Andy9o8 2 #26 February 13, 2011 Quote Where is the Republican candidate that going to win against Obama? Can you name him? As an armchair political operative , I think the runner-up in that poll, Mitt Romney, might be the GOP's best chance in the 2012 general - if (big "if") he can prevail in the primaries, where ideologues tend to vote while moderates tend to stay home. (That's the case in either party). Face it, Ron Paul's kind of an oddball who comes across like an oddball; and if he became the general nominee, that personality tic will eventually assert itself and be magnified by the media microscope - and that will turn swing-voters off. Romney has dynastic Republican credentials (his father was George Romney), and is very well-spoken and thoughtful (though so are Barbour and Christie), so he will be a fair match for Obama's intellect and speaking skills. And Romney he looks great; and we all know that presidential politics is show business. Barbour, foolishly being one of the only over-50 politicians on the national scene who does not dye his hair, looks old and fat; and his Mississippi breeding and accent might be a turn-off to Northern and West Coast swing-voters. Christie looks young and fat, which is to say: he looks unhealthy; and that don't fly in The Bigs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 February 13, 2011 My point is that at this point in the election cycle Reagan had not stepped out of the crowd as a leader, neither had Clinton or Obama. It's just too early to start proclaiming "where's the Reagan" IMO it could be another generation before someone of his leadership abilities comes along. In the meantime politicians will continue to try and emulate him. Many by creating false Hollywood-type personas as Obama did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 February 13, 2011 QuoteMy point is that at this point in the election cycle Reagan had not stepped out of the crowd as a leader, neither had Clinton or Obama. It's just too early to start proclaiming "where's the Reagan" IMO it could be another generation before someone of his leadership abilities comes along. In the meantime politicians will continue to try and emulate him. Many by creating false Hollywood-type personas as Obama did. Dark-horses tend to fare better in presidential politics as Democrats than as Republicans. Carter, Clinton and Obama were all "Who??"-style dark horses who emerged from relative obscurity to grab the brass ring. Psychologically, Democrats tend to like like "newness" (thus the generic term "liberal"), while Republicans tend to like stability and eschew drastic change (thus the generic term "conservative"). By 1980, Reagan was no longer a dark horse; he'd really been on the national scene since 1964, and was an active, viable presidential candidate in 1976, losing in the primary rounds to incumbent Ford. Similarly, Bob Dole had been Ford's running mate in 1980, and McCain was a very close contender with Bush in the 2000 primaries. Also similarly, Romney, as we know, has already enhanced his name recognition by having been a very respectable candidate in the 2008 primaries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #29 February 13, 2011 QuoteI get your point. Where's your FDR? Um... He's in office right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #30 February 13, 2011 >We are talking about favorability ratings. Why is it that the right wing can never discuss an issue without trying to play semantics games? "Check out Obama's ratings!" "They're up." "Oh, not his ratings, his favorability." "That's up too." "Only on Gallup, that evil liberally biased organization." "Up on CNN, too." "Oh yeah? Well, there's one favorability rating on Rasmussen that's down! That's the ONLY poll anyone should use." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 February 13, 2011 Perhaps it's because you are unable to distinguish the difference in the context of what's being discussed. Should we use your unhinged rants as a shining example of playing the ball and not the player? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #32 February 14, 2011 Quote In the meantime politicians will continue to try and emulate him. Many by creating false Hollywood-type personas as Obama did. Have you been on drudge report, then? A picture of the pres wearing a cowboy hat and something about him calling himself "the Gipper." I do have to admit, whoever dressed him that day did choose a flattering at.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #33 February 14, 2011 QuotePerhaps it's because you are unable to distinguish the difference in the context of what's being discussed. Should we use your unhinged rants as a shining example of playing the ball and not the player? Interesting commentary. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/14/republicans-us-politics... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 February 14, 2011 Quote Where is the Republican candidate that going to win against Obama? Can you name him? If a GOP candidate wins next year, it's because Obama beat Obama. Just as Bush beat McCain in 2008 (and of course in 2000). Any polling in Feb the year before the election is like a dog and pony show in Wyoming. It's not even a regional. These insider events tend to favor the idealogues over the viable candidates. Looking at the past two Democratic winners - Clinton was the presumed favorite late in 1991, but he didn't win the first few major primaries. Obama also seemed like another Jesse Jackson candidacy until well into the process and then support just snowballed. In contrast, the GOP decided pretty quickly in 1999 that they were tired of Clinton/Gore and Bush II was the horse they wanted to ride. Trouble now is that Bush II killed it for Jeb, so there's no obvious guy. I still believe that if they're going to win, it's going to be with a new guy, probably one of the budget hawks. Romney has the same high water potential as Hillary - can show, but won't win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #35 February 14, 2011 QuoteQuotePerhaps it's because you are unable to distinguish the difference in the context of what's being discussed. Should we use your unhinged rants as a shining example of playing the ball and not the player? Interesting commentary. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/14/republicans-us-politics The video is also interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
