Obama's biggest fear is that Romney wins the nomination and unemployment stays over 8%. That's a formula for his being a one term president. At this point I don't see Romney not getting the nomination.

 

 

Obama is on the record saying that if unemployment was above 8% he should only be a 1 termer. One of the few times I agreed with him. Surely he'll stay true to his word and encourage all of his followers to make his wish come true won't he.

I hope Perry and Bachmann stay in the race and split up the far right vote with Santorum and Paul. Thus making it easier for Romney to win the nomination.

 

Off thread perhaps, but my view of current US politics is that it resembles that "gadget" that has two chromed or silver balls hanging from strings. Swing one to the side and release it, and it hits the other one propelling it in the opposite direction, until it swings back and hits the first one, propelling it out until it swings back, to continue on and on. The further the first ball is swung in one direction, the further the second one swings out in the other direction until it comes back. Politics in the US seems to be acting the same way these days.

 

I understand principles and personal values and wanting to stand up for them, but we have to step back and realize that this country is pretty evenly divided between people on the extreme right and the extreme left, with a growing number of people in the middle. I'm hoping that the people who are on the far right realize that if they swing the ball extremely to the right, it's a matter of time until it's released and it will eventually cause the second ball to swing extremely far to the left.

 

The WSJ had a nice article on the front page yesterday in which it mentioned Hamilton County, Ohio. After Obama's first couple of years in office, the middle folks in Hamilton County moved firmly to the right due to what they considered to be over reaching by Obama's administration. Then Kasich gets elected Governor of Ohio and pushes through some legislation affecting public employees that was extreme. To almost no one's surprise (even Willie Cunninghan and Rep. Bill Seitz, two very conservative folks, thought the legislation was over reaching and that there would be a back lash from the voters), the voters in a referendum overturned the legislation and the middle swung back to the left. Opportunity for the conservatives squandered. Just totally and stupidly squandered. Momentum for Kasich totally lost. If conservatives in this country put up someone in the general election that wants to move this country quickly and dramatically to the right, they will have likewise stupidly, in my opinion, squandered a great opportunity to have a R in the White House.

 

When will politicians and voters in this country learn that a majority of people in this country do not want radical and dramatic movements? Move far and dramatically to the left, and the folks in the middle and the right will team up to elect conservative politicians. Move far and dramatically to the right, and the folks in the middle and the left will team up to elect liberal politicians. Contrary to how a conservative voter (surrounded by people that think the same way that he or she does) may think, this country does not have a large majority of voters that are extremely conservative. It just doesn't. If it did, Congress wouldn't be stalemated. Bush vs Gore wouldn't have been so close. It's a country pretty much split between conservatives and liberals, with a large block in the middle that doesn't like extreme positions of either party.

 

I hoping the Republicans voting in the primary will be pragmatic when they vote. Again, I get the "I have to vote my principles" thinking, but it just gets your principles in office for a short while and then the country elects some one with principles pretty dramatically opposed to yours. Principle voters net very little in the long run.

 

Whomever gets elected to the White House (and admittedly I'm hoping it's an R) needs to understand that a majority of the voters in this country will not tolerate quick and extreme legislative and policy moves in either direction. This "I have a mandate" thinking has got to stop and voters have got to stop thinking that any candidate that runs on a platform of fast and extreme positions will remain in office long enough to permanently move the country in the desired direction. It just won't happen, no matter how strongly one feels about their principles.

 

I'm a Romney supporter; not because I believe he squarely and firmly agrees with all of my principles. He doesn't. But I believe he is someone, that while somewhat conservative, isn't so conservative that his policies will cause the moderate middle to rise up against him and his policies and join up with the liberals to stop Romney; nor is he so conservative that he will alienate every or almost every Democrat in Congress the way President Obama has alienated every or almost every Republican in Congress. To the contrary, if we want to stop the complete bi-partisan deadlock in Congress, we must elect a President willing and able to rebuild an effective caucus of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that can act to move this country forward. If conservatives want to see this country move back to the right, they have to start thinking baby steps; not dramatic and fast giant leaps and hurdles. I think that fellow is Romney.

 

Politics today reminds me so much of my legal practice. I have clients that want to get everything they are demanding from the other side. "It's the principle of the matter" they tell me. "I'm right and they are wrong and thus I'm not giving in an inch". My response: "you may be right, but the only principle that I can assure you will happen if you continue to be so hardheaded in your position, is the principle of your money will leave your pocket and will end up in mine to prove your principle was right, and even if we prove you are right, since you will need to continue to deal with the other side in your business, you may win the battle but lose the war". Most listen to me and become reasonable and willing to compromise. Those that don't heavily contribute to my financial well-being, and even if they win the dispute, end up having bad relationships with the party on the otherside.

 

Be smart, be logical and leave the emotions out of your vote.

Michelle Bachmann has suspended her campaign...

LN,

 

This sounds great in theory and may be true in how people really feel. But I get the impresssion that the two-party system has greatly divided this country into an "us vs. them" method of thinking with a few (I)'s and 3rd party voters out there. Because of this, you will not see a shift towards the middle. The party in power gets complacent until the other party comes to power, then you have to rally the troops somehow. What's the easiest way to rally the troops? With "hot-button issues" that get the "one issue" voters out in droves such as abortion or universal healthcare. It's because of this that nothing gets accomplished and we keep rehashing the same candidate, just with a different name -- regardless of party. What people say they want and what they do are more often than not greatly different.

 

Even in your post -- a very well thought out one -- you, yourself espouse your belief on what party you want the candidate to be from. More or less, telling people to be pragmatic when they vote, but mainly to get your party in office. So while you make many, many excellent points you continue to feed the beast...

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by formerkywrestler

^ Well said LN. I am with you on everything you said above. If anyone questions your comments about having a mandate, Obama is a pretty good example. He believed he had a mandate to reform health care. He got it done but it was, and still is, an albatross on his first term.

 

I see some irony in your comments about the voters' mandates and voting on principal. Isn't that the very thing that has everyone so disgusted with our Congress that their approval rating is below 20%? That hard line, rigid adherence to principal by voters transfers to their elected representatives. There is very little compromise and there is constant gamesmanship played in every action and statement. Both sides love to twist words and try to hang the other side. Our legislators feel they must stick to their "mandate", "principals", etc. no matter what and the result is what we see in Congress.

Michelle Bachmann has suspended her campaign...

:lol: :lol:

 

I'd love to know what she believes to be the difference between a suspension and an all out expulsion?

Michelle Bachmann has suspended her campaign...

 

... and God's will has been done.

Obama has been smiling for months now.

 

He won't be smiling too much longer.

Of all the Republican choices, Romney is not who he wants to face in November. Unlike most of the GOP candidates, Romney will be able to get his share of the moderate/independent vote (the same vote Obama owned in the last election) while still controlling the conservative side of the party. The hardcore conservatives may not be crazy about Romney, but they will still vote for him if it means getting Obama out of office. That a scenario that the democrats wanted to avoid.

He won't be smiling too much longer.

Of all the Republican choices, Romney is not who he wants to face in November. Unlike most of the GOP candidates, Romney will be able to get his share of the moderate/independent vote (the same vote Obama owned in the last election) while still controlling the conservative side of the party. The hardcore conservatives may not be crazy about Romney, but they will still vote for him if it means getting Obama out of office. That a scenario that the democrats wanted to avoid.

I may eat my words, but I have strong doubts that the evangelicals, born-agains, most of the South, etc. comes out for a Mormon.

I've said all along that Romney is the inevitable candidate. The conservatives have been flirting with numerous candidates--the non-Romneys--but none have been able to stick. Mitt has stayed consistently at 20-25% this whole time.

 

I've also said all along that Obama will win re-election. I think the country wants someone else in office, as evidenced by the "Generic Republican" beating Obama in polls. They're (we're) just very dissatisfied with this current crop of candidates. Obama will beat Romney by 3-5 percentage points.

 

Chris Christie would have crushed these people. Perhaps even Obama.

I may eat my words, but I have strong doubts that the evangelicals, born-agains, most of the South, etc. comes out for a Mormon.

 

20 years ago I might have agreed with you. Times have changed.

 

They'll not be voting for Romney as much as they will be voting against Obama.

I've said all along that Romney is the inevitable candidate. The conservatives have been flirting with numerous candidates--the non-Romneys--but none have been able to stick. Mitt has stayed consistently at 20-25% this whole time.

 

I've also said all along that Obama will win re-election. I think the country wants someone else in office, as evidenced by the "Generic Republican" beating Obama in polls. They're (we're) just very dissatisfied with this current crop of candidates. Obama will beat Romney by 3-5 percentage points.

 

Chris Christie would have crushed these people. Perhaps even Obama.

 

So you think Obama is going to carry the electoral vote in Ohio, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc...again. Not gonna happen this time.

The electoral vote will be extremely close this time. Romney needs Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, too, to get over the hump.

So you think Obama is going to carry the electoral vote in Ohio, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc...again. Not gonna happen this time.

The electoral vote will be extremely close this time. Romney needs Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, too, to get over the hump.

 

He's not going to win all of those, but he doesn't have to. I agree the electoral vote will be much closer, but I expect the popular to be around 3-5%.

I may eat my words, but I have strong doubts that the evangelicals, born-agains, most of the South, etc. comes out for a Mormon.

 

Others said the same thing about Romney in Iowa.

 

Santorum and Romney are going away with the same delegate count because of the virtual tie and new proportional rules, correct?

What is the knock on Santorum? I know he's had some strong opinions against gays but what else?