If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Poll show close race for 2012 Republican presidential nomination - between three candidates that have no chance of winning the election   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 364
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

5123 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2009 at 6:46 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



364 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-16 07:47:48 PM
FeedTheCollapse: or there's some massive 9/11-level fark-up on Obama's watch.

Yeah, that really did Bush in.
 
2009-07-16 07:49:33 PM
godofusa.com: I don't want the GOP in charge. Forget that 5% unemployment. I want to be like Europe. Come on, 13%!

Yeah, it's not like Bush and his rubber stamping congress had nothing to with our economic situation. Do you even think before you post?
 
2009-07-16 07:49:39 PM
Ed Grubermann: FeedTheCollapse: or there's some massive 9/11-level fark-up on Obama's watch.

Yeah, that really did Bush in.


Yeah, but the Democrats supported the president then, the Republicans would viciously attack Obama.
 
2009-07-16 07:50:14 PM
Ed Grubermann: FeedTheCollapse: or there's some massive 9/11-level fark-up on Obama's watch.

Yeah, that really did Bush in.


Intelligence aside, the attack came out of nowhere in the minds of the general public. Another one under Obama's watch would probably not be greeted with the same kind of response.
 
2009-07-16 07:51:11 PM
spamdog: So what are the real figures on the budget deficit left by Bush as opposed to Obama? I tried googling for some info but all I could find was some Heritage Foundation misinformation and about a thousand righty blogs linking to it.

Republicans are going to harp on about the budget deficit regardless of how much they didn't give a shiat during Bush.


If you want to see the CBO estimates of the debt to be added under the Obama administration go to Page 25 (new window)
 
2009-07-16 07:51:25 PM
RemyDuron: Yeah, agree. This is, once again, Obama's to lose. And the Republicans have, pretty much, bet the farm on him failing. If he does, it pays off, if it doesn't, well, they will have 4 more years to wander through the desert.

/If you ask me, betting that the economy will be similar to what it is now four years from now is not a good bet, but it's about the only bet the Republicans could make that would pay out the Presidency


Yeah, I don't think "Well Mitt/Sarah/Mike would have made it recover FASTER!" would be a good line of attack, though I've heard Hannity preparing for that one by saying (often, as of late) "If the economy EVER recovers, it will be in SPITE of Obama, not because of him!"
 
2009-07-16 07:52:56 PM
godofusa.com: Forget that 5% unemployment

Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.

i278.photobucket.com

businessweek (new window)
 
2009-07-16 07:53:47 PM
Great Janitor: I'd believe that they were working to paint Obama as a failure if this was from Fox News, but it's CNN.

You really believe that CNN is all that different from the Foxaganda Network?
 
2009-07-16 07:54:32 PM
Saiga410: spamdog: So what are the real figures on the budget deficit left by Bush as opposed to Obama? I tried googling for some info but all I could find was some Heritage Foundation misinformation and about a thousand righty blogs linking to it.

Republicans are going to harp on about the budget deficit regardless of how much they didn't give a shiat during Bush.

If you want to see the CBO estimates of the debt to be added under the Obama administration go to Page 25 (new window)


But Bush started and didn't finish two wars and the economic crisis we are in.

Much of the new defecit is from lower tax revenue from the failing Bush economy.


To act like Obama got a blank slate in office is crap. He inherited the biggest costs ever as a president.
 
2009-07-16 07:55:12 PM
godofusa.com: I don't want the GOP in charge. Forget that 5% unemployment. I want to be like Europe. Come on, 13%!

What's the matter, no one taking your bait? Here, I hope this helps.
www.trilobite.org
 
2009-07-16 07:56:34 PM
Corvus: To act like Obama got a blank slate in office is crap. He inherited the biggest costs ever as a president.

While Bush inherited a surplus and decided to squander it on favors to his corporate cronies.
 
2009-07-16 07:57:40 PM
Corvus: To act like Obama got a blank slate in office is crap. He inherited the biggest costs ever as a president.

The Republicans are hoping most people will forget that and knowing the American people. It might work.
 
2009-07-16 07:58:00 PM
brainiac-dumdum: Corvus: To act like Obama got a blank slate in office is crap. He inherited the biggest costs ever as a president.

While Bush inherited a surplus and decided to squander it on favors to his corporate cronies.


B, b, but Clinton! (Created that surplus.)
 
2009-07-16 07:58:26 PM
Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Von_Ruff: No, the unemployed won't vote for Obama

Why not? The GOP being in charge is worse than being out of a job. fark them, I'll stay home before I vote for any of them.

And I'm young enough that the Repubs have a good 70 years or so of not getting my vote barring horrible accident or mishap, so they have that going for them, I guess.


That makes sense if you're employed with food on the table, but if you're out of work (or in a much lower paying job) and struggling to make ends meet, your loyalty or past disgust with a party might change. Desperation is a powerful thing.

Of course, a situation like this would be a perfect time for a third-party to rise in prominence and challenge both the Republican's and Democrat's core alignment with their most extreme members (i.e. their base).
 
2009-07-16 07:59:22 PM
Genevieve Marie: dahmers love zombie: People gripe about "single issue voters" all the time, but that's essentially where I'm at as well

Yup. But if that single issue is the restriction of my rights to make my own decisions about my sexual health... well... that's a pretty huge issue to me.


I'd vote for someone who opposed abortions (other than rape, incest and medical reasons) if they also supported:

- Comprehensive sex education
- Free contraceptives to anyone who wanted them, including Plan B
- Doubling the budgets for Head Start, CHIP and education assistance

But that person doesn't exist. And if they do they won't get nominated by the Republicans because of their lunatic fringe.

\I know that they're out there
 
2009-07-16 08:00:15 PM
FeedTheCollapse: Ed Grubermann: FeedTheCollapse: or there's some massive 9/11-level fark-up on Obama's watch.

Yeah, that really did Bush in.

Intelligence aside, the attack came out of nowhere in the minds of the general public. Another one under Obama's watch would probably not be greeted with the same kind of response.


I think it depends on the attack and how it was executed. If it was another set of commercial passenger jets slamming into buildings, then Obama might walk away clean by saying "Bush put these policies into place, they didn't work."

If Obama pushes for changes in the FBI and CIA that cripple how they can effectively work and that's used to the advantage of the attackers, then Obama will be the man to blame. If it's pushed by Congress, then Obama will be to blame as well as all of Congress.

If there is some current security flaw that exists today as well as 10 years ago and it's exploited by a sleeper cell who illegally entered this country in 1999 via the Mexico/California border, then Obama would come out on top.
 
2009-07-16 08:00:37 PM
Corvus: But Bush started and didn't finish two wars and the economic crisis we are in.

Much of the new defecit is from lower tax revenue from the failing Bush economy.


To act like Obama got a blank slate in office is crap. He inherited the biggest costs ever as a president.


Jebus man, he asked for information and I provided it. Get that stick out of your arse
 
2009-07-16 08:00:44 PM
CynicalLA: Yeah, it's not like Bush and his rubber stamping congress had nothing to with our economic situation. Do you even think before you post?

Thinking is for elitist liberals.
 
2009-07-16 08:00:49 PM
Well, I don't see any of them running in 2012.

That said - it is way, way to early to think obama has 2012 locked up. And, if I remember correctly, Republicans weren't exactly happy with McCain as the nominee last year.

//Cue the xkcd about the election being over and starting right back up again
 
2009-07-16 08:03:32 PM
spamdog: So what are the real figures on the budget deficit left by Bush as opposed to Obama? I tried googling for some info but all I could find was some Heritage Foundation misinformation and about a thousand righty blogs linking to it.

Republicans are going to harp on about the budget deficit regardless of how much they didn't give a shiat during Bush.


The budget deficit is the difference between budgeted income and budgeted expences. This is loosely connected to the actual deficit, which is based on actual income and expenses.

The largest single year budget deficit Bush had was $459.5 Billion in 2008. Obama deficit for this year is over $1,000 Billion and still climbing. It is projected to reach $1,086 billion. It is very high for several reasons

1) Deficits always tend to grow during bad economic times.
2) $700 Bank bailout passed by Bush and congress in October. (the 2009 federal fiscal year goes from October 2008 to September 2009)
3) The $787 Billion stimulus package passed at the beginning of this year.
4) Obama is honest. While Bush's budget deficit in 2008 was about 460 billion, the actual shortfall was $1,017 Billion. Bush refused to put many things (like the war in Iraq) on the budget. So there was a huge difference between Bush's budgeted and actual deficit. For Obama the two should be very close.

The national debt is another (but related) story.
 
2009-07-16 08:05:05 PM
Befuddled: Great Janitor: I'd believe that they were working to paint Obama as a failure if this was from Fox News, but it's CNN.

You really believe that CNN is all that different from the Foxaganda Network?


because CNN is know for their undying and unquestionable support for the Right no matter what the hell they're pushing???
 
2009-07-16 08:08:18 PM
Palin-Quayle '12
 
2009-07-16 08:09:00 PM
Cyberluddite: So I don't know who the Reep nominee will be, but I doubt it'll be any of these three. Someone else will emerge. It could be a Pawlenty type (it won't be Jindal, for reasons everyone understands), or it could be that someone nobody currently thinks of as a potential candidate--someone like Kay Bailey Huchison, of whom I'm certainly no fan but who at least is not hated by any group and is not an incredibly divisive candidate like the others--might be the Reeps best shot.

My guess is anyone with realistic, honest-to-goodness presidential aspirations will probably choose to sit it out until 2016. In 2012 they'll probably go with a retread who will keep the seat warm until they can make a more serious run at it (see Bob Dole, 1996; Walter Mondale, 1984).
 
MFL
2009-07-16 08:09:22 PM
The only one of those three that have even has a remote chance is ironically the Mormon.
 
2009-07-16 08:11:19 PM
Burn98: The national debt is another (but related) story.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Typical dishonest garbage.
 
2009-07-16 08:11:56 PM
...By the GOP, I mean.
 
2009-07-16 08:12:07 PM
MFL: The only one of those three that have even has a remote chance is ironically the Mormon.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
 
2009-07-16 08:12:07 PM
Unless of course Obama passes and implements his plans quickly enough for America to figure out what the end result of them will be in 2012.

At which point Obama won't be able to win against anyone.
 
2009-07-16 08:12:21 PM
www.rasmussenreports.com

Do you know who else has no chance of winning in 2012?
 
2009-07-16 08:12:40 PM
bmr68: If the economy fails to recover and job growth stalls Obama will be a one termer.

Just like FDR was a one termer when the economy failed to recover and job growth stalled?
 
2009-07-16 08:14:24 PM
Uh-oh, the sore losers have arrived.
 
2009-07-16 08:19:07 PM
Great Janitor: because CNN is know for their undying and unquestionable support for the Right no matter what the hell they're pushing?

What does CNN say or do that makes you think they're anything but right leaning? In comparison Faux Noise, CNN does appear leftist, but that is because Faux Noise is so far to the right. Faux is unabashedly right wing, CNN is namby-pamby right wing. They don't have to beat you over the end with their bias for it to be there. That's like saying unless a rightwing pundit is as batshiat insane as Ann Coulter, they're not rightwing.
 
2009-07-16 08:25:33 PM
Befuddled: Great Janitor: because CNN is know for their undying and unquestionable support for the Right no matter what the hell they're pushing?

What does CNN say or do that makes you think they're anything but right leaning? In comparison Faux Noise, CNN does appear leftist, but that is because Faux Noise is so far to the right. Faux is unabashedly right wing, CNN is namby-pamby right wing. They don't have to beat you over the end with their bias for it to be there. That's like saying unless a rightwing pundit is as batshiat insane as Ann Coulter, they're not rightwing.


IMO Fox News whores for the GOP and CNN is just a whore. CNN would do anything for ratings. MSNBC and Fox News would do a lot for ratings if it was attacking the other side.
 
2009-07-16 08:26:44 PM
randomjsa: Unless of course Obama passes and implements his plans quickly enough for America to figure out what the end result of them will be in 2012.

At which point Obama won't be able to win against anyone.


blogs.creativeloafing.com

"Don't stop...believin'!!"
 
2009-07-16 08:27:13 PM
godofusa.com: No one knew Obama existed until 18 months before the 2008 election.

He gave the keynote speech at the '04 DNC, you goddamn moron.
 
2009-07-16 08:28:13 PM
Welfare Xmas: Do you know who else has no chance of winning in 2012?

...Someone who believes in a RamussenReports poll?
 
2009-07-16 08:28:45 PM
MFL: The only one of those three that have even has a remote chance is ironically the Mormon.

Magic underwear?
 
2009-07-16 08:30:07 PM
Welfare Xmas: Do you know who else has no chance of winning in 2012?

Ah, Rasmussen polls predicting bad news...for Obama. It's like September 2008 never ended.
 
2009-07-16 08:30:42 PM
Here's about five minutes of an Alaskan senator talking about why Palin was so full of fail.

stupid insta-audio (new window)
 
2009-07-16 08:32:51 PM
vartian: Oh, I think people count Mitt out too much. The Evangelicals will back anyone who is not Obama; only the most retarded of the conservatives (i.e., Freepers) will freak out over Sarah Palin not getting the nomination.

you underestimate how much the Fundamentalists hate loathe and despise Mormons. He'd have a better chance if he were Catholic.
 
2009-07-16 08:38:27 PM
Dwight_Yeast: vartian: Oh, I think people count Mitt out too much. The Evangelicals will back anyone who is not Obama; only the most retarded of the conservatives (i.e., Freepers) will freak out over Sarah Palin not getting the nomination.

you underestimate how much the Fundamentalists hate loathe and despise Mormons. He'd have a better chance if he were Catholic.


I think they hate liberals a little bit more. Romney would just have to support their two biggest issues. Anti-abortion and hating gays. And a Republican means more conservative Supreme Court justices.
 
2009-07-16 08:42:15 PM
Welfare Xmas: Do you know who else has no chance of winning in 2012?

Hmm... I wonder what would happen if you added in the other categories, "somewhat approve", "neutral", and "somewhat disapprove". Why, it looks like "total approve" and "total disapprove" have been quite steady.
 
2009-07-16 08:42:56 PM
i said it before and ill say it again

Tom Ridge
 
2009-07-16 08:43:59 PM
Dwight_Yeast: vartian: Oh, I think people count Mitt out too much. The Evangelicals will back anyone who is not Obama; only the most retarded of the conservatives (i.e., Freepers) will freak out over Sarah Palin not getting the nomination.

you underestimate how much the Fundamentalists hate loathe and despise Mormons. He'd have a better chance if he were Catholic.



I'm not sure if that is true. There's only been one Catholic President and he was a Democrat.
 
2009-07-16 08:47:02 PM
Corvus: Ed Grubermann: FeedTheCollapse: or there's some massive 9/11-level fark-up on Obama's watch.

Yeah, that really did Bush in.

Yeah, but the Democrats supported the president then, the Republicans would viciously attack Obama.


Yup.
 
2009-07-16 08:51:41 PM
Burn98: The largest single year budget deficit Bush had was $459.5 Billion in 2008. Obama deficit for this year is over $1,000 Billion and still climbing. It is projected to reach $1,086 billion.

Oops! Obama's first deficit is projected to reach $1,286 billion.
 
2009-07-16 08:55:58 PM
hillbillypharmacist: If they wanted to select someone who could win, they would pick Olympia Snowe. But she doesn't appeal to the base, and she'd probably get killed in the primaries. Of course, if it's Snowe and Palin, Snowe might get it. She's the only Republican I can think of that could beat Obama. She's also the only Republican I can think of that I'd be okay with winning.

Dont you dare take my senator away from me. I have spent an average of 20 days a year in my state and I vote absentee just to re-elect my senators.
 
2009-07-16 09:05:32 PM
RemyDuron: KaponoFor3: nekom: Romney could probably pull it off IF the economy doesn't improve. The single-issue voters on either side aren't going anywhere, and the average person just wants their financial situation to improve. If Obama is seen as making things worse, or even as not making things better, he could be vulnerable. If the economy gets even a little better his second term is probably a lock.

+1 analysis

Yeah, agree. This is, once again, Obama's to lose. And the Republicans have, pretty much, bet the farm on him failing. If he does, it pays off, if it doesn't, well, they will have 4 more years to wander through the desert.

/If you ask me, betting that the economy will be similar to what it is now four years from now is not a good bet, but it's about the only bet the Republicans could make that would pay out the Presidency




It doesn't even matter if Obama fails.

Because, even IF Obama fails to clean up the mess created by Republicans... only a farking moron with congenital syphilis would vote for the people who *created* the mess, as a way of punishing the guy who tried to clean it up and failed.
 
2009-07-16 09:16:33 PM
Goodfella: bmr68: If the economy fails to recover and job growth stalls Obama will be a one termer.

Just like FDR was a one termer when the economy failed to recover and job growth stalled?


Reagan took office with a 7.5% unemployment rate, Within 18 months, the unemployment rate was at 10.5%.

How did that work out for his re-election chances?
 
2009-07-16 09:19:43 PM
Great Janitor:

I predict we're more likely to see a new name pop up before 2011 on the right for the Republican nomination.



Uh huh.

What are the chances that a randomly-selected, previously-unknown and barely-vetted Republican *doesn't* have one of the following issues:

(A) Fudged on paying their taxes.

(B) Knowingly employed illegal immigrants as household/yard help.

(C) Paid the illegal help under-the-table, thereby cheating on taxes again.

(D) Has a mistress.

(E) Has secret homosexual affairs.

(F) Had a rival/ex-BF/ex-GF/business partner mysteriously disappear and/or turn up dead of a suicide consisting of two gunshots to the back of the head.

(G) Couldn't speak coherently in correct English-language sentences to save their life.

(H) Has video footage of them speaking in tongues/snake handling/saying that heretics should be stoned/burned/hung.

(I) Belonged to a Whites-only country club until 2 days before their nomination.

(J) Under indictment for ethics violations, or the subject of a multi-agency multi-year probe into organized crime.

(K) Can't speak coherently for more than 2 minutes at a time, because that's all they can memorize in one sitting, and their dyslexia makes reading a teleprompter too difficult.


Anyway... any random Republican is gonna have at LEAST half of these issues... if not all of them.
 
Displayed 50 of 364 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report