'll be a thorn in your side yet.

**DaneMcCloud** · 09-26-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

I can't remember the last good candidate we had for either side. It has been the lesser of two evils since I could vote.

I liked Dole/Kemp. If Bob Dole had shown his humorous and "human side" before the election, I think he would have beat Clinton.

**mlyonsd** · 09-26-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandwagonjumper

As a republican aren't you disappointed in Christie. The 2012 race would be very winnable for any republican candidate. Instead Romney only faced two has beens in Santorum and Gingrich. If you compare the last three republican presidents with the last three democratic presidents what jumps out is that the republican candidate were all status quo. Reagan had run four years earlier, George Bush was Vice President and Junior was the son of a former president. I don't know about Jimmy Carter but both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were underdogs when there started. If Romney loses than its nearly guaranteed that Rick Perry will be the candidate. He served his time and it will now his turn.

Rick Perry.

Swanman · 09-26-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him.

He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway.

**** politics.

To me, it's almost a carbon copy of 2008 with McCain. I liked McCain. He was a moderate guy that was forced to run on the far right by the party. As a result, we have no real debate going on, just talking points being spewed by both sides.

**DaneMcCloud** · 09-26-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

My guy chose not to run. Chris Christie.

I think the republican message has more punch behind it if it comes from him.

It would definitely have more weight coming from Christie

**mlyonsd** · 09-26-2012, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

It would definitely have more weight coming from Christie

Where's that drummer emoticon when you need it.

Pawnmower · 09-26-2012, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Where's that drummer emoticon when you need it.

Christie ate it

Hoover · 09-26-2012, 07:45 PM

To understand why 2012 boasted a weak field of presidential candidates you must understand the influence of money in politics. Romney had either lined up most of the big money, or neutralized it. The people who would have backed a Chris Christie were already backing Romney. The only real money threat came from Rick Perry. The threat was significant, but the candidate himself was not. Romney was challenged on ideology by Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich had a real shot but lacks focus. He could have put together a winning campaign but over thought his campaign every step of the way. Santorum didn't have squat for cash, but focused on the basics and proved to be tough opponent.

I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.

KILLER_CLOWN · 09-26-2012, 09:08 PM

Bring on the 3rd,4th,5th, etc parties...this election cycle like many of it's predecessors blows steaming piles of monkey shit.

SNR · 09-26-2012, 09:27 PM

A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

**J Diddy** · 09-26-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

It doesn't help when everytime he shows his face on video it's either really good or really bad. I thought Romney did good on 60 minutes, horrible at rnc and really bad on the hidden camera.

Here's another clip of his "leadership skills"

**patteeu** · 09-26-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoover

I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.

Who are the front runners IYO?

**patteeu** · 09-26-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

That's ironic since they're more likely to end up as peasants if Obama wins.

**J Diddy** · 09-26-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

That's ironic since they're more likely to end up as peasants if Obama wins.

You're so full of shit, that at this point all I can do is laugh (heartily I might add) at you.

09-26-2012, 08:23 AM
Direckshun Black for Palestine Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $1167782	Paging Conservatives: The 2012 Republican POTUS Candidates This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you. At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry. Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop. I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates. My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party? Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together. I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.
Posts: 37,650

09-26-2012, 04:36 PM	#91
Pawnmower MVP Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Northern California Casino cash: $6225163	Maybe the GOP were too scared to put up a real candidate in 2008 .....AND 2012. Thats the only thing I can think of...maybe they thought it would be better if a dem won in 08 so that the economic bad news blame could be shifted....and they would take a pounding in the hose & senate for a long time... Well...I mean thats the only real simple intentional reason I could see..... but More likely: The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him. He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway. ** politics. Oh and not to mention that the GOP is divided within by religious extremists as well.....basically the party is doomed unless they can unite under more moderate and less religious leadership. __________________ Click here to try a chess problem! (easy, medium or hard) *********** Click here for the list of the Chiefs biggest Cowards and Traitors. This list is A.K.A. the shun list.
Posts: 11,841

09-26-2012, 07:45 PM	#99
Hoover Rufus Dawes Jr. Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $41950	To understand why 2012 boasted a weak field of presidential candidates you must understand the influence of money in politics. Romney had either lined up most of the big money, or neutralized it. The people who would have backed a Chris Christie were already backing Romney. The only real money threat came from Rick Perry. The threat was significant, but the candidate himself was not. Romney was challenged on ideology by Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich had a real shot but lacks focus. He could have put together a winning campaign but over thought his campaign every step of the way. Santorum didn't have squat for cash, but focused on the basics and proved to be tough opponent. I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.
Posts: 7,779

09-26-2012, 09:08 PM	#100
KILLER_CLOWN Be HEALED!!!!!!! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fascist State Casino cash: $11111086	Bring on the 3rd,4th,5th, etc parties...this election cycle like many of it's predecessors blows steaming piles of monkey shit. __________________ "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." "If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 19,973

09-26-2012, 09:27 PM	#101
SNR You're all I have left, Copper Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $4529524	A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those. I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants. If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better? What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone. So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!
Posts: 47,155

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode