News Republican Debate: Who Impressed You?

[WhoWee]

CNN commentators are tripping over one another trying to discredit Romney - only enforces my opinion of the best ticket - Romney/Gingrich 2012!

 

[Proton Soup]

CNN commentators are tripping over one another trying to discredit Romney - only enforces my opinion of the best ticket - Romney/Gingrich 2012!

eh, i didn't watch the post-debate stuff. couldn't help but chuckle at how Perry is such a hothead, tho. Perry goin' down! and Romney... the man's a damn good liar, smiling the whole time.

i think i wouldn't mind seeing Paul with somebody like Gingrich. he's a bit of snake, but a damn smart one at least.

 

[WhoWee]

eh, i didn't watch the post-debate stuff. couldn't help but chuckle at how Perry is such a hothead, tho. Perry goin' down! and Romney... the man's a damn good liar, smiling the whole time.

i think i wouldn't mind seeing Paul with somebody like Gingrich. he's a bit of snake, but a damn smart one at least.

If I were Gingrich - I'd look directly into the camera and speak soft and clearly and say - I'm the only candidate on this stage that would make President Obama wish he were debating someone else.

 

[DoggerDan]

I know what you meant - "electable" implies success in the general election. Accordingly, I'll restate my question with greater specificity - why do you think Cain is more electable than Romney in the general election against the current President (Obama)?

Since you're putting it that way, in the form of a hypothetical yet improbable (due to current two-party system rules) three-way election, I think the republican vote would simply be split between Romney and Cain, while the full measure of the Democrat vote would go to Obama.

On the other hand, let's assume Clinton and Obama both ran against Cain and Romney. Who might win then?

Haven't a clue.

Getting back to reality, I think it's important to work within the actual structure, and doing so, my original point stands in that I believe people need to determine what's most important to them. Is it the election of their candidate of choice? Or is it to ensure their party's candidate gets elected?

That's where things get complicated, and depending on one's goals, one's choice may be dependent on the candidates in the other party.

 

[WhoWee]

Since you're putting it that way, in the form of a hypothetical yet improbable (due to current two-party system rules) three-way election, I think the republican vote would simply be split between Romney and Cain, while the full measure of the Democrat vote would go to Obama.

On the other hand, let's assume Clinton and Obama both ran against Cain and Romney. Who might win then?

Haven't a clue.

Getting back to reality, I think it's important to work within the actual structure, and doing so, my original point stands in that I believe people need to determine what's most important to them. Is it the election of their candidate of choice? Or is it to ensure their party's candidate gets elected?

That's where things get complicated, and depending on one's goals, one's choice may be dependent on the candidates in the other party.

Actually, I didn't intend to mean a 3 person race - a breakout candidate Cain running on the TEA Party or other ticket would split the vote.

I was asking who has a better chance of beating Obama head to head as the Republican candidate - Romney or Cain?

 

[DoggerDan]

Actually, I didn't intend to mean a 3 person race - a breakout candidate Cain running on the TEA Party or other ticket would split the vote.

I was asking who has a better chance of beating Obama head to head as the Republican candidate - Romney or Cain?

I think Cain. Several reports have confirmed Cain would capture the attention of the South, while Romney would not, yet Cain appeals to conservatives as much as Romney does.

 

[WhoWee]

I think Cain. Several reports have confirmed Cain would capture the attention of the South, while Romney would not, yet Cain appeals to conservatives as much as Romney does.

Cain might pull Conservative Repub and Southern votes - but Romney would attract the Independents and center-right/moderate Dems.

 

[BobG]

There's two different strategies for selecting a candidate:

1) Select the candidate perceived as most likely to win even if you don't think he'll pursue the objectives you really want them to.
2) Select the candidate that's most likely to accomplish your objectives and just hope.

Considering the way elections usually go, the second option isn't as bad a strategy as one might think.

The Consumer Confidence Index heavily influences how an election will go - especially the expectations index. The lowest expectations index for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that won the Presidential election was Bush 43 with an expectations index of about 92. The highest for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that lost the election was Gore with an expectations index of about 108.

Currently, the expectations index is about 52. Obama will never survive that kind of rating if it's still that low next fall no matter who his oponent is. Then again, that index can change rather rapidly. Just last summer, the expectations index was around 80 or so.

Expectations index depends heavily on the job outlook. The best strategy for Obama to recover is to push the unemployment rate down regardless of what it does to the economy. I think it's real doubtful he'll push that jobless rate down far enough get the expectations index anywhere close to the midrange (100 is considered midrange and neutral).

Given that, it's not a bad gamble to go for the candidate most appealing to conservatives and let the election go however it goes.

 

[WhoWee]

There's two different strategies for selecting a candidate:

1) Select the candidate perceived as most likely to win even if you don't think he'll pursue the objectives you really want them to.
2) Select the candidate that's most likely to accomplish your objectives and just hope.

Considering the way elections usually go, the second option isn't as bad a strategy as one might think.

The Consumer Confidence Index heavily influences how an election will go - especially the expectations index. The lowest expectations index for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that won the Presidential election was Bush 43 with an expectations index of about 92. The highest for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that lost the election was Gore with an expectations index of about 108.

Currently, the expectations index is about 52. Obama will never survive that kind of rating if it's still that low next fall no matter who his oponent is. Then again, that index can change rather rapidly. Just last summer, the expectations index was around 80 or so.

Expectations index depends heavily on the job outlook. The best strategy for Obama to recover is to push the unemployment rate down regardless of what it does to the economy. I think it's real doubtful he'll push that jobless rate down far enough get the expectations index anywhere close to the midrange (100 is considered midrange and neutral).

Given that, it's not a bad gamble to go for the candidate most appealing to conservatives and let the election go however it goes.

There is a lot of talk about the "not Romney" Republican primary vote. I'm convinced there will be a good number of persons voting "not Obama" in the general election.

 

[skeptic2]

The best strategy for Obama to recover is to push the unemployment rate down regardless of what it does to the economy. I think it's real doubtful he'll push that jobless rate down far enough get the expectations index anywhere close to the midrange (100 is considered midrange and neutral).

The Republicans too appear to be keenly aware of the importance of the unemployment rate in Obama's reelection. Could that explain their opposition to everything that would reduce the unemployment rate? For instance, cutting spending will cause the loss of jobs in the short term whereas increased spending, while bad for the budget short term, will put more people to work immediately and increase tax revenues long term.

 

[WhoWee]

The Republicans too appear to be keenly aware of the importance of the unemployment rate in Obama's reelection. Could that explain their opposition to everything that would reduce the unemployment rate? For instance, cutting spending will cause the loss of jobs in the short term whereas increased spending, while bad for the budget short term, will put more people to work immediately and increase tax revenues long term.

Do you have a specific piece of legislation in mind?

 

[BobG]

Do you have a specific piece of legislation in mind?

That would be the Obama jobs bill, and the broken up version of the jobs bill that Dems are trying to push through piece by piece.

Killing it could be a problem for Republican incumbent legislators next election, but Obama blaming the bill's failure on Republicans probably won't work in a Presidential election unless the Republican candidate is a Republican Congressman that personally voted to kill it (and then it would still be a hard sell, just because time erases a lot of things).

Running against a Republican governor that had nothing to do with killing the bill and the only thing that will matter is whether people have jobs or not - not who voted for or against a bill that may have or may not have improved unemployment rates if it had passed.

There are exceptions. Truman ran against a do-nothing Congress and won an upset victory. But there's never a guarantee that the underdog will lose - it's just a lot more likely that the underdog will lose.

 

[WhoWee]

That would be the Obama jobs bill, and the broken up version of the jobs bill that Dems are trying to push through piece by piece.

Killing it could be a problem for Republican incumbent legislators next election, but Obama blaming the bill's failure on Republicans probably won't work in a Presidential election unless the Republican candidate is a Republican Congressman that personally voted to kill it (and then it would still be a hard sell, just because time erases a lot of things).

Running against a Republican governor that had nothing to do with killing the bill and the only thing that will matter is whether people have jobs or not - not who voted for or against a bill that may have or may not have improved unemployment rates if it had passed.

There are exceptions. Truman ran against a do-nothing Congress and won an upset victory. But there's never a guarantee that the underdog will lose - it's just a lot more likely that the underdog will lose.

If I were the 2012 Republican candidate - saddled with the problem you've described - my response would be to show endless commercials of President Obama promising jobs from the first stimulus (and the healthcare Bill) and endless video of the thousands of (expensive) highway signs that claimed the projects were funded by the stimulus.

 

[skeptic2]

Running against a Republican governor that had nothing to do with killing the bill and the only thing that will matter is whether people have jobs or not - not who voted for or against a bill that may have or may not have improved unemployment rates if it had passed..

I agree. At this point in time it looks like Obama will lose but the Democrats will pick up a few seats in both houses.

 

[mheslep]

I agree. At this point in time it looks like Obama will lose but the Democrats will pick up a few seats in both houses.

What Presidential election do you have in mind where the new President's party ever lost (net) seats in Congress at the same time?

 

[skippy1729]

I don't think I can listen to any more Republican debates. Most of them agree on the important issues (cut spending, cut taxes, seal the border, repeal Obamacare) and nit-pick trivial issues. Hopefully Perry and Romney will spend tens of millions on MAD (mutually assured destruction) tv ads. That could leave a three way race: Cain, Newt and maybe a distant Santorum. I do wish Bachman and Ron Paul would drop out. Close your eyes and imagine either of them debating the president; it would be sine die for the campaign. Speaking of debates, Newt has said he would follow the president from stump to stump challenging the president to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. That would really be something to behold!

Skippy

 

[Vanadium 50]

What Presidential election do you have in mind where the new President's party ever lost (net) seats in Congress at the same time?

Election of 2000.

 

[mheslep]

Election of 2000.

That would be the time with Gore winning the popular vote, but I still don't see it any pick up in either chamber. The House remained Republican, and if the Democrats picked up any seats it is in the single digits which I can't resolve here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives.PNG
Senate switched to D. majority for 2-3 weeks after the 2000 election, then flipped back again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate#List_of_party_leaders

 

[mheslep]

Republican candidate agreement yes/no:

... (cut spending,
Yes

cut taxes,

No, they would all cut tax rates but also eliminate deductions in various ways so it takes some work to assess whether tax revenue goes up/down

seal the border,

No. Paul in particular opposes.

repeal Obamacare)

Yes

 

[skippy1729]

To mhelsep: I did say most of them agree.

 

[BobG]

I don't think I can listen to any more Republican debates. Most of them agree on the important issues (cut spending, cut taxes, seal the border, repeal Obamacare) and nit-pick trivial issues. Hopefully Perry and Romney will spend tens of millions on MAD (mutually assured destruction) tv ads. That could leave a three way race: Cain, Newt and maybe a distant Santorum. I do wish Bachman and Ron Paul would drop out. Close your eyes and imagine either of them debating the president; it would be sine die for the campaign. Speaking of debates, Newt has said he would follow the president from stump to stump challenging the president to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. That would really be something to behold!

Skippy

Here's the funny thing. I think Bachmann will win the Iowa caucuses and Paul will do better than one might initially think. In fact, my early predictions:

Iowa: Bachmann wins, Perry finishes second, and Paul finishes third. Bachmann has the best organization in Iowa and Perry has stumbled lately. The Paul campaign organizes well, even if he'll never appeal to the general populace - Iowa caucuses are tailor made for Paul-like campaigns. Cain has a third tier candidate organization, even if he's risen in the polls and his organization in Iowa is truly weak. If Paul beats Perry for second, which is possible, it could be a real blow to Perry's credibility.

New Hampshire: Romney hands down. I think Perry edges Cain out for second, but this state could be Cain's pivotal moment and finishing second would be a real triumph for him. If Cain finishes second, and Paul beats out Perry for third, then Perry's campaign is on the verge of elimination. Theoretically, Huntsman could get a result in this state, but I just don't think he's elevated his visibility enough to do anything at all.

South Carolina: Perry wins. If Gingrich is ever going to make an impact (which I doubt he will) he has to get some kind of result no later than South Carolina and unless Bachmann turns an Iowa victory into something, no one besides Perry will be strong in South Carolina. I think Gingrich has crashed by this point and it goes Perry, Romney, and Bachmann (but I'm really clueless after Perry).

Florida: This should be the showdown between Romney and Perry. I say Romney wins, Perry finishes second, and Cain finishes third. If Gingrich has managed to do something in South Carolina, then Florida is also crucial to him, but I really think Florida is the nail in the coffin and the point where Gingrich officially drops out. If Perry is going to win the nomination, this state is where he has to turn the corner and become the true front runner.

There's a big difference between Cain and Huckabee. Huckabee may have had a low budget, but he was an experienced politician with a sound campaign organization. Cain can turn some good early outings into more money, but, even if he does, he's going to have a hard time turning that money into a sound campaign organization.

I don't think it will happen, but if Gingrich were to have a chance, he'd need a first or second in Iowa (damaging Perry in the process), Cain upsetting Perry for 2nd in NH, leaving a vacuum to be filled in SC - and then Gingrich fills it. If the best possible situation had happened up to that point, then Gingrich would still need a win in Florida - an upset to be sure, but at least an upset within the realm of possibility. If all of that happened, then you'd have a Romney-Gingrich battle where Gingrich would still be the underdog, but at least have established himself as a viable possibility.

Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, and Paul are just snipers that can damage Perry, but aren't strong enough candidates to win for themselves. Of the four, Gingrich might be the most realistic candidate, but I just don't see it happening for him. He'll be the Giuliani of this election season. Of course, by the end of the summer of 2007, one would have thought McCain was a lot more likely than Giuliani to crash and burn, so any predictions are just sand that can quickly blow away.

 

[mheslep]

Nah, I think Gingrich will finish top three in Iowa.

Edit: re Florida: If Jeb Bush makes an endorsement and follows up on it so goes Florida.

 

[WhoWee]

Nah, I think Gingrich will finish top three in Iowa.

He might - if Bachmann takes Iowa, I doubt Perry will finish in the top 3 spots.

 

[BobG]

Nah, I think Gingrich will finish top three in Iowa.

Edit: re Florida: If Jeb Bush makes an endorsement and follows up on it so goes Florida.

Perhaps.

I still think Gingrich is the perfect example of why Huckabee and Palin both decided to stay out of the race. Being a candidate can really damage a lot of your personal interests (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOeTRCuYapW60A8T1FY1EQk9cN9g?docId=4298cf2424d7494f8e457aa6ef8f0cf9 ).

Is staying in the race simply to try and rebuild some foundation for his personal interests? Since he released his 21st Century Contract of America, he's been using his campaign appearances not only to advance his campaign, but to plug both his books and his wife's new children's book. Nothing wrong with that and it doesn't exactly detract from his campaign message, but it does remind some people (his opponents, mostly) that he does have to make sure he still has a life to go back to after this campaign.

It raises issues about how serious Gingrich really is. Is he another Fred Thompson that just never really put in the focused effort needed to win?

If he is, top two would be good as long as top two put him ahead of Perry.