Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

taki15 wrote:

Bog wrote:Numbers can be deceiving, I took criddic's comments to mean looking forward to the 2012, "red state" may be a bit of a strong statement, but Walker is in there now and Johnson was a big victory, Herb Kohl retiring will likely put Paul Ryan making a step up from the house and the house currently is 5-3 for the GOP. Kind will likely attempt a run at the open senate seat and the district he currently holds in the house is a GOP stronghold for 100 years. Obama may very well be able to hold Wisconsin again in 2012, but that has a damn good chance at coming with a Repub Governor, 2 Senators, and 6-2 in the House.

Uhhh...

Have you any idea what happened in Wisconsin since January?

The recall attempts were an epic failure for the Democrats, considering that the only two Republicans successfully recalled had other problems aside from the whole union thing. The Republicans held on to the legislature there, a sign that voters weren't exactly up in arms over the issue triggering the recall elections. Perhaps I overstated Wisconsin's leanings, but it is trending towards the Republicans for 2012.

Bog wrote: Portman and Kasich have never felt stronger...

Kasich has an approval rating of 33-36%. That's not a whole lot different from Bush in '08. I don't know where you get the idea he's popular.

The Kasich/Walker/Scott regimes in their respective states have been a pure shot of adrenaline for the Democratic party, and will only help in '12.

Uhhhh....

Yep, sure do...got the same bill pounded through here in the "heart of it all" Ohio.

Uhhhh....

I was mostly speaking to what seemed like eerily similar changes with both Ohio and Wisconsin, clearly I can't speak with as much certainty...but here the focus seems to be hopefully a referendum of the bill and Sherrod Brown is still no better than Matthew Poncelet, while Portman and Kasich have never felt stronger...don't ask me why though???????

In a year, Ohio will have 2 republican Senators, Kasich, at least the 13-5 house majority they have now, and stupidly give the electoral votes to Dick....

Bog wrote:Numbers can be deceiving, I took criddic's comments to mean looking forward to the 2012, "red state" may be a bit of a strong statement, but Walker is in there now and Johnson was a big victory, Herb Kohl retiring will likely put Paul Ryan making a step up from the house and the house currently is 5-3 for the GOP. Kind will likely attempt a run at the open senate seat and the district he currently holds in the house is a GOP stronghold for 100 years. Obama may very well be able to hold Wisconsin again in 2012, but that has a damn good chance at coming with a Repub Governor, 2 Senators, and 6-2 in the House.

Uhhh...

Have you any idea what happened in Wisconsin since January?

Numbers can be deceiving, I took criddic's comments to mean looking forward to the 2012, "red state" may be a bit of a strong statement, but Walker is in there now and Johnson was a big victory, Herb Kohl retiring will likely put Paul Ryan making a step up from the house and the house currently is 5-3 for the GOP. Kind will likely attempt a run at the open senate seat and the district he currently holds in the house is a GOP stronghold for 100 years. Obama may very well be able to hold Wisconsin again in 2012, but that has a damn good chance at coming with a Repub Governor, 2 Senators, and 6-2 in the House.

criddic3 wrote:Paul Ryan, also from a red state (Wisconsin). . .

The Deocratic nominee has won Wisconsin in all 6 of the last presidential elections.

Herman Cain is impressive in certain ways. He is a successful businessman and he has real fight in him, much like Huckabee did in 2008, but he lacks severely in several areas to win the Presidential nod. However, there is less expected of the VP. Look at Joe Biden. He got less than 1% of his own party to vote for him in the Democratic primaries of 2008. But he's a stone's throw away from the top job today. I listed some of the VP contenders before, but I want to restate that I believe that if Perry is the nominee (a distinct possibility) he should choose someone from the Northeast. Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani. Or he could go the route you are suggesting, picking someone partly for their potential in bringing more minority groups into the Republican voting camp in 2012. Cain would be one choice, and Marco Rubio would be another. Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, is another. Or he could go all out and pick someone like Luis Fortuno, Governor of Puerto Rico. Then there's Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Both Jindal and Fortuno are up for re-election soon, this year and next year respectively. They might not want to be on the ticket yet.

The upside is that some people who might tune out the Republican message normally, would have a reason to at least give them a listen. The downside is that some will think it's a cynical move, despite the fact that Democrats take most of the minority vote for granted (and have for years).

The candidate could also decide to pick someone who came in behind him in the voting during Primary Season. Many thought that then-nominee Barack Obama should've picked Hillary Clinton, but he chose Biden instead. But I doubt Perry would name Romney, or vice versa. Maybe Bachmann, but like I said before she brings next to nothin to the ticket. Ditto for Palin or Paul. All three have vocal fan bases, but all three would be controversial and would not greatly help in terms of broadening their vote margin. I thought about McCain for VP. That would be kind of cool, but he's been going after everybody lately, including some Republicans. Gingrich has a similar problem, and he is from Georgia (which is a solid red state). Paul Ryan, also from a red state (Wisconsin), can offer economic/budget expertise and got his budget bill passed through the House. But that's really all he's got, as far as I know. However, there was talk that one of the reasons John Boehner did not put him on the budget committee was to keep him free to run on the ticket. Pure speculation, but intriguing.

Don't think he won't. Don't think they haven't thought about it.

Ooh! Let him pick Cain. Cain is nuttier than anyone in the Republican field including Michelle Bachmann.

criddic3 wrote
I think you have to be practical. You try to find a candidate who you agree with most, but that person has to be able to win. Otherwise, it's all academic. You can say you are for a billion things, but if you don't control the agenda you can't make them happen. Also, partially in response to Sabin, that person has to come across as credible on a variety of issues. A Ron Paul may be able to excite some young libertarians to vote. Maybe a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands. But at the end of the day, they wouldn't be enough to win in a general election. A candidate needs a broader coalition.

I'll grant you that this is a partial response. The reason that I'm holding you over the coals here is because you implied that libertarians especially young ones won't turn out to vote, which implies that they are not seriously in their beliefs. And that's an irresponsible statement. In 1989, Ron Paul earned 431,750 votes in the general election. Not enough to win, sure. But he has achieved a rare combination of elder statesmanship AND visionary. He invites a lot of excitement. But not as a Republican.

Can Ron Paul win? Likely not. The Republican base has no interest in him. Ron Paul is vocal in his declaration that he is more Republican that most Republicans, but he should run as a Libertarian and make a bid for a viable Third Party. I'll likely cast my vote for a different Third Party, but he demands a national audience and he won't find one within the horrible state of the Republican party today. If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in this field, he could do very, very well. Likely better than you think, criddic. He would cut strongly into both Perry and Obama's totals.

I think Rick Perry will pick Herman Cain for his VP.

mlrg wrote:

criddic3 wrote: People vote in polls for him because he presents an unhinged ability to frankly say what he believes, but he'd have little chance of winning against President Obama in '12.

An interesting thing about this discussion in general is that the opinion people have a bout one person is based on his ability to beat the candidate from the other party rather than his ideals....

I think you have to be practical. You try to find a candidate who you agree with most, but that person has to be able to win. Otherwise, it's all academic. You can say you are for a billion things, but if you don't control the agenda you can't make them happen. Also, partially in response to Sabin, that person has to come across as credible on a variety of issues. A Ron Paul may be able to excite some young libertarians to vote. Maybe a few thousand, maybe tens of thousands. But at the end of the day, they wouldn't be enough to win in a general election. A candidate needs a broader coalition. The previous Republican winner, George W. Bush, was able to build a fairly broad coalition of Republicans, and he was able to persuade enough independent voters to make the difference in his two elections. In the 2000 scenario, he won enough states to win, despite a slight deficit in the popular vote. In 2004, he was able to hold social conservatives and moderates by appealing to his belief in "Compassionate Conservatism," along with presenting a strong conviction about the War on Terror (I wasn't exactly cheering the Marriage Amendment, as I thought it was a little over-the-top, though it helped bring out social conservatives). Ron Paul couldn't do that. He would not be able to convince enough Republicans in his brand of near-isolationist foreign policy to win the nomination. I suspect that would be the case among a plurality, if not an outright majority, of the general electorate. His support needs to be broader in several regions of the country, whereas a Rick Perry can bring many factions of the party (establishment and tea party) while also appealing to a wider range of voters from states in the south and west.

If he's smart he'll pick a northeastern running-mate should he win the nomination. Some have suggested Rudy Giuliani (a NY Post article this past Monday), while others say Chris Christie (they love the idea of him on the ticket). Still another pick could be even main rival Mitt Romney (if he'll take the #2 spot). Or if not northeast, perhaps Cuban-American Marco Rubio, of Florida, would make a good selection. He doesn't gain anything from a Bachmann (she's from Minnesota, and he already has enough tea party voters) or even Paul (he's from Texas, they cancel each other out) as VP. Although I would sort of love to see Ron Paul debating Joe Biden. The gaffes and wild statements they would trade back and forth would be hilarious!

More directly to Sabin's question: Libertarians are not a large enough portion of the electorate. The most they can get in a Presidential election as a separate party is usually 2%, and with a more persuasive candidate maybe 5%. That can swing an election, yes, but not towards the libertarians. As a candidate for the Republicans, Dr. Paul would have to reach far beyond his core base to win the general. Some Republicans might hesitate to vote for him, because of his foreign policy views. He would split the independent vote with his call for auditing and, more so, dissolving the fed and other established government entities like the Department of Education. Now, that's not to say that one or two of those things could be overlooked by some voters. But the combination of massive changes with an isolationist foreign policy (ie- saying we shouldn't care if Iran wants a nuke) ...well, it just wouldn't work. President Obama would paint him as a total loon, and unfortunately would probably succeed. Although that will be largely the strategy with other opponents, as well, it is easier to make it stick with some candidates than others.

criddic3 wrote:
The problem with Ron Paul is that Republicans have a long history with him. Many like his economic observations, and his boldness in calling for an audit of the fed. Even Newt Gingrich has agreed about that. But Dr. Paul has a tendency to say things completely out of left-field that would cause problems for the party in a general election. His isolationist foreign policy may sound good to some, but they're unrealistic in the world we live in today. Another problem is that, for all the hoorahs he gets from the youth, he is older than most of the candidates and would have to more careful than most in his choice for VP. I can imagine a father-son ticket, since his son is a senator in a different state. People vote in polls for him because he presents an unhinged ability to frankly say what he believes, but he'd have little chance of winning against President Obama in '12.

But that's not what I asked you. You said:

criddic wrote:
To a certain extent this is true, but I don't believe that he can expand on that beyond libertarian-minded youth. Many of these people will not turn out in the general election, and even if they do, they are not a large enough group to be of much help in the general let alone the primary vote.

If Ron Paul is the GOP candidate (regardless of whether or not you think he can win), why do you think that libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, are less likely to simply show up to vote than those who would vote for Rick Perry? What is it about young, libertarians that inspires you to think that they have no interest in voting for their candidate?

criddic3 wrote: People vote in polls for him because he presents an unhinged ability to frankly say what he believes, but he'd have little chance of winning against President Obama in '12.

An interesting thing about this discussion in general is that the opinion people have a bout one person is based on his ability to beat the candidate from the other party rather than his ideals....

The problem with Ron Paul is that Republicans have a long history with him. Many like his economic observations, and his boldness in calling for an audit of the fed. Even Newt Gingrich has agreed about that. But Dr. Paul has a tendency to say things completely out of left-field that would cause problems for the party in a general election. His isolationist foreign policy may sound good to some, but they're unrealistic in the world we live in today. Another problem is that, for all the hoorahs he gets from the youth, he is older than most of the candidates and would have to more careful than most in his choice for VP. I can imagine a father-son ticket, since his son is a senator in a different state. People vote in polls for him because he presents an unhinged ability to frankly say what he believes, but he'd have little chance of winning against President Obama in '12.

Interesting polls have been popping up in the last few days, showing President Obama's GOP opponents gaining on him for the general election match-ups. I can link it, but I believe it was Gallup. It showed Romney leading Obama with 48%-46%, Perry tied with him at 47% and even Bachmann only four points behind at 48%-44%. Just a few posts ago, some people were telling me I was crazy for suggesting this could be the case. Another Gallup poll this week shows the president's approvals down to 38% and his disapproval up to 54%.

See my point??.... Paul is ahead of Bachmann is this last poll and you ignore it....