Is the Republican party really this dumb?

[manly]

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.

That worked out well for America, didn't it? John Edwards turned out to be a douche but he arguably had the best basic message from 2004/2008, America needs to put the emphasis on the middle class after decades of real wage stagnation.

As for 2012, the opponent matters to a degree. If GDP growth is mired at 1% and thus unemployment hardly decreases, the President will be in huge trouble no matter how the story is told. The GOP knows this so they'll block any fiscal stimulus except tax cuts for job creators™.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Just so we're all clear, you are predicting a "disgustingly nasty campaign" by the side currently being labeled as terrorists. Might want to wipe off some of that unintentional irony there, you got slimed pretty hard.

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

Really?

Gallup might disagree with you...
Obama 46%
Romney 48%

Obama 47%
Perry 47%

Obama 47%
Paul 45%

Obama 48%
Bachmann 44%


So he loses to Romney, ties Perry and barely beats Ron Paul!!!

I'd say they have more than a snowball chance...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/O...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics

 

[Bateluer]

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

No, but CNN wants to make you think that thats what the GOP and Tea Party are. They'll keep the fringe in the public eye. It'll keep a lot of GOP/Tea Party/Independents home on election day because the real candidates won't get the screen time or the headlines. Sad really, we'll have to contend with another 4yrs of Obama politics. So long as a GOP controlled Congress can keep him bottled up, it won't be so bad, I guess.

 

[soundforbjt]

No, but CNN wants to make you think that thats what the GOP and Tea Party are. They'll keep the fringe in the public eye. It'll keep a lot of GOP/Tea Party/Independents home on election day because the real candidates won't get the screen time or the headlines. Sad really, we'll have to contend with another 4yrs of Obama politics. So long as a GOP controlled Congress can keep him bottled up, it won't be so bad, I guess.

And, as usual, the American people will be the ones suffering.

 

[dali71]

Obama is going to lose. The people that voted for him to feel good about themselves for being so "enlightened" have seen what happens when you elect someone so woefully inexperienced. They may say one thing in public, but they'll change their tune once they're in the voting booth.

 

[sportage]

No Obama is NOT going to lose.
People will come around. Obama has not even began to campaign. Every time Obama speaks and makes his point, and he does that very well, his numbers go up.
Romney and Huntsman are about the only two that can realistic come close to touching Obama. But they won't. Not in the end.
Any other thinking on this is simply pie in the sky delusional.

Romney has so much baggage. Tons of baggage.
Huntsman would never win over the democrats and more so the tea baggers.
And American's will never elect one of the brain dead religious fundies put up by the republican party. Not to the highest office in the land. I just isn't gonna happen.

But changing issues a bit...
Wait until everyone that makes under $100,000 a year, wait until your payroll taxes go up by 6% coming 2012, And that $400 off the top tax credit Obama gave you during his stimulus program, wait until that expires also in 2012.

And wait until you hear who it is that wants to extend those tax breaks for American's.
And wait until you hear who it is that DOES NOT want to extend.
Need any clues????

 

[dali71]

No Obama is NOT going to lose.
People will come around. Obama has not even began to campaign. Every time Obama speaks and makes his point, and he does that very well, his numbers go up.
Romney and Huntsman are about the only two that can realistic come close to touching Obama. But they won't. Not in the end.
Any other thinking on this is simply pie in the sky delusional.

Romney has so much baggage. Tons of baggage.
Huntsman would never win over the democrats and more so the tea baggers.
And American's will never elect one of the brain dead religious fundies put up by the republican party. Not to the highest office in the land. I just isn't gonna happen.

But changing issues a bit...
Wait until everyone that makes under $100,000 a year, wait until your payroll taxes go up by 6% coming 2012, And that $400 off the top tax credit Obama gave you during his stimulus program, wait until that expires also in 2012.

And wait until you hear who it is that wants to extend those tax breaks for American's.
And wait until you hear who it is that DOES NOT want to extend.
Need any clues????

You're in for a rude awakening. Your false messiah is going down. Deal with it.

 

[jpeyton]

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

The GOP knows they have no chance in 2012. They're simply picking the best sacrificial lamb.

 

[dali71]

The GOP knows they have no chance in 2012. They're simply picking the best sacrificial lamb.

Just like the Democrats had no chance in 1992...

 

[jpeyton]

Just like the Democrats had no chance in 1992...

No need to get emotional about it. Just look at the fundraising numbers.

You got to pay big to win a presidential election.

Obama spent $167 million more than McCain in 2008.

Do you really think Perry (or whoever wins the nomination) will raise more money than the sitting president?

 

[dali71]

No need to get emotional about it. Just look at the fundraising numbers.

You got to pay big to win a presidential election.

Obama spent $167 million more than McCain in 2008.

Do you really think Perry (or whoever wins the nomination) will raise more money than the sitting president?

I can't wait to hear all of the excuses that you and your lefty buddies will come up with when Obama gets booted out of office.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I can't wait to hear all of the excuses that you and your lefty buddies will come up with when Obama gets booted out of office.

I can't wait to hear your bitching when he doesn't.

Face it. Obama isn't great. In general the Republican choices this time around are just as bad or worse.
It's yet another case of the devil you know over the devil you don't. It is what won Bush a second term and will likely win Obama a second as well.

 

[Lemon law]

The Republican strategy might very well backfire big time soon. Obama at least has a agenda, all the GOP has is the warmed over failed strategy of GWB, but without some GOP bipartisanship, what we get is grid lock as nothing gets done.

But here the T baggers and the rest of the republirats campaigned on the platform of elect us and things will get better. And when things get worse instead,again, how much longer the republirats can campaign on we will make things better may come to a sudden screeching halt as the economy turns to shit and the blame increasingly falls on the GOP.

 

[dali71]

It is what won Bush a second term and will likely win Obama a second as well.

Unemployment was at 5.4% when Bush was reelected.

 

[Siddhartha]

Historically, people vote the economy.

Even if the GOP selects someone like Ms Bachmann, Ms Palin, or Mr Perry, none of who I think can find a way to the US political center, the Republicans can still win in 2012.

It is the economy stupid!

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/08/22/republican_tax_increase/index.html

 

[Craig234]

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/08/22/republican_tax_increase/index.html

It's worth quoting:

GOP: No tax hikes -- except for the poor
The new Republican line: Workers should pay more, while the rich pay less
By Andrew Leonard

GOP: Not all tax hikes are evil
Salon

How does the Republican Party continue to win elections? The Associated Press is reporting that GOP legislators are opposing the extension of a payroll tax cut that will expire on Jan. 1. The clear, unavoidable message: Americans workers should pay more taxes, while the rich should pay less.

That's not a joke, and it's not an Onion headline. The very same Republicans who have fought tooth-and-nail to keep George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy from expiring are now in favor of doing away with a tax cut that will primarily hit wage-earners -- people who actually have to work for a living, people who are struggling to pay their mortgages and wincing every time they fill up their gas tank.

There's not even any attempt to hide the hypocrisy.

"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," says Rep. Jeb Hensarling, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again." The Texas lawmaker is on the House GOP leadership team.

The theoretical basis for this argument, such as it is, is based on the assumption that keeping taxes low on the "job-creators" -- the rich, and corporations -- will spur investment and hiring. The empirical evidence for this theory has always been slim -- some of the strongest economic growth rates of the last century in the United States occurred when taxes on the wealthy were at their highest rates -- but it's particularly absurd right now, after two years in which corporate profits have been high, taxes have been low, and employment growth has been paltry.

On the other hand, there's little doubt that raising taxes on American workers during a slow economy will further depress consumer demand -- which is exactly the wrong way to spur economic growth. It's so wrong, in fact, that the suspicion that such tactics are being excuted on purpose is spreading beyond the usual liberal suspects.

From Marginal Revolution's Alex Tabarrok:

Our political system is so dysfunctional, however, that Republicans may fail to support effective tax cuts precisely because a Democratic President regards them as important for economic growth.

 

[werepossum]

Historically, people vote the economy.

Even if the GOP selects someone like Ms Bachmann, Ms Palin, or Mr Perry, none of who I think can find a way to the US political center, the Republicans can still win in 2012.

It is the economy stupid!

That's the conventional wisdom. However the power of being a sitting President, combined with by far the largest war chest ever and a press that will unite behind him, is going to be hard to defeat. Obama's biggest problem is that he now has a record, and it ain't pretty. The Republicans CAN win, yes. But if I had to make a bet today, I'd bet Obama is going to pull it out. A huge part of the electoral college is guaranteed to go for the Democrat, which will allow him to blanket the competitive states with an avalanche of adverts and walking-around money the likes of which have never been seen.

If Obama had inherited a good economy, then granted, he'd be toast. But he inherited an economy tending sharply negative, and everyone knows it. So even though virtually everything has gotten noticeably worse under his leadership, he's got a considerable amount of political cover under which to hide. He just has to convince people that under him it won't get any worse, while under his opponent it won't get any better.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
They may say one thing in public, but they'll change their tune once they're in the voting booth.

I've been wondering about this for quite some time now.

Are we seeing something new here? Some new polling phenomenon?

People publicly criticizing Obama are frequently labelled 'racists' etc. When reached on the phone by pollsters are people being honest, or shying away for some (perhaps unconscious) fear of being labelled racist?

Will those who track polls and crunch numbers find some unusual results? If so, will this be attributed to Obama's being Black and Americans' continuing discomfort with race issues?

IDK, just wondering aloud.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

No, Romney is the best they can field.

this.


and the base will not vote for him.

 

[zinfamous]

That's the conventional wisdom. However the power of being a sitting President, combined with by far the largest war chest ever and a press that will unite behind him, is going to be hard to defeat. Obama's biggest problem is that he now has a record, and it ain't pretty. The Republicans CAN win, yes. But if I had to make a bet today, I'd bet Obama is going to pull it out. A huge part of the electoral college is guaranteed to go for the Democrat, which will allow him to blanket the competitive states with an avalanche of adverts and walking-around money the likes of which have never been seen.

If Obama had inherited a good economy, then granted, he'd be toast. But he inherited an economy tending sharply negative, and everyone knows it. So even though virtually everything has gotten noticeably worse under his leadership, he's got a considerable amount of political cover under which to hide. He just has to convince people that under him it won't get any worse, while under his opponent it won't get any better.

well, you forgot that he eliminated racism and terrorism, all in ~3 years.

:sneaky:

 

[jpeyton]

Are we seeing something new here? Some new polling phenomenon?

Racism doesn't seem to enter into people's minds as much now that we're crossed the threshold of electing a black president.

 

[Siddhartha]

That's the conventional wisdom. However the power of being a sitting President, combined with by far the largest war chest ever and a press that will unite behind him, is going to be hard to defeat. Obama's biggest problem is that he now has a record, and it ain't pretty. The Republicans CAN win, yes. But if I had to make a bet today, I'd bet Obama is going to pull it out. A huge part of the electoral college is guaranteed to go for the Democrat, which will allow him to blanket the competitive states with an avalanche of adverts and walking-around money the likes of which have never been seen.

If Obama had inherited a good economy, then granted, he'd be toast. But he inherited an economy tending sharply negative, and everyone knows it. So even though virtually everything has gotten noticeably worse under his leadership, he's got a considerable amount of political cover under which to hide. He just has to convince people that under him it won't get any worse, while under his opponent it won't get any better.

I pretty much agreed with you until about a week ago when I saw a chart that showed Mr Obama poll numbers tracking the same trend as the economy.

 

[Fern]

Racism doesn't seem to enter into people's minds as much now that we're crossed the threshold of electing a black president.

Thanks.

Now that you mention it, I've heard of the Bradly effect. Was just so long ago I've forgotten about.

We'll see how it works for Obama.

Fern