Republican Presidential Candidate 2012

[silentstriker]

Really? I think he's been a massive, massive disappointment myself.

I'd give him a B+. He can't get anything through the Senate as he needs 60 votes and Republicans vote as a bloc. That's not much he can do by himself, it's not like winning a majority in a parliamentary system.

 

[silentstriker]

Agree with Redbacks here. When people talk about how libertarianism will only lead to being ruled by our corporate masters, my usual reply is "What, like the world we live in now you mean?"

As much as people like to think that we live in some sort of corporate dystopia, living in industrialized countries we have it pretty ****ing good compared to virtually any other era in the history of mankind. And it's not in any small part because we as a people have decided that certain standards (e.g education, police, defense) should be a collective responsibility. That doesn't mean that the whole economy should be socialist, but there are certain services where the government is simply better suited (for example, infrastructure, science R&D, education, defense, etc). And it also owes a lot to the fact that the government regulates (with varying amounts of strictness and effectiveness) corporations and sectors of the economy for the public good.

 

[silentstriker]

Anyway back to the thread topic, I'd say Mitt Romney will win. I really really hope Palin pulls it off, because IMO that guarantees a second Obama term but I don't think she'll win her primary.

 

[Flem274*]

As much as people like to think that we live in some sort of corporate dystopia, living in industrialized countries we have it pretty ****ing good compared to virtually any other era in the history of mankind. And it's not in any small part because we as a people have decided that certain standards (e.g education, police, defense) should be a collective responsibility. That doesn't mean that the whole economy should be socialist, but there are certain services where the government is simply better suited (for example, infrastructure, science R&D, education, defense, etc). And it also owes a lot to the fact that the government regulates (with varying amounts of strictness and effectiveness) corporations and sectors of the economy for the public good.

We have it pretty good in comparison to the feudal system yes.

We have a lot of room for improvement.

Back on topic, the Republicans seem more interested in removing womens rights than winning the election. Anyone else noticed the upswing in anti-abortion sentiment and rape denial lately? Every second thread in the politics section on a pretty large writing forum I frequent contains yet more utter stupidity from Republicans.

 

[silentstriker]

We have it pretty good in comparison to the feudal system yes.

We have a lot of room for improvement.

Well of course there's room for improvement but we have it much better than the laissez-faire economic environment of the early late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries too (in the US - that was when we had pretty much the most 'libertarian' economic policies). I have much more time for libertarianism on social issues than I do for almost any economic issues. Hey, let's get rid of the department of education - that'll fix it! Um, ok, sure.

 

[silentstriker]

Back on topic, the Republicans seem more interested in removing womens rights than winning the election. Anyone else noticed the upswing in anti-abortion sentiment and rape denial lately? Every second thread in the politics section on a pretty large writing forum I frequent contains yet more utter stupidity from Republicans.

The Republican primary is broken up into several main categories: the social conservatives, the economic conservatives, and the libertarians (and the combination of the three). The social conservatives are probably the most sought after because they really do tend to vote as a big bloc (Sarah Palin's base). So I would definitely expect some crazy shocking statements (from my PoV at least) in terms of abortions, church/state separation, homosexuality, race & immigration, etc.

 

[Redbacks]

At least with words, Obama has surely mended some of the diplomatic US standing with the rest of the world. Him being a very accomplished speaker has also made big strides in the credibility stakes. Generally you listen to his speeches and think 'yeah this guy balances demands with understanding.' Clinton has been quite good too, bar the Assange issue, but I haven't really bothered to follow her work other than hoping a strike at all costs policy isn't initiated.

Whether on the home front the democrates have been woeful is another issue.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, democrats in general IMO have been very very poor. They had a chance to do so much more from 2008-2010 and yet they only accomplished a few good things (healthcare law, repeal of don't ask don't tell). Obama's main problem was dragging the healthcare debate for way too long which allowed the opposition to coalesce behind a unified message (which was full of lies) and also it caused the political capital from the election to evaporate.

 

[morgieb]

Anyway back to the thread topic, I'd say Mitt Romney will win. I really really hope Palin pulls it off, because IMO that guarantees a second Obama term but I don't think she'll win her primary.

Palin won't run anyway, and there's far more outsider conservatives than establishment conservatives.

 

[morgieb]

I'd give him a B+. He can't get anything through the Senate as he needs 60 votes and Republicans vote as a bloc. That's not much he can do by himself, it's not like winning a majority in a parliamentary system.

Funnily enough, for a few months (between Franken's win and Kennedy's death) the Democrats did have 60 votes. It shows how conservative America is when they can't seem to get reform through with that much votes!

I blame Harry Reid tbh.

 

[Redbacks]

And it's not in any small part because we as a people have decided that certain standards (e.g education, police, defense) should be a collective responsibility. That doesn't mean that the whole economy should be socialist, but there are certain services where the government is simply better suited (for example, infrastructure, science R&D, education, defense, etc). And it also owes a lot to the fact that the government regulates (with varying amounts of strictness and effectiveness) corporations and sectors of the economy for the public good.

To defend slightly some of the need for theorists to go to extremes as i've asked simialr questions myself:

At least whithin the academia circles at Oxford of those who have some leaning towards the idea, the belief is that the battle of an idea isn't won with the masses, but rather certain intellectual cliques who determine the guise through which we veiw the world after they have interpreted it. Be it public intellectuals, journalists, politicians and academics, and that ultimately any theory is advanced/abandonded by the veiws of this select group. Thus to win any ground you must first start from abstraction and develop an idea to its full fruition even though it will sound and look silly in the abstract to lay man, as this is the rigorous test by which this clique develops their own views on how things should be run and can use this to influence the majority, adjusting the idea to fit their own views along the way. Thus it is never a closed book on how to do things, but a root of a potential tree. Bah, I'm only interseted in some of their economic ideas anyway.

 

[silentstriker]

Palin won't run anyway, and there's far more outsider conservatives than establishment conservatives.

She will. She just embarked on a nationwide bus tour and she has a pro-Palin movie coming out next month. She will wait for that and then throw her hat in the ring. Until then, she gets to be employed by Fox and get free publicity that way.

 

[Redbacks]

She will. She just embarked on a nationwide bus tour and she has a pro-Palin movie coming out next month. She will wait for that and then throw her hat in the ring. Until then, she gets to be employed by Fox and get free publicity that way.

We only seem to see a characterture of her in the press. Is she really as outrageous a potential candidate as she looks?

 

[silentstriker]

At least whithin the academia circles at Oxford of those who have some leaning towards the idea, the belief is that the battle of an idea isn't won with the masses, but rather certain intellectual cliques who determine the guise through which we veiw the world after they have interpreted it.

I'm not exactly sure how this is relevant to the discussion of whether libertarianism is a "good" idea to implement, but to respond to your paragraph: I think it's certainly clear that certain segments of the population have massive control over the beliefs of the rest of the population but I'd ask them to present what evidence they have that the battle isn't ultimately won with the masses? It seems to me that regardless of how beautiful the idea seems to that certain clique, it needs much more than that to actually gain traction. There are many examples of ideas which make sense to virtually all of the 'elites' (for lack of a better term) but gain no foothold amongst the 'masses' (again, for lack of a better term). There are as many examples of a 'bottom-up' swelling of support for ideas/movement as there are for 'top-down'. Actually, I would say that the tea party movement is a very good example of the former. Of course, in any movement you'll have a core of 'hardcore' individuals who form (so to speak) the intellectual and ideological core, and who do the most work to push the idea ahead, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

 

[silentstriker]

We only seem to see a characterture of her in the press. Is she really as outrageous a potential candidate as she looks?

Well, she has got an absolutely tremendous amount of support. If she runs (and in the opinion of some including me, it's a matter of time), she is going to be right up there with Mitt Romney in terms of the favorites. The Republican 'elites' (e.g, the corporate backers, the economic conservatives, and the old guard in Washington) want Romney to run and he'll have an extremely well financed campaign. Indeed, he raised more money in a day than some candidates are likely to raise in months. However, while Palin doesn't have the strong corporate and 'old guard' backing, she has the grass roots support that can match Romney dollar for dollar - even if the average donation is much less. She has extremely popular with the social conservatives, and if the right wing radio gets behind her (and they likely would), she can quickly become the favorite.

Her biggest downsides are A) economy and foreign policy, and B) personal unfavorability rating. Basically, she's very polarizing - either people absolutely adore her, or they can't stand her. I really don't think she can win a general election but if she can build up some early steam, she's going to be very very hard to deal with. Romney has the type of baggage that Palin can exploit really well (e.g painting him as the 'liberal' architect Romneycare and other positions he took as governor) and he can't attack her too much without alienating the socially conservative base that he needs (he's already on thin ice with them as he has flip-flopped on many social issues).

However, she has a lot of baggage too and liberals absolutely despise her - and I think independents won't vote for her in droves either, so IMO it will catch up to her if she gets past the primaries.

 

[silentstriker]

Her bus tour:

YouTube - One Nation (Sarah Palin Bus Tour)

Yes, that was a bear in the beginning. And yes, that was serious. People love this ****.


She's running - no way she's doing a bus tour and the upcoming movie promo without it. I'd be very surprised if she doesn't.

"Washington to Lincoln to Reagan." Ugh. One of these things is unlike the others.

 

[silentstriker]

And just cause I'm bored right now: YouTube - ‪Sarah Palin Disney Trailer‬‏

 

[cpr]

My best advice to any Republican candidate is wait another 4 years. Obama's the wrong man to go up against. It'll be like going up against FDR, Kennedy or Clinton. The Obama campaign, when it gets going, will charm the pants off the voter, and his charisma will be enough to see him through, even if his domestic record is shakey. Few Presidents have much look with domestic, thats more a Senate's toy, a President lives and dies by his foreign policy, and he killed Bin-Laden for ultimate brownie points.


Also, America doesnt really like changing its President too much, Since 1932, Only Bush snr, Carter and Ford have failed to get a second term when seeked (Ford, and to a large extent Carter, only really got a first due to the Watergate fallout)

 

[silentstriker]

My best advice to any Republican candidate is wait another 4 years. Obama's the wrong man to go up against. It'll be like going up against FDR, Kennedy or Clinton. The Obama campaign, when it gets going, will charm the pants off the voter, and his charisma will be enough to see him through, even if his domestic record is shakey. Few Presidents have much look with domestic, thats more a Senate's toy, a President lives and dies by his foreign policy, and he killed Bin-Laden for ultimate brownie points.


Also, America doesnt really like changing its President too much, Since 1932, Only Bush snr, Carter and Ford have failed to get a second term when seeked (Ford, and to a large extent Carter, only really got a first due to the Watergate fallout)

But both Carter and Bush snr got killed due to the economy. IMO Obama is vulnerable (though not to Palin, which is why I'm rooting for her in the primary) unless the economy improves and the unemployment drops a couple of percentage points.

 

[Redbacks]

"Washington to Lincoln to Reagan." Ugh. One of these things is unlike the others.

Based on an article from you link above, it suggested Tea Party Supporters being over 45, better educated and more well off etc. seems to play directly into the hands of nostalgia for the Reagan era. Reaping benefits of previous spending and now seeing the younger generation as too well pampered seems to be a universal right of passage for older people