![]() |
|
|
#12 | |
|
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,841 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
ALH:
I don't know if Romney can win the GOP primary. Think about the current GOP coalition: 1) Neo-conservatives 2) Right-Libertarians 3) Christian conservatives 4) The traditional, blue-blood Republicans 5) Tea Partiers 6) White Southerners 7) White blue-collar men Groups 1, 2 and 4 would be just as happy to be done with groups 3, 5, 6 and 7. If it were up to 1, 2 and 4 Romney would be the nominee, Rubio would be the Veep nominee. But if 3, 5, 6 and 7 are going to turn out (and without them the GOP can't win national offices) Romney cannot be the nominee. Fundamentalist evangelicals still, to this day, consider the LDS a cult and not included in the circle of 'Christian' (they also consider Catholicism a cult). So Romney doesn't make it out of Super Tuesday. I think we're looking at Perry someone else which is probably Obama's *best* bet but even against Perry i wouldn't give Obama anything better than even odds. Hell, the only person I know he *could* beat is Palin and she's not getting the nomination. The combination I would be concerned about, if I were a Democratic strategist, would be Huntsman-Rubio or even Huntsman-Romney. However, Huntsman has the same problem as Romney, he's a Mormon, plus an additional problem which is that Huntsman is kind of sane. Barring a dark horse, I see it as Perry-Rubio. Perry-Bachmann is too much of the crazy and she brings nothing to the ticket that Perry doesn't already bring. Rubio perhaps brings in the blue blood Republicans. Both parties have a problem going in to 2012. The Democratic party has a demoralized base (whether that is justified or not, I won't bother with here), a weak President as standard bearer, and really horrifically bad economic numbers dragging them down. The GOP has the problem that anyone who can survive the primaries gets creamed in the general election OR loses the base because they have to pivot in order to grab independents. The farther right the Tea Party (which IS the GOP base, don't let the media fool you on this) drags the GOP, the more sharp the pivot and the greater the risk of alienating the base. What the base *wants* to hear is that in the first year both Social Security and Medicare will be repealed, DOMA will be strengthened, DADT reinstated, the EPA and Education department disbanded and Sharia law will be made illegal. That's what they *want* to hear. But anyone running on that platform dooms themselves in the general election and cannot turn from ANY of those items lest the base bolt. As far as how the GOP will handle things if/when they win the White House I dunno. In a different time and in a different place, I think the GOP would be forced to behave precisely how they would like to. I'm not sure that the GOP would have to do that these days. I think that, given the advantages that the government has vis a vis surveillance and given the latitude that any Republican President will be given by a Republican congress and the national media, I don't see that the GOP need do *anything* about jobs. I say for the following reasons: 1) A GOP President (but never a Democratic one) could order anyone picked up, at any time, for any reason and held without charge for an indefinite period of time. 2) All manner of shady games can be played with voting machines and, more ominously, voting rights. 3) PROVIDED that any protests are on the West coast OR involves large numbers of non-white (read not traditionally Republican) peoples truly draconian measures to quell the protests (which will be called riots no matter how peaceful) will be approved of. 4) In the course of the first term, the newly minted POTUS will wax poetic about the churches providing relief. Anyone who does NOT want to accept the churches terms will be considered to have done that to themselves. (By terms, I mean 'convert or starve') Cheers Aj Quote:
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
|
|