Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[nate33]

Things are breaking just as I predicted three weeks ago. Cain is falling in the polls because he doesn't have a message other than 9-9-9. Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum are universally acknowledged as irrelevant. I didn't predict that Perry would flame out so quickly, but I'm not particularly upset about it. Perry hasn't shown me why he deserves any serious consideration.

In Iowa, it's currently Cain (20%), Paul (19%), Romney (18%) and Gingrich (17%) with Cain fading fast and Paul and Gingrich surging. Among likely caucus-goers who have already made up their minds it's Paul, 32%, Romney 25% and Gingrich 17%. Basically, Cain supporters are ready to jump ship while Paul and Gingrich supporters are not. As usual, the media is ignoring Paul, but that's going to get harder to do once the field narrows down a bit.

In New Hampshire, Romney understandably has a commanding lead, but Paul is again in second place and Gingrich is in third. It's Romney at 40%, Paul at 17% and Gingrich at 11%. Cain and Perry don't crack double digits.

Every pollster I've heard interviewed has pointed out that Romney's problem is that he appears to be at his ceiling. He's got the moderate vote locked up but can't make inroads into the Tea Party. He'll never get enthusiastic support from them so his best hope is to continue to avoid mistakes and hope that enough Tea Party types come to the conclusion that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama.

It's going to boil down to a 2-man race or a 3-man race with Romney, Gingrich and possibly Ron Paul. Gingrich and Paul continue to persevere because they are articulate and consistent and represent the best non-Romney alternative.

It would be real interesting to see Ron Paul win the primary and face Obama in the general election. I figure the social conservatives would eventually break Paul's way because he's a consistent pro-lifer, even if he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. Paul is vulnerable to losing the neocon wing due to his anti-war platform, but he might capture a lot of support from the OWS crowd (who would otherwise vote for Obama). Heck, Ron Paul could conceivably win California. How would THAT change the electoral calculus?

If Paul wins the primary, the general election might boil down to a philosophical battle between the neocon intelligensia like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer versus the more populist conservatives in the Talk Radio Mafia like Rush and Hannity. I suspect Rush and Hannity would support Paul, but Kristol and Krauthammer might actually lean toward Obama. (Those guys HATE Ron Paul.) If the Rush/Hannity faction win out, Paul could unite the conservatives and libertarians into a winning coalition over Obama's liberals.

It's probably a pipe dream though. The likely scenario is a Romney versus Obama contest.

[fishercob]

Nate, the 1% GOP-ers have too much to lose if Paul wins. I suspect that Romney's donations would go absolutely through the roof if Paul becomes a serious threat. Hell, I could see some Pubs quietly supporting Obama (or just staying home) if Paul pulled the upset and won the nomination.

[Nivek]

Romney is the GOP candidate with the best chance of winning the general election, but may not be able to win the nomination. His "problem" is that Tea Partiers prefer Someone Else, and evangelicals want someone who's not Mormon.

In a general election against Obama, he'd have a chance because those Tea Partiers and evangelicals have nowhere else to go. They're not voting for Obama, which leaves Romney. And, Romney may be able to siphon off enough independents to challenge Obama.

But first he has to get through the primaries.

[dobrojim]

Romney's problem is pretty simple

even before he passed RomneyCare, the GOP base hated him.

And they still do for Pete's sake.

[doclinkin]

I'd love to see a Ronpaul/Obama debate. You'd have two bright, earnest, individuals having a real disagreement about policy with less of the grandstanding partisan monkeyshines of the usual political carnival. Be nice to see the american public treated like we all have triple digit IQ's. Given the benefit of the doubt even if it ain't true.

[dobrojim]

Be nice to see the american public treated like we all have triple digit IQ's. Given the benefit of the doubt even if it ain't true.

Not sure how much doubt there can be about it when you
consider what the average person

1. believes (low information voters)

2. is interested in (popular entertainment)

[hands11]

So next up. Newt. Which I said would happen.

A regular Noostradamus

Huntsman - the most viable political candidate and he has foreign policy experience

You keep saying variations of this. What makes him viable, other than you, clearly a non-conservative, non-Republican, seem to like him above the others? And as far as the "foreign policy experience," he was an ambassador, a largely political position, based on business dealings in Asia. Gingrich has sat on the Council of Foreign Relations and served in other positions and capacities focused on international affairs. He has a Doctorate in European History. I guess that's not foreign policy experience.

I would be interested in hear Paul, Huntsman and Rick debate. That would have substance.

Do I sense a pattern when people try to list three things?

Why do you keep doing this. You try to debate me with things I didnt say.

Did I say Newt had no foreign policy experience ? No. I didn't.

Look, if you want to debate, try doing it honestly instead of setting up fault talking points.

[hands11]

I'd love to see a Ronpaul/Obama debate. You'd have two bright, earnest, individuals having a real disagreement about policy with less of the grandstanding partisan monkeyshines of the usual political carnival. Be nice to see the american public treated like we all have triple digit IQ's. Given the benefit of the doubt even if it ain't true.

That was my wish as well. Something meaningful could be accomplished by watching that.

At least it wouldn't be all talking points.

[hands11]

Newt isnt going to last long now that the lights are on.

1.6M to be " A strategic historian" for Freddie

He was a lobbyist to help sell the message to republicans to leave them alone. I doubt that is going to fly with anyone.

Add he was Impeaching Clinton while he was cheating on this wife.
He was kicked out of the speakership for ethics violations and fined 300K
He has been married three times.

Newt isnt going to last more then three weeks.

[hands11]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Sounds like some people are finally coming to their senses.

I look forward to seeing how they regroup once they get past this. This country needs two parties with good ideas that can negotiate good solutions and compromises.

---------

on a different note. I have a question.

What does it mean ... "it is just politics"

This is a rather huge question. There is freedom of speech ( which is regulated in curtain situations ) so people can run ads saying pretty much anything they want. They can also do that in speeches. So the way it is today, it seems like there are little to no rules to stop people from out right telling lies, cuttings up videos to misrepresent what someone said. The system currently allows for out right propaganda. I believe there are still some Truth in advertizing laws for commercial companies though you never hear about them being enforced. But there doesn't seem to be anything that governs political advertizing this way. Should there be ? How would you do it ?

I'm just frustrated by what I see today and I struggle to come up with a solution to make it better.
Seems part of the reason people need so much money to run is someone can run ads that outright lie and then the other side needs to run them to... at a min, set the record straight.

It is just sad and damaging to this country that people in politics do not have enough ethics to have an honest debate based on facts and that they do not self govern themselves such that everyone from both sides jumps on the person who do not uphold those truth ethics.

Before mass media, it was possible for someone to lie to so many people so quickly and easily and they needed to lie to people faces, not to a camera or remotely via a video ad.

The latest ad that set me off was a Perry ad that uses a very small piece of video where Obama said, " We’ve been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades". Perry then takes that and says.. Obama says the American people are lazy. That wasnt what he was saying.

Obama was speaking to a group of CEOs about the challenges of attracting foreign investment in the U.S., not about individuals or their economic challenges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

So if something like this can be so easily fact checked, should there be some mechanism to stop this kind of thing. It would be great if political people as a group had enough self respect for the job title that they jumped all over stuff like this and set a standard straight by saying... look we can disagree but it is not ok to outright lie to the public. That was a lie. And the media should jump all over them the same way and hammer on them until they apologize and stop doing it. A more messy solution would be that some kind of fine should kick in. Is there any legal mechanism for this? Could one be added ? How could it work ? Where would that power reside so that is would be fair and balanced ? Should there be some kind of law governing political people using clips of video in political ads that do not should the complete context of what someone is saying.

We need better truth in politics. Anything goes ... needs to stop. We need a higher level of ethics in debating these serious issues. I may not know the right solution but something needs to be done. It cost to much to leave it as it is. It has been a race to the bottom for to long.

[dobrojim]

I noticed that fugop's friend Jonathan Chait got his name dropped in
one of the op-ed pieces in today's Post.

[Induveca]

I sincerely hope Ron Paul wins the nomination. I'd actually vote........he's sincere/intelligent/crazy enough to make US politics not so predictable.

He's arguably nuts, but anyone with an IQ north of 150 is generally viewed as insane by the masses. From the videos I've watched, he's the perfect man for the job with the huge economic battles ahead.

I actually hoped Bloomberg would run.......

[pancakes3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15735478

GAME CHANGER.

[popper]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15735478

GAME CHANGER.

Facinating. I hope they can protect the technology from the Chinese.

[hands11]

I mentioned before my concern over the police tactics when trying to clear out the Occupy movement as I was wondering how much longer before someone gets killed. Not sure how they are missing the fact that the more they act excessive, the faster the moment is going to spread. It was a dumb move. Hell, I had been down twice and hadnt returned since because I got busy. Know I think I will go back.

The latest was a senior women they pepper sprayed and a vet who had his spleen ruptured from them beating him with a club as he did nothing to strike back.

Now I am becoming more aware of what I think is coming next. On more then one occasion, the person getting beat on or confronting the police was a Iraq and Afghanistan vet. I can easily see how these vets are going to increasingly join the movement as they see their brothers out there engaging and protecting the people against the strong arm of the government. The very same thing they fought to protect on foreign lands. That is going to add an entirely new flavor to things. Cops my be able to bully young college kids and old women, but how is that going to play out with war vets whos combat experience vastly outmatches that of most police ?

The optics of cops beating on war vets isn't going to play well. And God forbid they mess with the wrong vets. Things could get ugly.

I think 99% movement is about to get it's own security forces over the next 30-60 days. This is starting to look a lot like the massive movement that happened in the 60s. I even think at some point, you are going to see portions of the TPs joining in.

[Wizards2Lottery]

Ron Paul winning the primary is a serious pipe dream. I really like him. He's honest, doesn't toe the party line and isn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs no matter who the audience is. Also like that Sean Hannity hates him, which is always a good sign in my book.

But his foreign policy (hear him talk about 9/11 for instance), stance on drugs and other strong libertarian ideals make him non electable in the primaries, although he would fair well in the general. I know of many liberals who like Ron Paul and I'm one of them.

I believe the ticket will end up being Romney'Newt. Both are heavy weights and if Newt as VP is given a bigger role, that could be a real game changer. Newt's sleazy history can be masked if he's not in a prominent role and his strengths can be used better.

[hands11]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationn ... athis.html


Court reinstates ousted head of Arizona redistricting panel

The Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday rebuffed Gov. Jan Brewer’s efforts to remake the state panel that draws political maps by reinstating the chairwoman Brewer recently ousted.

In 2000, Arizona voters approved a ballot measure that made redistricting the responsibility of a panel composed of two Democrats, two Republicans and an independent chair, which was supposed to tamp down partisan warfare. (This year, California’s political lines were drawn for the first time by a similar independent panel.)

But Arizona Republicans groused that the Independent Redistricting Commission’s congressional maps were too kind to Democrats, the state’s minority party. In demanding Mathis’ removal, Brewer said the panel had ignored various constitutional requirements in drawing them. Her decision won the legally required backing of two-thirds of the state Senate, which the GOP controls.

I wish I would find the radio interview I heard her on. She was asked what the person did that was so bad and she couldnt answer. Then she mumbled something about where were her notes. Must have been really bad if she needed notes to remember what it was.


Oh man, this one still bring tears to my eyes. I found this when looking for her interview
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&NR=1[/youtube]

[nate33]

Ron Paul winning the primary is a serious pipe dream. I really like him. He's honest, doesn't toe the party line and isn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs no matter who the audience is. Also like that Sean Hannity hates him, which is always a good sign in my book.

But his foreign policy (hear him talk about 9/11 for instance), stance on drugs and other strong libertarian ideals make him non electable in the primaries, although he would fair well in the general. I know of many liberals who like Ron Paul and I'm one of them.

I believe the ticket will end up being Romney'Newt. Both are heavy weights and if Newt as VP is given a bigger role, that could be a real game changer. Newt's sleazy history can be masked if he's not in a prominent role and his strengths can be used better.

Nah, I don't see Romney and Newt teaming up. Newt is too headstrong to be a VP under Romney, and if Newt was President, Romney isn't the guy he'd add to shore up his weaknesses. He'd want to add a social conservative, a woman or a minority (Rubio, Cain) as his VP.

[montestewart]

Huntsman - the most viable political candidate and he has foreign policy experience

You keep saying variations of this. What makes him viable, other than you, clearly a non-conservative, non-Republican, seem to like him above the others? And as far as the "foreign policy experience," he was an ambassador, a largely political position, based on business dealings in Asia. Gingrich has sat on the Council of Foreign Relations and served in other positions and capacities focused on international affairs. He has a Doctorate in European History. I guess that's not foreign policy experience.

Why do you keep doing this. You try to debate me with things I didnt say.

Did I say Newt had no foreign policy experience ? No. I didn't.

Look, it you want to debate, try doing it honestly instead of setting up fault talking points.

Well, you're sort of right, I guess. It is over something you didn't say.

I think you've said repeatedly that Huntsman has "foreign policy experience," and also said he was "the most viable political candidate." By connecting the two in such a way, you indicate that such experience would support a candidates viability, yet I don't recall you mentioning any other Republican candidate having any foreign policy experience.

You never said Gingrich didn't have foreign policy experience, but by crucially and repeatedly failing to mention that he did have foreign policy experience, you have created a deception by omission comparable in magnitude to the Perry campaign quoting out of context President Obama's use of the word "lazy." Shameful politics hands11. Shameful. And you're trying to imply that I'm dishonest. For shame.

There, a few fault talking points for ya.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I sincerely hope Ron Paul wins the nomination. I'd actually vote........he's sincere/intelligent/crazy enough to make US politics not so predictable.

He's arguably nuts, but anyone with an IQ north of 150 is generally viewed as insane by the masses. From the videos I've watched, he's the perfect man for the job with the huge economic battles ahead.

I actually hoped Bloomberg would run.......

Ron Paul is also my favorite candidate.

I haven't voted against a Democrat, but I'd seriously consider voting for Paul over Obama.