• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the Republican party really this dumb?

O

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman? Seriously, this is the BEST you can field?

NONE of these candidates has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Obama in a general election. Both are already being painted as lunatics by the media and suburban voters will simply not vote for either of these candidates.

Obama is in a very weakened position right now and it really would not take much to defeat him should the economy stay roughly where it is today next year. It's pretty hilarious to watch how utterly insane the GOP has gotten as of late, first Palin and now Bachman and Perry.
 
Yes. Disaffected Republicans and Independents have been saying this for some time now.

"I didn't leave the party, the party left me."
 
There is a history to this...

"When Bill Clinton got into his mess, pretty much every American wanted Bill Clinton punished. They didn't want him impeached, but they wanted something like a spanking or something. So they turned to the Republicans and said, 'Come on! Get the little prick!' And the Republicans took out their guns, got him in their sights, turned the guns around (points gun at his head), and went 'BAM"
-Lewis Black
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman? Seriously, this is the BEST you can field?

NONE of these candidates has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Obama in a general election. Both are already being painted as lunatics by the media and suburban voters will simply not vote for either of these candidates.

Obama is in a very weakened position right now and it really would not take much to defeat him should the economy stay roughly where it is today next year. It's pretty hilarious to watch how utterly insane the GOP has gotten as of late, first Palin and now Bachman and Perry.
Click to expand...

It's like when bush was destroying this country and the democrats offered up Kerry and Edwards. I hate bush but I'd rather eat my own feces than have those two in office.
 
Desperation brings out the fringe like no other emotion can. Desperation causes people to over-react. Ergo, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, the Tea Party, the batch of 2010 elected hyper reactionist repub governors bent on killing unions and praising God while they're at it.
 
The sudden "desperation" is caused from the fact that if we keep at our puny progress we have been making (which isn't progress at all) we're going to end up not having much of a country to run.

I'd rather take a risk and try to get to where we need to be, (or crash and burn trying) than be too scared to make any progress and just waste away.
 
tweaker2 said:
Desperation brings out the fringe like no other emotion can. Desperation causes people to over-react. Ergo, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, the Tea Party, the batch of 2010 elected hyper reactionist repub governors bent on killing unions and praising God while they're at it.
Click to expand...

But hey, we got shall-issue concealed carry in Wisconsin! :awe:
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
Is the Republican party really this dumb?
Click to expand...

Well, your point is mainly about the cast of Repubs who have decided to run, and like the Repubs themselves, you are not thrilled with the candidates.

But I'm not 100% persuaded "dumb" is involved. Looking at the position our country is in, and the difficult choices that I think are necessary and will likely be eventually forced upon us, I don't know that an intelligent person would want that job. I.e., the current limited crop of candidates may be a result of intelligence, the intelligence of those who would better candidates dictating that they don't run.

I firm;y believe that if you're going to be President and do the job properly, you're going to be very unpopular. The easiest thing to do is hand out all kinds of benefits, bailouts and useless pork type stuff in stimulus bills etc., but that is not what we need. Taking candy away from the baby will make it cry.

Fern
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman? Seriously, this is the BEST you can field?

NONE of these candidates has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Obama in a general election. Both are already being painted as lunatics by the media and suburban voters will simply not vote for either of these candidates.

Obama is in a very weakened position right now and it really would not take much to defeat him should the economy stay roughly where it is today next year. It's pretty hilarious to watch how utterly insane the GOP has gotten as of late, first Palin and now Bachman and Perry.
Click to expand...

Why did you leave out Romney?

He's well ahead of Bachmann. I don't believe many actually think her a serious candidate. I see no reason to list her.

Fern
 
your obama proves the lowest common denominator can get elected. we can go no where but up from here.
 
I think the problem is that it's easier to get a stupid man's vote than a smart mans. Same goes for both parties. They cater to the lowest common denominator because it's easier.
 
OneOfTheseDays said:
Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman? Seriously, this is the BEST you can field?

NONE of these candidates has a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Obama in a general election. Both are already being painted as lunatics by the media and suburban voters will simply not vote for either of these candidates.

Obama is in a very weakened position right now and it really would not take much to defeat him should the economy stay roughly where it is today next year. It's pretty hilarious to watch how utterly insane the GOP has gotten as of late, first Palin and now Bachman and Perry.
Click to expand...

Obama is indeed weak right now, but very few will vote for a candidate that will actually take steps to improve our situation. Everyone wants their free stuff, the more of it, the better. Most people want the economy fixed as well, but they want a guaranty that someone else is going to pay for it. The bottom line is that he who gives away the most, gets the most votes.
I think we're going to end up like Greece, with people rioting in the streets because they don't want to have to work for a living, and they don't want to pay the bills of the prior generation. My main economic concern is public pensions. Those are the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that everyone is ignoring, no candidate is going to address that problem until every last nickle is spent.
 
Greenman said:
Obama is indeed weak right now, but very few will vote for a candidate that will actually take steps to improve our situation. Everyone wants their free stuff, the more of it, the better. Most people want the economy fixed as well, but they want a guaranty that someone else is going to pay for it. The bottom line is that he who gives away the most, gets the most votes.
I think we're going to end up like Greece, with people rioting in the streets because they don't want to have to work for a living, and they don't want to pay the bills of the prior generation. My main economic concern is public pensions. Those are the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that everyone is ignoring, no candidate is going to address that problem until every last nickle is spent.
Click to expand...

Public pensions? Really? Talk about a drop in the ocean.
 
IGBT said:
your obama proves the lowest common denominator can get elected. we can go no where but up from here.
Click to expand...

That might be how you feel about Obama now, but don't forget that in 2008, he was elected as anything but "the lowest common denominator". People had Bush fatigue, and Obama ran an incredibly upbeat and hopeful campaign. The fact that President Obama hasn't lived up to the liberal expectations set by candidate Obama and that Obama has turned into a cross between Lex Luthor and Mao for conservatives doesn't change how successful his 2008 campaign was.

The Republicans aren't doing at all the same thing this time around. The public is once again disaffected by the current direction things are going, but the Republicans don't seem to have a conservative Barack Obama. Instead, they've found their own Howard Deans and John Kerrys. "Vote for these folks, I guess, if you want" isn't exactly an inspiring campaign strategy.
 
Rainsford said:
That might be how you feel about Obama now, but don't forget that in 2008, he was elected as anything but "the lowest common denominator". People had Bush fatigue, and Obama ran an incredibly upbeat and hopeful campaign.
-snip-
Click to expand...

Yep, Obama was a fantastic campaigner.

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't heard an Obama speech for quite some time that I thought was as impressive as those he gave during the campaign. I've been wondering if Axlerod should be given more credit.

Kind of curious what Obama's campaign in 2012 will look like. "Hope and Change" cannot be used again.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Yep, Obama was a fantastic campaigner.

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't heard an Obama speech for quite some time that I thought was as impressive as those he gave during the campaign. I've been wondering if Axlerod should be given more credit.

Kind of curious what Obama's campaign in 2012 will look like. "Hope and Change" cannot be used again.

Fern
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really know what he's going to have as the theme for his campaign. I suppose it's easier to run an idealistic campaign when ideas are all there are. Running on a political record requires a much more pragmatic approach, I suspect.

On the other hand, I wonder if maybe Obama could still go down that route. Republicans have been pretty openly mocking "hope and change" from the get go, and in general I'm not sure they're in any position to run a positive campaign for President. Obama's "hope and change" idealism might have to be tempered by reality, but given the direction the country is going, ANY shred of positive idealism might be better than nothing. "Yes we still can" might just be an interesting strategy.
 
Rainsford said:
Yeah, I don't really know what he's going to have as the theme for his campaign. I suppose it's easier to run an idealistic campaign when ideas are all there are. Running on a political record requires a much more pragmatic approach, I suspect.

On the other hand, I wonder if maybe Obama could still go down that route. Republicans have been pretty openly mocking "hope and change" from the get go, and in general I'm not sure they're in any position to run a positive campaign for President. Obama's "hope and change" idealism might have to be tempered by reality, but given the direction the country is going, ANY shred of positive idealism might be better than nothing. "Yes we still can" might just be an interesting strategy.
Click to expand...

I think he needs to point out the Repugs blatant obstructionism especially for people who don't follow politics.
 
Whoozyerdaddy said:
Can we please find a socially moderate budget hawk? Is that really so hard?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could find such a person, but they're not going to win...I just don't think the support base is there. Most socially "moderate" (current political terminology would probably call them liberal) voters tend to be more on the "bleeding heart" side of things, which often leads to wanting government to help out with everything. On the other hand, "budget hawks" seem to often come from angry white guys in the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas, seeing the budget issues not as a practical matter, but yet another demonstration of how they (as "real Americans") are beset by the evil forces of liberal, Muslim, atheist, illegal immigrant, flag burning communists. Not exactly the most socially forward thinking group of people.

The fact is that it really seems like Democrats and Republicans serve their respective demographics a bit too well for the type of politician you mention to sweep into power despite about half their views pissing off people on either side.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely people that straddle to fence. Being relatively young (late twenties/early thirties demographic), but more or less in the upper middle class, I know several people who are economically fairly conservative, but think Republicans often behave like a bunch of religious bigots. Or who support Democratic social issues, but think Dems want government to do way too much. But I just don't think there are enough of those kind of people to make a candidacy like that actually work.
 
Rainsford said:
-snip-
Republicans have been pretty openly mocking "hope and change" from the get go, and in general I'm not sure they're in any position to run a positive campaign for President.
Click to expand...

Depending on who the candidate is and their advisor's strategy there may well be little "positive" to their campaign. I've heard many strategy types say they'd recommend running a campaign 'against' Obama instead of one "for" something.

Sort of how just 'not being Bush' was pretty powerful in '08.

Fern
 
Ausm said:
I think he needs to point out the Repugs blatant obstructionism especially for people who don't follow politics.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. He might have a point if he took that approach, but the Republicans are almost certainly guaranteed to run a disgustingly nasty campaign against Obama, whichever one of them wins. Playing the blame game right back could just make it look like a choice between two assholes. Trying to stay positive might make Obama look better by comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top