News Republican Debate: Who Impressed You?

[Char. Limit]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

They're kind of, you know, the elite.

 

[Proton Soup]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

They're kind of, you know, the elite.

friends of mine used to talk about Sam Walton driving up to his stores in his old ford pickup. the employees loved the guy. this was back in the days when walmart was pushing made-in-the-usa products, too.

there's lots of non-elitist CEOs out there.

 

[skippy1729]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

They're kind of, you know, the elite.

For me, an elitist is someone whose self-perceived image of their superiority oozes from every pore of their body. It has nothing to do with money. It is the "I am better and smarter than everyone else" attitude. I am not talking about confidence, I am talking about arrogance.

Skippy

 

[WhoWee]

For me, an elitist is someone whose self-perceived image of their superiority oozes from every pore of their body. It has nothing to do with money. It is the "I am better and smarter than everyone else" attitude. I am not talking about confidence, I am talking about arrogance.

Skippy

I get that vibe from the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[mheslep]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

No.

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, son of Luther Cain, Jr. and his wife Lenora Davis. His mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur. He grew up in Georgia. Cain graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics, and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971, when he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. As a civilian ballistics analyst, he was responsible for developing fire control systems for ships and fighter planes.

No scholarship to elite private prep schools in Hawaii, no Ivy League. There is however one thing that strikes me as arrogant about the man, and only one: why can he not be bothered to run for some lower state or federal office first? Where did he draw the go-directly-to-the-Presidency card?

 

[Vanadium 50]

why can he not be bothered to run for some lower state or federal office first? Where did he draw the go-directly-to-the-Presidency card?

Hi did. He ran for senator and lost.

 

[WhoWee]

Romney/Gingrich 2012 is looking better by the day! Newt even specified (on CNN to Blitzer 10/5/11) the answer would'nt be "no" to a VP offer if he doesn't win the nomination.

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm really liking the alligator idea. in fact, i would go further and have sharks with laser beams patrolling the coasts.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10/

if he won the nomination, i think the Reps would have to spend a lot of time coaching him.

 

[mheslep]

Hi did. He ran for senator and lost.

Thanks, I missed that, which changes my opinion for the better.

 

[BobG]

i'm really liking the alligator idea. in fact, i would go further and have sharks with laser beams patrolling the coasts.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10/

if he won the nomination, i think the Reps would have to spend a lot of time coaching him.

I don't think alligators would survive in the Southwestern United States. They're not very aggressive, anyway. They would only attack people wandering too close to their eggs.

Cain doesn't know the difference between alligators and crocodiles!

Actually, even crocodiles would require a pretty expensive moat. The moat would have to be a mini-habitat. But the mini-habitat wouldn't have to be maintained all that well, because crocodiles don't mind brackish water.

 

[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.