I do wish the Dems had a primary contest this election cycle. Sure, I’m no fan of Obama and would have liked a challenger to step up. But another reason is I’m tired of – and a bit bored already – with the GOP race. It would be fun to muse on some breathless news breaking on the Democratic side. There is none. The GOP is the show for now.
So to find some news in this race I fall back on 2011′s safest assumption: Romney will be the GOP nominee – so the game becomes who will be his running mate? There a delicious piece of propaganda from the Right pushing Condi Rice here. The article openly announces its intention: To make Rice a contender for the VEEP slot. Romney/Rice has an alliterative appeal. It’s not I Like Ike but it does have a dandy bounce to it. Past that though, what’s the appeal?
A woman on the ticket is not a must in 2012 but it’s close to being one. And I’ll go ahead and be just crass enough to say it : That Professor Rice is also black doesn’t hurt. It won’t matter to the black Democratic base but it blunts far-flung racism charges that would not have played much in 2012 anyway – but they would have been made nonetheless. Ironically, the race card is all about white votes now. In a close race if racism can even be tangentially attached to Romney just enough white suburban votes might swing back to Obama. (The race card will be attached at the hip to Mormonism, if it’s played at all.)
But on the ground what’s far more important than race is the gender gap. I truly believe women everywhere on the political spectrum crossed a threshold after 2008. Actual representation is now on the agenda. Many women want to see women in power. Men who are “good on womens’ issues” is no longer enough. On some level McCain anticipated this and reached for Palin in 2008. But it was not to be. 2008 was just not the year for a Republican to win no matter who he picked.
And let’s be crystal clear: Rice is no Palin. Rice is cool under fire, ridiculously accomplished – on paper she’s over qualified for the job of vice president and probably even President if the last 2 are the new standard – and she adds a gravitas on foreign policy that only Hillary Clinton could counter.
Did I mention her grandparents were sharecroppers? That’s a narrative that will come in mighty handy when the Bain Capital ads start flying. Obama’s hook into the national guilt about the black experience is essentially skin deep. Rice’s would be, well, based on experience. Black girl from the South becomes Secretary of State, a Stanford professor and a concert pianist? There’s not enough white liberal guilt on earth to dismiss that story. I can already hear VP candidate Rice on NPR….making inroads, soothing the nerves of creative class types who need a reason, any reason, to walk out on Obama. Even if she doesn’t change minds there will not vulgar photos of Rice in a bikini holding an assault rifle on MSNBC…there will be no effigies on Rice hung in West Hollywood next Halloween. There will be no easy, glib objectification of Rice. It will happen, of course, but it will be shunned by the vast majority, and not become fodder for late night talk show hosts.
Would Rice be able to withstand the media assault? Does she even want to? I do not know. I do know it would come. Why isn’t she married? That will be the question floated in the outskirts to get the ball rolling. Then “A Mormon and a black woman!?!” would bubble up. Obnoxious? Yes. Bigoted? Yes. But it’s the kind of unspoken emotional pause button that still matters in American life, and no one in the MSM will run interference on it as they did for Obama.
If Rice is willing to suffer through it, and does it with skill and grace…well, Obama’s in trouble. The answer is simple enough: Obama/Clinton 2012. Forget any denials about replacing Biden. Getting Hillary Clinton on the ticket is the nuclear option for Obama – if she’s game. If Obama’s numbers are essentially unchanged or worse by Summer, and Romney continues his steady as he goes campaign then Team Obama will have to reach. Even I, who finds so much about Barack Obama repellant on so many levels, would be hard pressed to NOT vote for Mrs. Clinton for Vice President. I’d want to be a part of the story when a woman is finally a heartbeat away.
There are millions of women now who have had it with the lack of women at or near the top. Sure many say “I’ll never vote for Obama after 2008″. Many say it here. But if the choice is Obama/Clinton versus Romney/Christie….? Let’s be honest. Obama wins the gender gap in a rout. Conversely, I wouldn’t vote for Romney/Rice. But I would understand any woman who did for even the shallowest of reasons. It’s becoming odd and glaring that we haven’t had a female chief executive or even a 2nd in command when so many other nations have.
Anyone who still thinks Obama did not get millions of white votes just because of his conjured narrative and his skin color is being belligerently delusional. From Pasadena to the Hamptons Obama scored big for no other reason than he was “articulate” and black – and white voters wanted to prove a point – about themselves mostly. Anyone who asked one follow-up question about their vote knows there was no deep thought involved. There was a feeling. It felt good to vote for Obama. Is feeling a reason to re-install a member of the George W Bush administration? No. Not at all. But unlike Obama, Rice is actually qualified for the job she’d be seeking. If she got votes just because of her gender at least it wouldn’t be in spite of a lack of experience. Like her politics of not, she is more than capable.
Both Obama and Romney ought to mind this new normal if either expects to win. A woman chosen just because she’s a woman is not enough, of course. And there is no reason 2 women shouldn’t contest the Presidency. But for now VEEP is where we are. Clinton and Rice are both game changers. Either woman on a national ticket changes the dynamic..forever. Ferraro is deservedly etched in history but she was a Hail Mary pass from Mondale, who was never, ever going to win. Another woman on a national ticket barely rated a mention until 2008. Rice or Clinton would represent an acknowledgement that women in power are here to stay.
Keeping an eye on Rice this year will be intriguing. Does she want it? Is Romney willing? Will the prospect of someone like Rice scare Team Obama, forcing Biden out before Rice is even a sure bet? The Democratic Convention is first, a fact that helps Romney in this sweepstakes. Does Rice have skeletons? Could she stomach 3 months of degrading hell?
These questions are more fun right now than the tiresome GOP demolition derby.
Let me add too that I have a weird affection for Rice that is entirely foolish and emotional…a fictitious C. Rice was involved in a fictitious love affair with the fictitious Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock and the real Rice, in a charming turn, did a cameo on the show, playing the part of his ex lover, when Jack needed a favor getting his wife out of North Korea. Rice is no actress but she was a great sport and played the piano in the scene too.
Condoleezza Rice was Presidential National Security Advisor before and on 9/11/2001,
Where is http://www.condiriceisangry.com now that we need it?!
Even if she doesn’t change minds there will not vulgar photos of Rice in a bikini holding an assault rifle on MSNBC
Don’t be so sure, I’ve already seen pics of her wearing leather and holding a whip.
If you evaluate Condi Rice based on her job performance and not as part of the Bush Administration she does pretty well. If I had to pick a Republican for POTUS or VPOTUS, she would be on my short list.
Of course everyone looks better compared to Obama.
Send me those photos, dammit!
Apparently the idea was thought of before and was dropped.
http://www.pageoneq.com/news/2008/Republican_source_Lesbian_rumors_ruined_Condoleezza_Rices__0924.html
Does anyone here know anything about this?:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/12/hillary-for-real.html
We give these people the chance to serve the public the first time around. When they don’t I have difficulty understanding why they would be invited back to plunge the shaft even deeper.
Rice may be an accomplished academic but she failed the nation with her unbending loyalty to Jr. Bush and the chaos that followed.
Ten times smarter than he, she covered, spun, twisted, and misled the public out of a sense of loyalty to one man.
I see no reason to “reward” that malfeasance in suggesting a second turn at bat.
Thank you, Pat Johnson. I thoroughly agree. She was part of the Dubya problem that got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other horrific things that happened to our country. I would never vote for anyone who had been part of that legacy.
And I wouldn’t vote for Obama if Jesus were his VP choice, or Buddha, etc.
I think Tamerlane was right. I’m voting third party like Jill Stein of the Greens.
You know, Pat, you’re always pissing against the headwind here. Do you realize that nobody here would hold their noses to vote for Obama if their houses were on fire? I mean seriously….
Firstly, Hillary has spent many years with a sometimes careless man, I would hope it is beneath her dignity to take on another clean up job.
Voters should not lose sight of the fact that Obama brings with him all his Chicago cronies, egghead advisors, and corrupt associates, talk about baggage ! It boggles the mind to think of how he would reward all his ‘friends’ in a second term. Plus, I think his ‘mob’ would marginalize Hillary, and she would spend a lot of time at foreign funerals.. She is better than that.
Ms. Rice is, indeed, a super accomplished woman who should help any ticket. But to bring her on in order to negate the race card, and not for her talents, would be wrong.
I also think that the Race bus has reached the end of the line in a lot of voter’s minds.. Eric Holder was the last straw.
When did we all become Republicans here? First you laud Christopher Hitchens, who was a major misogynist (see Echidne today) and now Condi Rice, who has never been anything but a major conservative. Who cares whether she is female or black or can play the piano? She is a conservative and she supports things I for one do not believe in (not as a stand-by-your-man Bushite but because she believes them herself). I don’t understand where these suggestions come from, unless John has now adopted an “anything to generate controversy” approach to his blog. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that I don’t belong here anymore.
I doubt you could consider me a GOP supporter under any circumstances. As much as I dislike and distrust Obama, my sentiments against the GOP have been expressed many times.
Can’t tolerate them.
Sally, I think there’s been an evolution since 2008 amongst many here toward the idea that the labels of ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ no longer mean what they once did. I think it’s a good thing to avoid a staunch ‘but they’re a Republican’ stance.
“I think it’s a good thing to avoid a staunch ‘but they’re a Republican’ stance.”
I think it’s a bad thing to ignore what the GOP/TP is saying and doing now and what they’ve historically done on issues of abortion, social security, medicare, medicaid and gay rights. If it’s your approach to forget who and what the GOP/TP is and has been, then so be it, but not everyone is willing to go that far.
Mouse, “I will not vote for X because they are a Republican” is downright ignorant.
:Mouse, “I will not vote for X because they are a Republican” is downright ignorant”
Jay, The ‘downright ignorant” insult was totally unnecessary because Pat didn’t say she “would not vote for X”, she said that she couldn’t “tolerate” the GOP. I agree with her because the vast majority of GOP’ers serving in the Congress and those who are candidates are hard right wingers and historically the GOP has not supported the liberal/progessive issues that I believe in and have fought for. I could vote for a GOP candidate if he/she supported the issues that matter to me, BUT THEY DON’T. Hey, I once cast a protest vote for John McCain in a redstate where I knew he was destined to win and I had to hold my nose to do it, even knowing that my vote didn’t matter.
And for the record, I don’t find the positions of Gary Johnson or Jon Huntsman totally intolerable, but the current crop of GOP is basically pathetic. And Next time you have a few minutes check out the RNC national party platform or even the CA State GOP platform or the GOP platform of any State. Spend a few hours listening to the GOP/Tea Party Congress-critters pontificating on protecting marriage from the gay or privatizing SS or cutting funds to Medicaid or getting rid of Planned Parenthood or reducing funds to Pell Grants, or cutting off Unemployment Insurance or defunding School Lunch Programs and WIC. The I can’t “tolerate” the GOP/TP sentiment works well for me.
Mouse:
1) My original comment was to Sally, not Pat. I think Pat and I must have been responding at exactly the same time.
2) Please re-read your comment to me. The subtext is just as insulting as what I said to you.
Sally, I don’t think my views have changed much at all over the last few years. I have evolved on one score to be sure: I read more conservative writers now. They’ve been better at Obama analysis. I don’t agree with their POV but that’s not my major interest. I’m interested in smart takes on what’s going on. “Liberal” writers have been weak on Obama. And bad reads. I’ll also add this: though I did not overtly intend to lose “liberalrapture.com” I felt a bit of relief. I felt obligated to the word “liberal” and do not like how it’s generally used nowadays. I remain to the Left on most every social issue. Center Left on most pocket book issues. Center Right on Israel which I rarely write about. On foreign policy in general I’ve no idea where I land on the spectrum. I agree with H. Clinton I think – when she’s not stuffed by her weenie boss. Smart, muscular engagement….Scoop Jackson is probably her true antecedent. At any rate the blessing of Obama – there are a few- is that he’s forced me to examine my “team”. Sadly, I’ve found it wanting many times over. And, in essence, I’ve left it. I also admit freely that I baring a last minute Clinton run, I hope Romney wins but will not vote for him. Why? Democrats might wake up in the 4 Romney years. The sooner Obama is gone the better it will be for the Democratic party.
As for Hitchens the man had many flaws. We discussed a number of them in the comments. I slammed him in the post itself over one of his books. But he was an acute, intelligent writer. His passing is noteworthy. That’s what that post was about. I DO laud him for his writing. That he also may have been a sexist pig is of note too. And people noted it. I also read Kunstler every monday and that dude has mommy issues coming and going. But his topics interest me. I can take what I want and leave the rest.
The overriding thrust of my thought and this blog is not women’s rights though I find myself in agreement with many of the bloggers that many here also read. I’ve stated more than a few times that 2008 was an awakening for me in this area. For the most part I write about how I see the “game” of politics unfolding. Rice is certainly worthy of conversation on that score. I do admire Rice while finding the Iraq saga appalling. I won’t vote for her. Or Romney. But she’s worthy of interest. This post is really “about” how 2012 will play out, and my hunch about “glass ceiling” demands. Rice is not my first choice to break a glass ceiling. (Obama was certainly not my first choice for breaking the AA glass ceiling.) My hunch is that there is a deep desire to see a woman as VP and that this desire will be expressed in 2012 in the political process…BHO and MR would be unwise to ignore it.
And do I just post things that I think will get hits? Lord no. I ought to do more of that frankly. I’m upfront about wanting a wider audience. But I love the ones who do come here…and in the end I can’t think of a post I’ve put up that didn’t reflect some honest interest on my part.
“1) My original comment was to Sally, not Pat. I think Pat and I must have been responding at exactly the same time.
2) Please re-read your comment to me. The subtext is just as insulting as what I said to you.”
Jay, Obviously I had no way of knowing that you weren’t calling Pat and I “ignorant” I wasn’t attempting to insult you, I apologize if I did (and you know that’s not easy for me to do). What I was attempting to do was share with you the reasons why I cannot be a supporter of the GOP/TP. The RNC party platform, that I have linked at this blog many times, is insulting to anyone who espouses liberal/progressive social values and literally singles out G/L’s. I also have suggested here on numerous occasions that anyone who wants to know what the Republican Party stands for on the floor of the U.S. House, should spend a few hours watching debate via CSPAN for a truly enligtening experience. Pat’s attitude toward the GOP as a party and her rejection of that Party is a position I totally agree with and support. .
Jay….Going back and re-reading the thread I can see where we both may have lost a bit in translation. I read your first comment, but missed that it was to “Sally”. Sorry about that!
“For the most part I write about how I see the “game” of politics unfolding.”
Exactly John, that’s what I come here for. It’s nonsense to think you have to be simon-pure on certain dogmas. Anyone who’s missed that you’re in it for the love of the game of politics is missing a whole deal.
It would be very entertaining if Rice ran with Romney for sure. She’s accomplished strictly in an academic sense – she was lousy at her job as head of national security. Srsly – people were screaming at her about Al Queda and she ignored it.
I can’t imagine Hillary running with BHO as his Veep for personal reasons although I know she genuinely seems to put country first. So I wonder if she really thinks a second Obama term would be good for the country. Would she try to help him if he’s floundering badly? I think she’d retire rather than be a part of his corrupt administration.
I’ve observed that many of the folks here are trying to keep an open mind. As a life long Dem, I barely recognize either party these days. Labels are irrelevant.
Condoleeza ” Who could have predicted that Osama Bin Laden would fly airplanes into buildings?” Rice??
Well, Richard Clarke and the entire Clinton foreign affairs team could, but who would listen to people who removed the w’s from computer keyboards, amirite?
No, thank you.
“Even I, who finds so much about Barack Obama repellant on so many levels, would be hard pressed to NOT vote for Mrs. Clinton for Vice President. I’d want to be a part of the story when a woman is finally a heartbeat away.”
The Obots wanted to be part of the story, too.
And I can’t think of a greater humiliation for Hillary than being his VP and having to sell his policies and propaganda. Ugh.
Amen, gman
THAT would be a punishment of the worst kind …. yessiree!
The plan, as I understand it, is to take from the Soc Sec fund, to pay for the payroll tax holiday, and Obama did not see a problem with this, nor did most of the Dems..
Anyone here on SS should keep and eye on this..
In a sly aside, the CIC is taking part in a ceremony welcoming the troops back today.. He actually had planned to be in hawaii by now, and would have skipped it.. our hero..
To this point the revenue shortfall has come from the General Fund.
And SS is always front and center in the minds of Neo-Cons. Even as Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme, he took an early retirement payout from his TX State Employee Pension to the tune of $92K a year, that is in addition to his Salary as TX Gov. What a hypocrite.
There are problems with long range funding of SS, but nothing as dire or imminent as the GOP/TP is trying to make it out to be. SS is solvent, sophie and is scheduled to pay out fully for another 24-29 years. From the SS Trustees report from April 2011.
“The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem.”
Perhaps if we removed the tax loop holes used by corporations and began levying a reasonable tax burden on those who take the biggest share of this countries wealth we could resolve the long term issues without all the “be scared senior” hand wringing. As it is today, most seniors will be long gone before SS faces the prospect of not being able to fully pay benefits. .
“Has Hillary Clinton’s “total bend over” to Obama “permanently sealed her fate” for you? Clinton on Obama’s ticket wouldn’t move me one iota.”
First, unless there’s a tragic event that takes Biden or Obama out of the equation in the next election Hillary will not be on the ticket. I don’t even think Hillary would serve again if BHO is re-elected. But, if the circumstance did arise I could cast a vote for Hillary because I don’t believe she’s been a “bend over”. Putting her work as SOS in the same category as Condi’s role in the “Iraq has WMD” LIE narrative that pulsed out of her mouth and the mouths of people I once saw as honorable like Colin Powell, forever changed my view of her.
Yes, Sophie. This “Democratic” president slashed funding to Medicare to keep his crappy nonhealthcare bill alive and to get it passed. And then he cut funding to SS through this even crappier payroll tax cut, just when SS needed to have the cap taken off. So much for Democrats. Bye-bye New Deal and Great Society programs.
Hillary would be foolish to run with that weasel. I would also highly recommend reading Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, or watching the DVD. Very educational and puts many things into perspective. And also shows what we can expect.
Condi is a no-go! Her opponents on the right have already outed her joint home ownership with another woman. No GOP/TP candidate will put her on the ticket, ever, because she might be TEH GAY!
I was always impressed with her intellect, but like someone else said in this thread, her total bend over to GWB and his warmongers and her excuse of them, permanently sealed her fate.
Has Hillary Clinton’s “total bend over” to Obama “permanently sealed her fate” for you? It has for me. Clinton on Obama’s ticket wouldn’t move me one iota.
Condi is a blue-stocking/ice queen…so, images of her bending over have no resonance. Mouse, I don’t think she was tainted by Bush-Cheney. I do think, though, that, she’s not a politician and won’t like running.
I’ve been saying for quite a while that the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the predominant christian religion in the Southern states, will have a hard time voting for Mitt Many of the TP loyalists belong to the SBC and the fact that they don’t consider Mormons as christians is revealed in the comments below. .
“The Rev. Brad Atkins, tabbed in November to lead the group for the coming year, told Patch on Friday that while Gingrich’s infidelities may represent a major obstacle for some Christian voters, it isn’t an issue that necessarily excludes the former speaker from consideration. Rather, it’s an issue that calls for prayerful consideration of Gingrich’s numerous public confessions to his wrongdoings. The issue presented by Romney’s faith may be more deeply rooted to South Carolinians. “In South Carolina, Romney’s Mormonism will be more of a cause of concern than Gingrich’s infidelity,” said Atkins, the pastor at Powdersville First Baptist Church in the Upstate. “Conservatives can process and pray their way through the issue of forgiveness toward a Christian that has had infidelity in their life, but will struggle to understand how anyone could be a Mormon and call themselves ‘Christian.’”
Note: The comments above were from the newly elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Yeah, but some of them believe Obama is the anti-christ, so if its a choice btw the MORMON and the other. I’m guessing they wouldn’t have a problem swallowing their religious superiority to vote for that other christian sect.
“Yeah, but some of them believe Obama is the anti-christ, so if its a choice btw the MORMON and the other”
LOL!!! Yeah, he’s either the anti-christ or a muslim, both are the things of Old Testament Terror and OUT TO GET YA! Like I told John below, If he can win the GOP Nomination, he will win the south, but he has to get past Gingrich to do it.
I don’t think that that Gingrich will have the same appeal in the GE as the Primary. Oh, he’d win the south, but the northern industrial states, the left coast and much of the right coast will not elect Gingrich. I believe Newt would be a much better GE candidate.
Correction”I believe Newt would be a much better GE candidate.”Correction. That should have read Mitt will be a much better GE candidate.
Totally GONZO piece, JWS!! Kudos maxima.
This is a brilliant insight, and has the merit of being 100% true:
“But on the ground what’s far more important than race is the gender gap. I truly believe women everywhere on the political spectrum crossed a threshold after 2008. Actual representation is now on the agenda. Many women want to see women in power. Men who are “good on womens’ issues” is no longer enough.”
I would vote for Romney-Rice in a heartbeat.
And, no, I couldn’t vote for Obama, even if he had my dearest-political-love, Hillary, on his ticket. Hillary needs to be on TOP of that ticket, or not at all. The compromise is unacceptable. (Thankfully, she won’t put me to the test.)
NES….You’re right, Hill will not put you to the test and I don’t blame her. I don’t know why anyone would want to be POTUS.
As for Condi, when it comes to the propaganda she pushed and the excuses she made for the Bush Admin in the lead up to the Iraq War, it was a bend-over imho! But, I understand why you’re having a problem with the visual.
What makes Condi’s Iraq War BS even more intolerable is that she’s still at it, saying last month that she didn’t consider the Iraq War a “pre-emptive war” but that it was “anticipatory self-defense”. Truly, I don’t know how these people sleep at night.
Yeah! Mouse, I agree. That Iraq War preemption b.s. was deeeeep doo-doo. Eff, I recall voting for that dweeb Kerry as a protest vote against the Bush team. But, heck, sue me….but I’m a s*cker for a woman in the highest echelons of power.
Hear, hear, Mouse. I agree.
AnonOmouse, Thanks for the Southern Baptist stuff. I’m still of the belief that when the choice comes down to a mormon business man or more Obama these people will go with the mormon. That said, I’ll say again: this is based entirely on my own outsider’s judgement. I think it’s a drama that we’ll all be watching unfold next year. I’m keen to discuss it. We shall see. How they vote in Iowa will be interesting. I bet Romney gets more of these people than anyone expects. That said, I truly do not understand how they think…
“I’m still of the belief that when the choice comes down to a mormon business man or more Obama these people will go with the mormon.”
Oh, I agree with that John, but the problem is getting Mitt to the nomination. If he gets there he will win the south in a head-to-head with Obama, no problem because many of these folks believe Obama is a Muslim, so being a Mormon would be a plus.
The problem for Mitt is that SC is the 3rd primary on Jan 21 followed by Florida on Jan 31. Newt leads in both. It’s close in SC, but in FL Newt has a significant lead. Romney’s only hope in the South is if Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and Paul are out by Super Tuesday 3/6/12 when GA and TN primaries are held, If they are out or at least Santorum, Perry and Bachmann are out, then Romney has a chance of pulling some votes from them to himself, but he will not win GA. The Mississippi & AL primary are a week later 3/13/12. Romney and Gingrich are tied in MS, but Newt is beating Romney handily in AL.
Arkansas and KY primaries are May 22, and are to far out to gauge, but its pretty safe to say that if one of them(Romney or Gingrich) has a big delegate lead that both KY and AR will likely vote for the leader. It’s going to be fun to watch.
Signed on what Mouse said. The on-the-ground observations of a Southerner are invaluable.
The Southern Baptists are looking at being not so Southern. The history of the denomination is interesting.
Would they go for the guy with the magic underwear? Dunno.
When I saw Fredster commenting in the thread I realized that I hadn’t mentioned the LA primary which is March 24. Gingrich leads by 8 in Louisiana, but again if the earlier primaries knock out enough of the religio-nuts, Romney could stage a major comeback there. NC, which is a much latter primary scheduled for 5/8/2012 currently has Newt polling nearly 40 pts over his nearest competitor, Romney. The only way Romney overcomes that lead is if Newt is caught selling weapons to Kim Jong Un.
Anonomouse is saying below that ky and ar will vote for the one in the lead. I live and vote in arkansas.
The problem with this theory is its and open primary here so dems can vote on the republican ballot if they choose. A person does not have to say who they are affiliated with or vote for that affiliation.
So i can see dems (or indies for that matter)voting in our primary since there is no democratic primary, and picking the candidate they want to see run against obama. I can see them voting either so obama can easily win or thinking obama already lost, they would pick the republican they want for a winner.
Remember, we aren’t typical southern state. We had 2 dem senators and we have a dem governor that was reelected. And we’re home to clinton 1.0. (arkansans still pissed at newt for ruining clinton with a private matter).
So basically what i am saying is obama only defeated himself in states like ours because there are bored democrats who want to be active in the voting process and will come to our primary.
So basically it won’t matter who’s ahead, because bored democrats will vote in our primary even if their only choice is a republican. And they may not choose who’s ahead.
Like if bachman was ahead, these bored dems and indies, if they believe ob is a goner, won’t vote for her. They’d vote for the most middle republican they could and the one that doesn’t have a social agenda plan at all compared to a supposed dem president who also doesn’t have a social plan, though he should be at least fighting for gay rights or marriage equality but he isn’t. Might as well have a repub up there that doesn’t have a plan to destroy equal rights than to have a dem up there who won’t fight for them but just uses them for their votes.
All i am saying is since ob is unnopposed on the dem side, in open primary states dems and indies will make their voices heard on who they think the repub nominee should be. So they can swing the states primary vote final tally to a more middle candidate and spoil the repubs wanting a more conservative leader even if that conservative person has been ahead in the votes. The whole incumbant thing not being primaried is dumb because in open states, they push their votes to the other party’s primary. Face it, it is no fun voting for someone on a ticket that is unopposed, especially if you don’t even like that candidate.
“Anonomouse is saying below that ky and ar will vote for the one in the lead. I live and vote in arkansas. The problem with this theory is its and open primary here so dems can vote on the republican ballot if they choose. A person does not have to say who they are affiliated with or vote for that affiliation.”
Knau…..I also live in a southern state that has an open primary, the difference is that the state I live in votes early on in the primary season and Dems could conceivably shape the results (although I doubt it), AR & KY vote much later in the process and there will likely be a lot fewer viable choices by May.If you take today as the benchmark it could be down to Mitt & Newt by May. I don’t think Paul can survive that long and I don’t see Bachmann or Santorum getting out of the cellar. It is possible that the more moderate element of the GOP base will decide that Huntsman has something to offer, but he too is Mormon and mormons are seen as a sect by many southern christians.
If it’s down to Newt & Mitt when AR primary is up in May 2012 who do you think will win?
FYI…..According to everything I’m reading and hearing Santorum has a good enough organization to actually sneak across the finish line in Iowa. The problem for Santorum comes after IOWA. Can he survive long enough to get to the southern states that come much later in the process? . The closest parallel to Santorum from 2008 was Huckabee. He won Iowa and also won (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia (caucus), Tennessee, Kansas, Louisiana).
Who knows how this will pan out??? It’s fun to speculate, especially when you have no skin in the game. I won’t vote for any of them. Unless there’s an interesting 3rd party candidate, I’ll sit out the next one.
Camo Man in Iowa Grocery store decided today was the day to call Newt Gingrich what he is a “f@king asshole” I think that a very accurate and candid description
Speaking truth to power, fer shuure!
Rice-Romney sounds like sumthin’ one can cook up in a microwave, doesn’t it?
I think we should put them in for 60 seconds and see what happens.
Here’s a guy maybe some of you can get behind. Gary Johnson is pulling out of GOP race to run as Libertarian. I’m anxious to see what is political view are once he is unshackled from the Religious right.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/20/4136489/gary-johnson-to-drop-gop-bid-for.html
And for what it’s worth, this run will have more of an impact on the GOP Nominee than Obama, especially if Ron Paul doesn’t make a run as a Libertarian. Johnson could really shake this thing up.
Mouse, I’ve watched some clips of Johnson interviews. He seems sane and sensible, but I hate that he’s running because it’ll only help O, as you’ve noted.
Looking at the current field of GOP candidates, nothing helps Obama more than the top 5 GOP hopefuls, Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Santorum and Bachmann duking it out, with their stupid positions on the social compacts, choice, L/G’s. The only person in that group that has a snowballs chance in the GE is Romney and the religious right is doing it’s damndest to keep him from winning the nomination. Sling that in with the way the GOP is behaving in Congress and their “throw yourself on your sword to save the rich” attitudes and you have a stew that makes Obama look like a Filet Mignon to the General Public. The GOP/TP is performing Harikari to serve it’s religious and financial benefactors. In the meantime Obama is rising in the polls, through no special effort of his own and they are the reason.
ANonOMouse says:
December 21, 2011 When I saw Fredster commenting in the thread I realized that I hadn’t mentioned the LA primary which is March 24
And our batshit crazy guv took an early stance for Good-hair over in TX and I think was going to do a support thing for him in Iowa. Of course no one pays that much attention to lil bobby these days.
Oh, yeah, Jindal shot his wad WAY TO EARLY!!! Premature Participation.
Ricky Perry, commenting on the death of Kim Jong Il interpreted the IL as II and called him Kim Jong the 2nd. Bless is dumb heart.