The Goat Pen

Jungle Rat wrote:IB, the Repubs have no chance, zero of winning the white house. Stock up on tissues.

If (and only if) the Republican Primary voters pick the wrong person to represent the GOP in the general election again (the way they did in 2008 and also 1996) then I would agree with you. I certainly hope the GOP does not fuck this one up. Pawlenty dropping out today (and the outragously huge margin Romney currently has in New Hampshire polling) gives me a glimmer of hope that the GOP primary voters will NOT fuck this one up....

Truth be told Rat, President Obama's re-election is entirely predicated on the GOP Primary. That (in and of itself) is the only thing that matters, the only thing that will determine if Obama gets just 4 years or the full 8. You see, you don't need to have a PhD in Political Science to understand the most basic, absolute truth, about US Presidential politics: the moderates play kingmaker. Then Senator Obama had the over-whelming majority of the moderates in 2008 (much like Governor Carter did in 1976.) Much has changed since 2008. The moderates do not get that tingling-up-the-leg the way they did just 3 years ago. The honeymoon is largely over. That said, moderates are darn picky about which GOP candidates are worthy of their vote. In that sense, a Michelle Bachman, a Ron Paul, a Herman Cain, a Rick Santorum, a Newt Gingrich, or a Sarah Palin GOP Presidential candidacy would certainly guarantee Obama's re-election. A Willard Mitt Romney (or perhaps, a Rick Perry) candidacy, would assure a GOP victory.

It's all in who New Hampshire picks. Whoever they pick, generally wins the GOP nomination. It wasn't that way in 1996 (when Pat Buchanan won the state) but that was an isolated, incident. So I would have to say that the February 2012 GOP Primary voting residents of New Hampshire largely control the Presidential fate of our nation from January 20th 2013 to January 2017 at least.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

How many 'coloreds' did you lynch this weekend, Prof Bull?

“Has the guru of global warming, the Bozo of ozone and pooh-bah of the probably-not-so-endangered polar bear, gone completely off his bleeping rocker?"


http://news.newsmax.com/?Z646XxdFuz4Q9b ... m63yztJU1Z

That question was answered years ago...

Hell, as long as I've lived nobody ever made a case that the best and brightest were in line to achieve our highest office. It's always been about electability, good timing and a whole lotta luck.

Moreso than ever, you've got to have a hook if you're going to get a serious shot at the WH. If you can't compete celebrity-wise, then you can't compete.

Sensical.

Not Obama still looks good...Disapproval in red.

I'm sure Rick Perry's "Crazy Evangelical Only" Prayer circle will go over well with the moderates.

It may sadden you to know this, but my mom is a classic moderate. She has voted for both parties and Ross Perot to boot. And she has told me in no uncertain terms that there is no chance in hell she would vote for Romney because he is a mormon.

Well there you go. Why even hold an election?

I don't know if i'd knock the magic underwear....those Mormons are like rabbits.

Mormons are to christianity what transgenders are to sex.

I mean, a transgender self identifies as a person of a different sex than what they were biologically born as. Hell, they may even get a sex change operation to look like that gender. And Mormons self identify as christian. Hell, they may even throw buckets of cash at christian-right causes. In both cases, most folks will go along and call them whatever they like out of politeness or political correctness. But it still makes your skin crawl.

Romney doesn't wear his magic underwear on his sleeve, so to speak, so none of that is an issue for me.

I'll even go so far to say that if the economy is in it's current state 15 months from now, and the leadership void exists then as now, I'll vote for Mitt assuming he's the nominee. I'll register repub and vote for him in our primary for sure...hopefully he won't be Hillary'd by then. And yes he waffles on issues as a candidate but maybe he would unwaffle and grow a pair once he got the job...unlike the current guy, whose nads have withered away to practically nothing.

Naturally all bets are off if one of the nut-jobs get the nomination. I'll probably just sit that cluster out.

Who are you and what have you done with Tick?

Heh. It didn't help that I read David McCullough's Truman over the weekend. Comparing that kind of leadership to what we've endured the last several years... well, there is no comparison.

And yes he waffles on issues as a candidate but maybe he would unwaffle and grow a pair once he got the job

That's an amazing leap of faith. I'll never vote for a politician who routinely changes his core principles just to win elections. His religion has nothing to do with it, but I suspect he'd gladly convert to Baptist to win the South Carolina primary.

Perry makes me uneasy. He looks and sounds like W's little brother. He supposedly likes to shoot varmints, so that part's good.

If the election were today, I'd vote for Bachmann.

Professor Tiger wrote:
If the election were today, I'd vote for Bachmann.

Lord have mercy. My mom was a bit interested in her one week when I called and she didn't know much about her, then the next week, she had heard some of her craziness and lost all interest in her.