Santorum's Career Suicide Mission

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney’s delegates after the people have spoken I think you’re off base.

[/quote]

But the people aren’t speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something’s not right is it?[/quote]

Doesn’t this speak more to the candidate pool as a whole?

If there are record low turnouts I would say they don’t like ANY of the candidates.[/quote]

Not true, a primary can have a low turnout for many reasons.

Not being interested in the candidates is certainly one. But, inevitability is another. If most believe Romney is going to be the nominee then they feel that what’s the point of voting?

One more thing to look at is who votes in primaries. In the republican party more on the far right vote in the primary (dems the opposite). So, perhaps the far right was not thrilled with the choice of candidates.

All that means is that Romney must pick a staunch conservative as his running mate - And he will most certainly do that.

And when the choice is Obama/Biden (or Obama/Hillary) vs say Romney/Rubio or Romney/Ryan or Romney/Rand Paul (for example) the choice will be clear to those right wing voters won’t it?

42

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney’s delegates after the people have spoken I think you’re off base.

[/quote]

But the people aren’t speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something’s not right is it?[/quote]

Doesn’t this speak more to the candidate pool as a whole?

If there are record low turnouts I would say they don’t like ANY of the candidates.[/quote]

That could be the reason but it’s not. Zeb gives part of the reason below - Romney has been chosen and they feel this whole primary process is pointless. Like in Virginia where the only names on the ballot were Romney and Paul.

43

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh my gosh…don’t you understand that 41% of the vote is actually good?

[/quote]

No, garnering only 41% of the vote half way through the primaries with all his advantages suggests Romney is not a strong candidate.

"First, I defy any GOP voter to tell me that the party doesn’t remember the past. The annals of Republican party history are filled with electoral disaster at the Presidential level after 1928. I point to Hoover’s second term bid, Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey (twice), Richard Nixon (1960), Barry Goldwater, George H.W. Bush’s second term bid, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Which of these things is not the like the other (to paraphrase Sesame Street)? That’s right, Goldwater and Nixon. With the exception of Nixon in 1960, all the others were wipeout losses. With the exception of Goldwater, all the losing candidates were not conservatives, (at least not on enough issues to count). The GOP remembers its history well, but more often than not, chooses to repeat the mistake. While we often hear that the GOP is afraid to nominate another Goldwater (no memory problems there!) for fear of a landslide loss, they have seldom fared any better at the end of the voting day with their reasonable, moderate candidates. Ronald Reagan, a conservative in the mold of Goldwater won two landslide victories. That makes the truly conservative nominee for the GOP 2-1, while their moderates have compiled a far more modest 6-9 record (I count Nixon’s 2 victories in 68 and 72, Bush 41 in 84, and G.W. Bush in 00 and 04). If I were a betting man, I would take 2-1 odds over 6-9 odds any day of the week for the same payoff.

What does this tell us? Simply that history might matter a little bit, and taken on face value, why would the GOP ever nominate a moderate presidential candidate? After all, history seems to imply that conservatism is a winner more often than not." - RedState

I didn’t say he couldn’t potentially beat Obama. I’m just not convinced he’s the strongest candidate. However I respect your political acumen and knowledge.

I don’t listen to the mainstream liberal media.

44

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh my gosh…don’t you understand that 41% of the vote is actually good?

No, garnering only 41% of the vote half way through the primaries with all his advantages suggests Romney is not a strong candidate.[/quote]

Do the math my friend. If there are four people in a race that means if they’re all even then each gets 25% of the vote. If Romney has 41% and 1.2 million votes more than the next highest candidate…and if you add up all the delegates won by the other three and they still do not exceed what Romney has gained then I’d say he’s doing rather well. You may not listen to the mainstream liberal media (and good for you) but that is the EXACT theme that they want you to believe! Romney is just not good enough to topple their chosen one.

What the article fails to mention is that all the winning candidates were NOT conservative with the exception of Ronald Reagan. That is called a falsehood by omission. One more impotant point politics has changed so much that I discount anything before 1952 depending on the specific political topic sometimes 1960.

I’ve already recanted all of the reasons that republicans have lost and it has more to do with the candidate being who they were. For example, did anyone really think that John McCain or Bob Dole were going to capture the White House? Come on…And the same can be said for an older looking George Bush (41) when he ran for reelection vs a young and charismatic Bill Clintion (of Course Ross Perot didn’t help either).

Yes, it’s best to be center right, but never ever far right (unless you are Reagan and then he didn’t win because he was far right he won inspight of it). But the best thing to have on your side is to look Presidential. I know that’s superficial but it happens to have worked just about every time! Most people are not yet engaged when they do start paying attention sometime after Labor Day they are going to give it a quick look and they are going to make a very snap decision. And that decision (by most not all) will be made based on how the candidate speaks, looks and smiles. Sad? Perhaps but true. They also want to hear some love coming from the candidates mouth. Optimism sells and Reagan new that.

Mitt Romney, whether you like him or not is irrelevant, is the best republican candidate in the race based on what America is buying. And the fact that he’s stood attacks from both Gingrich, Perry and now Santorum month after month and is still on top tells you that he has staying power. Sure they’ve damaged him (easy to picture Obama giving his chief of staff high fives every time Santorum bashes Romney) but he is still our best chance at unseating the democrats chosen one.

45

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When a candidate wins a state he is not guaranteed to get any delegates that will support him at the convention.

Delegates must show up and volunteer to go to the convention.

Moreover, delegates do not have to support the winner of the popular vote or even the candidate they say they are supporting - they can change their mind when they get to the convention.

That is all.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m aware of that Lifty. But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney’s delegates after the people have spoken I think you’re off base. Granted Santorum has a healthy ego (they all do), but he’s not an idiot. To even try such a stunt would be political suicide. If he ever pulled it off (which is a million to one) he’d get crushed by Obama.

But thanks for contributing to the thread.

I’ll give you a better prediction, Santorum loses and then has a very minimal role at the convention. [/quote]

Just sayin’, delegates have not been counted yet because the convention hasn’t happened yet.

In a brokered convention, gasp, even Ron Paul has a shot. And he is going to get lots of attention there if the GOB knows what’s best for it.

I have heard tales of some RP supporters going to caucuses and if some other candidate wins they stick around and volunteer to be a delegate. :slight_smile:

Darn, those Paultards sure are dumb! :p[/quote]

While Ron Paul was NEVER a factor in the nominating process (as I predicted) he will be, and has already been courted by Mitt Romney. Paul’s supporters are absolutely needed to carry Romney to victory. I don’t think that there is any question that Paul will play a major role at the convention. And no doubt will be in line for an important cabinet post should Romney be fortunate enough to win. [/quote]

Ron or Rand?
[/quote]

What would be totally, utterly and unbelievably awesome is if Ron Paul became chairman of the Fed.[/quote]

x9000

CS

46

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

x9000

CS[/quote]

Paul as chairman of an actual financial institution? One that is in charge of things like liquidity swaps in a modern globalized economy?

Paul doesn’t know anything useful about economics. Oh, he’s read and written on broad, abstract theories that no one takes seriously, and in his career he has been a deliverer of babies, a do-nothing Congressman, and conspiracy theorist.

Putting him in charge of a national bank would be the equivalent of putting a spider monkey at the helm of an F-16 mid-flight - the vessel would go down in a ball of flames, the only question would be how many people would get taken out in the process.

At the end of the first day of briefing, a Fed Chairman Paul would be found sucking his thumb in the corner and muttering jibberish.

47

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

x9000

CS[/quote]

Paul as chairman of an actual financial institution? One that is in charge of things like liquidity swaps in a modern globalized economy?

Paul doesn’t know anything useful about economics. Oh, he’s read and written on broad, abstract theories that no one takes seriously, and in his career he has been a deliverer of babies, a do-nothing Congressman, and conspiracy theorist.

Putting him in charge of a national bank would be the equivalent of putting a spider monkey at the helm of an F-16 mid-flight - the vessel would go down in a ball of flames, the only question would be how many people would get taken out in the process.

At the end of the first day of briefing, a Fed Chairman Paul would be found sucking his thumb in the corner and muttering jibberish.[/quote]

Shh…didn’t you get the memo? You’re not supposed to say that stuff until after Romney gets his support and the many koolaide guzzling 20 somethings that come with it.

48

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Paul doesn’t know anything useful about economics. Oh, he’s read and written on broad, abstract theories that no one takes seriously,.[/quote]

Meh, 80% of the Austrian school is mainstream economics canon.

49

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[
Paul doesn’t know anything useful about economics. .[/quote]

What made me lol is that Bernanke apparently does, yet Paul is right with his predictions for a decade now whereas Bernanke gets it persistently wrong.

You must have a unique interpretation of the word “useful”.

I love the intertubez.

50

Another one of theses “Austrian” lunatics who have not the first clue when it comes to economics:

I am coming to the conclusion that those “Austrians” are clueless, but have powerful supernatural abilities.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

I am coming to the conclusion that those “Austrians” are clueless, but have powerful supernatural abilities. [/quote]

I know at least one Austrian that is clueless, but in any event, you miss the point - criticism of policy isn’t the same as running the bank. I don’t disagree with all of Austrian economics - for example, I think the concept of malinvestment is explained well by Austrians - but that is entirely different than actually making policy decisions that are entursted to be made by the Fed Chairman.

Paul likes his theory and coffee-house abstractions - but he has no business running a national bank, which requires more than having an economuic philosophy.

52

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I am coming to the conclusion that those “Austrians” are clueless, but have powerful supernatural abilities. [/quote]

I know at least one Austrian that is clueless, but in any event, you miss the point - criticism of policy isn’t the same as running the bank. I don’t disagree with all of Austrian economics - for example, I think the concept of malinvestment is explained well by Austrians - but that is entirely different than actually making policy decisions that are entursted to be made by the Fed Chairman.

Paul likes his theory and coffee-house abstractions - but he has no business running a national bank, which requires more than having an economuic philosophy.[/quote]

He would have people for that but you are missing the point.

A Bernanke that knows exactly which levers to pull and buttons to press just gets you faster in the wrong direction.

His technical expertise, as far as it exists, only lets you hit the wall faster, it is of no use.

Ron Paul moving at a snails pace would still be moving in the right direction.

53

[quote]orion wrote:

Ron Paul moving at a snails pace would still be moving in the right direction. [/quote]

No, he wouldn’t. He’d be overwhelmed by the job for many reasons, not the least of which is that he can’t effectively govern with other people in influential positions that didn’t share his libertarian views on monetary policy (i.e., chairman of the other federal reserve banks, members of the open-market committee, etc.).

Paul doesn’t know how to govern or run a business, and he would be clueless as to how to implement policy among competing interests, which is what he would have to do.

54

Was this before or after Schiff predicted ‘in a year or two down the line’ inflation will be about 20% or 30% per year?

Steve Keen predicted it in 2003. Hyman Minsky wrote about it in 1986. Nourel Roubini stood on the floor of the IMF in 2006 and said, ‘the United States is likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession’.

55

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Ron Paul moving at a snails pace would still be moving in the right direction. [/quote]

No, he wouldn’t. He’d be overwhelmed by the job for many reasons, not the least of which is that he can’t effectively govern with other people in influential positions that didn’t share his libertarian views on monetary policy (i.e., chairman of the other federal reserve banks, members of the open-market committee, etc.).

Paul doesn’t know how to govern or run a business, and he would be clueless as to how to implement policy among competing interests, which is what he would have to do.[/quote]

Then he could still be the wrench in the system which is also better than running full steam in the wrong direction.

56

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Was this before or after Schiff predicted ‘in a year or two down the line’ inflation will be about 20% or 30% per year?

Steve Keen predicted it in 2003. Hyman Minsky wrote about it in 1986. Nourel Roubini stood on the floor of the IMF in 2006 and said, ‘the United States is likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession’. [/quote]

First, this is a terrible video, second, depending on the way you look at it the US is already there.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

57

[quote]orion wrote:

Then he could still be the wrench in the system which is also better than running full steam in the wrong direction. [/quote]

Yes, because nothing would be better for businesses large and small than for someone to try and snarl up national banking operations and our financial system. Hilarious.

Austrian looney-tarianism aside, the private sector - no, the actual privtae sector, not the abstraction the Paulnuts concoct - want order and stability. They want reform, but they don’t want anyone trying to be a “monkey wrench” in the system. That’s the last thing they want.

58

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Was this before or after Schiff predicted ‘in a year or two down the line’ inflation will be about 20% or 30% per year?

Steve Keen predicted it in 2003. Hyman Minsky wrote about it in 1986. Nourel Roubini stood on the floor of the IMF in 2006 and said, ‘the United States is likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession’. [/quote]

First, this is a terrible video, second, depending on the way you look at it the US is already there.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts[/quote]

Already where? Where does it show inflation is at 20-30% on this chart?

59

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Was this before or after Schiff predicted ‘in a year or two down the line’ inflation will be about 20% or 30% per year?

Steve Keen predicted it in 2003. Hyman Minsky wrote about it in 1986. Nourel Roubini stood on the floor of the IMF in 2006 and said, ‘the United States is likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession’. [/quote]

First, this is a terrible video, second, depending on the way you look at it the US is already there.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts[/quote]

Already where? Where does it show inflation is at 20-30% on this chart?[/quote]

Nowhere, but for consumers at least it is around 10%.

I think for an official hyperinflation it would have to get over 50%.

Its coming though, unless the Fed gets all the money back they pumped into the system, they cannot afford the risk that the banks lend it out.

For that Bernanke would have to hit the breaks hard and I dont see that happening.

The only chance that Schiff is not going to be right is when Bernanke is willing to dip the US into a brutal recession.

60

Addendum, if you dismiss the massaged inflation numbers the US of course already is in a recession.

Just not in a brutal one.