T Nation

Romney 2012?

Oh, an about Ron Paul. Definitely has libertarian leanings. I like a lot of what he says.

Here’s a total longshot match up but one that may have a chance at beating Obama/Biden in '12: Sarah Palin and Colin Powell.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Because I’m not ANTI-conservative either. I and many others want a viable alternative to the Democrat party. And Palin and the approach you’d like to see the Republican party take ain’t it.
[/quote]

I agree: we need a viable alternative to the Democrats. Perhaps we should form a third party and call it the Moderate Party, or the Common Sense Party. I don’t know. I’m waiting for the Republicans to splinter but I don’t think they will. Perhaps the religious right doesn’t have as strong a hold on the Republicans as we think it does. I’m sure most business owners could give a rat’s ass about gay marriage, but are very interested in taxes and employment laws.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You’re wasting your breath. To people who love Sarah Palin and think she’s the female Reagan, policy, or even the minimal appearance of competence, are completely irrelevant. It’s identity politics, as plain as black people voting for Obama. One of the worst features of democracy.

To people who hate Sarah Palin - it is identity politics, only in reverse.

You and jsbrook are the poster boys for hating Palin because she is Palin. Either that or you were told to by Katy Couric.

I don’t “hate” Palin at all. I don’t hate anyone in US politics. I’m a Christian from a small state, she appealed to me initially, as I said on here at the time. But I think she’s completely unprepared, and probably always will be, for the White House. How anyone could come to any other conclusion after watching her debating and being interviewed is completely beyond me.

But you have been anti-conservative since the war started. Single issue voters are pretty much fucking idiots.

There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.

Palin was a one game special teams play.

I doubt she will go much further on the national stage, but wouldn’t swear to it.

BTW, I don’t read opinion magazines or watch TV for my views on Iraq or anything else. History, applied to today,s world has taught me that waiting for a threat to turn imminent before acting is a naive recipe for disaster.[/quote]

What history taught you that preventive (as opposed to preemptive) war was strategically wise? If you use the words “Munich” or “1938” you haven’t read much, or very thoroughly.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.

I don’t read the National Review.

You have been vehemently against Iraq since the beginning. That is hardly the same thing as thinking it is a bad idea.
[/quote]

Sadly, no. I voted for Bush twice, and cheerleaded for the war in my college paper in 2003 and 2004. I came around as I got a little older, read more, and realized that Saddam was never a real threat to us, and that the reasons for going to war were varied and flawed. If you haven’t read them, I would highly recommend taking a week or two and reading The Assassin’s Gate and Fiasco, probably the definitive accounts of the war thus far.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Because I’m not ANTI-conservative either. I and many others want a viable alternative to the Democrat party. And Palin and the approach you’d like to see the Republican party take ain’t it.

I agree: we need a viable alternative to the Democrats. Perhaps we should form a third party and call it the Moderate Party, or the Common Sense Party. I don’t know. I’m waiting for the Republicans to splinter but I don’t think they will. Perhaps the religious right doesn’t have as strong a hold on the Republicans as we think it does. I’m sure most business owners could give a rat’s ass about gay marriage, but are very interested in taxes and employment laws.[/quote]

Well, I’m hoping that the Republicans learned something from this election and will shake the stranglehold of the religious right and the arch-conservatives.

Thousands of people are longing for real fiscal responsibility and an alternative to waste and excessive liberalism and will flock to the Republican party if they can deliver without being extreme and ridiculous either fiscally (complete anti-government approach) or socially.

Odogg, I’m going to link to your post and video clip here:

Don’t anyone ever try to tell me Sarah Palin is not a fucking moron when the McCain campaign’s own staffers were having problems with her all along because . . . she was a fucking moron.

Sure she’s not the brightest, and I’m definitely not a fan of her, but not understanding that Africa is a continent? That sounds really hard to believe. Seriously?? Everything else in that clip is believable though.

Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:

The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.

Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not really sure what your point is.

My point is that if we support morons for office, that’s what we’re going to get.

It’s very fucking sad that if someone needs a doctor for their kids, they’ll try to find the best one (a smart, “elite” doctor - the best in his field will do just fine.); or if you need a mechanic for your car, you also want one who knows what the Hell he’s talking about and not just throwing mechanical terms around while he blindly changes parts until he stumbles on the right one. In most areas of life, we much prefer to deal with smart, competent people.

But to run the country? God forbid that someone smarter than the average Joe should end up in office. It’s not like there are any complex issues to deal with, or any repercussions down the line when massive blunders are made. No, the big litmus test for eligibility is “Would I like to have a beer with that guy/girl?”

Now, I don’t know how well Obama will fare as a president, but one thing’s for sure, he’s never spouted incoherent crap like Palin does. He might not be right about many issues, but he still can argue his side and do more than repeat coached arguments and catchy slogans.

Obama hasn’t spouted incoherent crap? Are you serious? Does anyone pay attention anymore?

Did you see O’Reilly put him on the spot? Obama is as big a moron as the rest of them.[/quote]

And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” Your partisanship blinds you.

[quote]Gael wrote:

And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” Your partisanship blinds you.[/quote]

O’Reilly has kissed the mans ass for quite some time now. That is how the game is played.

[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:

The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.

Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.[/quote]

Maybe so. I certainly think it’s time for a party realignment and time that the parties get in touch with the centrist views of most of the public. I am sick to death of the excessive liberalism of the Democrats and the way the Republican party caters to religious zealots and uncompromising social conservatives.

But I’m not sure how much stock to put in your statement. That’s simply the way the electoral college works. I don’t have any statistics to back it up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral college in many elections throughout history. And alternatively, soundly held both the popular vote and the electoral college in many others only to have support shift back to the opposition party.

2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. *(EDIT: Apart from 1876 and 1888.) :slight_smile:

The reason why this recent record of the Republican party losing popular votes is important is that it points to a demographic change in the country, as I mentioned earlier. The hispanic population is growing vastly (2/3 of whom just voted for Obama), immigrants of all kinds are increasing their numbers here, and perhaps most importantly of all, the older, more conservative generation is constantly dying off and a younger generation is constantly coming of voting age. This is a big part of why a black man was able to be elected President in 2008. The under-45 crowd, for the most part, doesn’t have the same racial hangups that a lot of the over-45 crowd does. It also doesn’t have the same hangups about gays, which is why California will probably be able to overturn Prop 8 in the next 5 to 10 years.

I also have to believe that they (the younger generation) won’t have the same religious hangups – or at least not to the same degree – and sooner or later those who believed that people were riding dinosaurs with saddles on their backs, like in the Flintstones, will die off as well. Kind of like evolution at work, in a weird sort of way!

But putting the popular vote aside for a sec, let’s not forget that Obama just COMPLETELY redrew the electoral map, breaking all previous molds. He captured a number of states that were long-, long-time red states.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:

The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.

Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.

Maybe so. I certainly think it’s time for a party realignment and time that the parties get in touch with the centrist views of most of the public. I am sick to death of the excessive liberalism of the Democrats and the way the Republican party caters to religious zealots and uncompromising social conservatives.

But I’m not sure how much stock to put in your statement. That’s simply the way the electoral college works. I don’t have any statistics to back it up, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral college in many elections throughout history. And alternatively, soundly held both the popular vote and the electoral college in many others only to have support shift back to the opposition party. [/quote]

[quote]Damici wrote:
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
[/quote]

Except for Hayes, 1876, Harrison, 1888.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:

And O’Reilly himself following the interview referred to Obama as “very smart” and “highly intelligent.” Your partisanship blinds you.

O’Reilly has kissed the mans ass for quite some time now. That is how the game is played.[/quote]

So you think calling Obama a “socialist” and even “communist” kissing his ass?

Wow, you’re right. I was pretty sure that 2000 was the only time, but I looked it up and it turns out you’re right.

I stand corrected.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Damici wrote:
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

Except for Hayes, 1876, Harrison, 1888.[/quote]

[quote]debraD wrote:
Sure she’s not the brightest, and I’m definitely not a fan of her, but not understanding that Africa is a continent? That sounds really hard to believe. Seriously?? Everything else in that clip is believable though.[/quote]

I think it’s more likely she didn’t realize South Africa was a country, and thought that it just meant the southern part of Africa. Still pretty bad though.

REALLY bad, I’d say.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
debraD wrote:
Sure she’s not the brightest, and I’m definitely not a fan of her, but not understanding that Africa is a continent? That sounds really hard to believe. Seriously?? Everything else in that clip is believable though.

I think it’s more likely she didn’t realize South Africa was a country, and thought that it just meant the southern part of Africa. Still pretty bad though.[/quote]

[quote]Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:

The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.

Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.[/quote]

But this is the first election since I don’t know when that the democratic candidate actually won 50% of the vote.

You can play with numbers all you want. That’s like the losing team trying to find some sort of solace in the fact that they had more 1st downs than the winning team. The only thing that counts is who walks out a winner.

Nice try, but you aren’t dealing with a fucking idiot.

I don’t know where your “fucking” tone comes from. Are you not able to have a debate with someone without turning vitriolic?

First of all, the losing team this year was the Republicans. Not just “losing,” but “receiving of a stomping” is more like it.

And yes, this is the first year in a while where the Democrat received more than 50% of the popular vote . . . BECAUSE there was no significant third-party challenge this time around.

Nader took a bigger percentage of the votes in 2004 and 2000, whereas this time he was basically irrelevant. And in 1992 Ross Perot was a major factor (hurting Bush more, most likely). He was still a factor in 1996, although less so, but enough to keep Clinton from getting 50%.

The point is that, in presidential races, Democrats have been getting more and more people to vote for them than Republicans have. That is a bad trend for the Republicans any way you slice it. There’s nothing to argue here.

Yes, the electoral votes are what matter. (And Obama just cleaned up in that regard, BTW). But when the overall populace is trending more and more toward the D side and away from the R side, eventually that’s likely to affect the outcome of the electoral votes, as we just saw.

The reasons for that trend have to do with (a.) the major demographic changes taking place, which I mentioned earlier and (b.) coming off of 8 years of a Republican administration that essentially just ruined the world.

There’s nothing to argue about here. A trend is a trend. This is not 1980. The trend that was happening then is ancient history.

This is 2008.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
Oh, speaking of all this “40 years of history” regarding Republicans’ (so-called) electoral successes (using fuzzy math), let’s all remember THIS:

The Democratic presidential nominee has won the popular vote four out of the last five elections.

Um . . . yeah, changes seem to be a-brewing.

But this is the first election since I don’t know when that the democratic candidate actually won 50% of the vote.

You can play with numbers all you want. That’s like the losing team trying to find some sort of solace in the fact that they had more 1st downs than the winning team. The only thing that counts is who walks out a winner.

Nice try, but you aren’t dealing with a fucking idiot. [/quote]

[quote]Damici wrote:
Wow, you’re right. I was pretty sure that 2000 was the only time, but I looked it up and it turns out you’re right.

I stand corrected.

Gael wrote:
Damici wrote:
2000 was the only year where a candidate won the electoral college while losing the popular vote.

Except for Hayes, 1876, Harrison, 1888.

[/quote]

Still less than I would’ve thought. Interesting.