Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[jk]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

It is the classic strategy. But the republicans are being forced to make pre-primary statements that are so strong it will be hard to distance themselves from them when it gets time for the general. Obama's big advantage is that he has no primary, and is already working to appeal to the middle. The far left is dismayed, of course, but I hardly think they will switch parties. And in terms of rallying the base to get turnout up, it will be much easier to do when there is the specter of an extremely conservative challenger around.

This is why Obama loses to a "generic" challenger. Any real challenger, however, will have specific problems that will re-energize the left. The fact that everyone in the current field has stated that they would not have supported the debt-ceiling "compromise" because it did not go far enough is just one example of how they are managing to distance themselves from moderates who actually care less about the size of government than the fact that it should function.

obama's problem with his base will not be that they might change parties; it will be whether they are motivated enough [by fear of the republican candidate] to go to the polls in order to hold their noses and pull the democratic lever. i think turnout will be low, but i'm only guessing.

[astonas]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

obama's problem with his base will not be that they might change parties; it will be whether they are motivated enough [by fear of the republican candidate] to go to the polls in order to hold their noses and pull the democratic lever. i think turnout will be low, but i'm only guessing.

I completely agree. And the Republican party does often vote for "electable" candidates over the more ideological ones, so your conclusion is sensible. Obama's best chance is if the Tea Party tail continues to wag the Republican dog, and the more extreme candidates come to the fore. Given the way political money flows behind the scenes, however, I'm not sure that's very likely. I'm actually wondering if Perry was encouraged to run by party leaders to split the far right and weaken Bachman's claim, since she might not have been compliant enough for the party's machine. But then, I'm a cynic when it comes to politics.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

So much for Bachmann being a credible candidate:

http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-campa...GVzdAM-;_ylv=3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, and his deputy are leaving their roles, Bachmann's campaign said on Monday, adding Rollins would remain in a less physically demanding senior advisory position.

"In less than 50 days and with fewer resources than other campaigns, Ed was the architect that led our campaign to a historic victory in Iowa," Bachmann said in a statement, referring to that state's Republican straw poll.

"I am grateful for his guidance and leadership, and fortunate to retain his valuable advice even though his health no longer permits him to oversee the day-to-day operations of the campaign."

Bachmann, a representative from Minnesota, moved into the top tier of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination last month with her win in the Iowa straw poll, an early test of strength in the 2012 race.

"I have great affection for her. I'll do anything I can to help her," Rollins, 68, a veteran of many political campaigns told CNN. "I just don't have the endurance to do 14-hour days, seven days a week anymore."

As part of a "restructuring strategy," current campaign strategist Keith Nahigian will assume the role of interim campaign manager, Bachmann said in her statement.

Bachmann's views, heated rhetoric and fiery attacks on President Barack Obama have won her fans among conservative activists and donors. She was one of the first elected officials to court the Tea Party, a loosely organized conservative activist movement.

Rollins conceded that Texas Governor Rick Perry's entry into the Republican race slowed Bachmann's momentum. Perry, who is also popular with social and religious conservatives, rose swiftly to the top of opinion polls among Republicans since entering the race last month.

"Legitimately, it's a (Mitt) Romney-Perry race," Rollins told CNN. I think she's (Bachmann) the third candidate at this point in time, which is way different and better than we thought when we started this thing and she's very much in this thing."

DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER STEPS DOWN

Deputy campaign manager David Polyansky was also stepping down, said Bachmann's Iowa campaign chairman, Kent Sorenson.

Sorenson said Polyansky had signed on to the campaign to help with the straw poll effort in Iowa.

"That is a major shake-up," said Craig Robinson, Iowa Republican website founder and editor. "It's her top two guys on her national campaign."

Asked if Polyansky's departure involved strategic differences with the candidate, Rollins told CNN, "There's no strategic differences in the sense of what we should be doing or saying -- it's just a question of how you use your time, how you use your resources."

Republicans - shift left in progress (towards the center).

[jk]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

So much for Bachmann being a credible candidate:

http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-campa...GVzdAM-;_ylv=3



Republicans - shift left in progress (towards the center).

bachmann was always running for VICE-president.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Rollins confirming what we've known for a couple of weeks now. Bachman put everything into Iowa and as soon as Perry announced one day later, he blew her away in the polls.

It's shaking out exactly how I said in post one. GOP donors now have to decide who to back between Romney and Perry and some will spread their money on both in an act of CYA. The polls tell us it's Perry's nomination to lose and the first Perry Romney debate takes place tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if Bachmann serves as the attack dog for one or the other.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perry is not looking good in this debate. Now it's going to be interesting to see the poll number over the next week.

[metalman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perry is not looking good in this debate. Now it's going to be interesting to see the poll number over the next week.

the vote's gonna go like this...

perry...
romney...
bachmann...

win goes to the candidate w/only 1 puke & no loon points.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Online poll after the MSNBC debate here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...reagan-library

"Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan Library?"

Total of 32,793 votes -

Ron Paul 40.5% (13,288 votes)

Mitt Romney 22.9% (7,498 votes)

Rick Perry 17.3% (5,664 votes)

Jon Huntsman 8.6% (2,817 votes)

Newt Gingrich 3.7% (1,222 votes)

Michele Bachmann 2.9% (942 votes)

Herman Cain 2.8% (915 votes)

Rick Santorum 1.4% (447 votes)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The numbers have changed since I copied and pasted this, but Ron Paul is still winning at 41.9%.

Added observation: Note how the poll says Paul is ahead of Romney by 20%, yet the bar graph shows them in a virtual tie.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Added observation: Note how the poll says Paul is ahead of Romney by 20%, yet the bar graph shows them in a virtual tie.

Looks like they fixed it ...

Ron Paul vote.png

[jk]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Online poll after the MSNBC debate here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...reagan-library

"Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan Library?"

Total of 32,793 votes -

Ron Paul 40.5% (13,288 votes)

Mitt Romney 22.9% (7,498 votes)

Rick Perry 17.3% (5,664 votes)

Jon Huntsman 8.6% (2,817 votes)

Newt Gingrich 3.7% (1,222 votes)

Michele Bachmann 2.9% (942 votes)

Herman Cain 2.8% (915 votes)

Rick Santorum 1.4% (447 votes)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The numbers have changed since I copied and pasted this, but Ron Paul is still winning at 41.9%.

Added observation: Note how the poll says Paul is ahead of Romney by 20%, yet the bar graph shows them in a virtual tie.

this isn't a poll about the republican candidates. this is a poll about who's on the internet

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Looks like they fixed it ...

[ATTACH]4055[/ATTACH]

Yes, that's better, but it still isn't in proportion to how far out ahead he is. Second place on down are roughly in proportion, but compared to second place, first place should be waaaaaaaay out there.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

this isn't a poll about the republican candidates. this is a poll about who's on the internet

Correct. Ron Paul has won every internet poll that his name has ever appeared in. <----------Hyperbole so please don't quote me on that number, but it's damn close to the truth.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Having read the whole thread, I have to say that I am surprised at the charming naïveté of my fellow itulipers. Why, it's almost like you think the electorate has a say in this matter or something!

I simply view the election through the lens of "What's best for the Plutocracy?" Obviously, Obama and all of the Republican candidates would be fine for the plutocrats (yes, even Ron Paul. Hell, especially Ron Paul, as far as his brand of libertarianism is concerned, though his views on the Fed might hurt the banksters...but I digress, and he doesn't have a shot anyway).

Obama has proven to be a perfect president for FIRE - not only has he done everything the plutocrats might have wanted, even better, he has effectively neutralized any resistance on the left. Somehow you get somebody who does everything FIRE asks, governs as Bush's third term, and yet still gets labeled a "socialist" by the right. Anybody who complains from the left is labeled as just to the left of Trotsky and is ignored or dismissed as a pinko commie. Pretty amazing that they could pull this off, when you think about it.

Unfortunately (for FIRE), the unemployment numbers mean the electorate is pissed and Obama might not get to go back and continue to give them everything they want. So, we have to look at the Republican field. Between Romney and Perry, it's a tough call.

Romney, I think, would for all practical purposes end up governing the same as Obama. So, Bush's fourth term, no big change there. Only danger is that a Republican victory might actually wake some semblance of resistance in the now dormant left, as happened in Wisconsin, and the more radical the Republican the stronger that danger. A Bachmann VP slot, for example, might energize the left, which could help Obama in the election but might be more dangerous for the plutocracy should a Perry/Bachmann ticket actually get elected.

Perry, from his record Texas record, would kick the looting up several notches, and inaugurate an era of cronyism and corruption as yet unseen in American politics. From his remarks at last night's debate, he'd even let FIRE at Social Security, which has been a longtime dream for Wall Street. They've got to be licking their chops at that.

Unfortunately (for the plutocrats), Perry comes with the added Tea Party/bible-thumper baggage. Romney, being a Mormon, can't play that aspect up as much. I don't believe for a second that Perry is sincere in any religious beliefs, but I think the Christian right makes the oligarchs uncomfortable. They merely want to use the Christian right to further their agenda without the risk of actually having to act on anything this group wants. Perry might end up too heavily indebted to the evangelicals and they might expect to actually see some progress toward their agenda, which could make things dicey. It might also serve to energize the left's resistance.

Safest course for the banksters/plutocrats/oligarchs/FIRE is a race between an Obama/Biden ticket vs. Romney/some boring Republican ticket. They win either way. A Romney victory would probably cause the Tea Party to shrivel up and blow away, while if Obama wins they will still be active. An Obama victory keeps the left quiet, but if the alternative is boring enough (Romney/Huntsman rather than Perry/Bachmann) they won't bother to show up for the election due to how dissatisfied they are with Obama. A Perry administration might be radical enough that it generates some popular resistance, making it a dangerous choice (especially if it leads to the emergence of a "game changer" candidate on the left for 2016). But it will be hard for FIRE to resist because of the chance for additional pillage.

Should be interesting.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

For someone that didn't go on to say anything that hasn't already been said before or should be completely obvious to anyone posting on this forum, that's quite an opening line.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Obama's speech last night was a good one from a political stand point. He'll get a bump in the polls because of it, and if he takes it on the road it could be a long term boost. Perry calling Social Security a ponzi scam will most certainly hurt him in the general.

If the Republicans are smart, they'll just except Obama's proposal, with reservations, and show that they are not obstructionists. The proposal itself is pretty weak and will have little impact on unemployment. If the Republicans fight against the proposal, the 2012 election could morph into a debate of Republican proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security against the Democrats jobs program. Of course, you can always count on Obama capitulating for something even worse than he proposed, and then getting blamed for the failure.

Last night's speech was important to next years election, we'll have to see how the chess game plays out.