View Full Version : Who Wins and Who Loses if Bachmann Runs in 2012?
Updated Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota seized the media spotlight on Thursday by merely leaking out the possibility that she might — someday, maybe months from now — form an exploratory committee to consider running for president.
The flurry of headlines was a testament to her ability to heighten interest by being dramatic, and even provocative, in her statements. Just a day earlier, for example, she warned against the “black-robed masters” in Iowa. In other words: judges. (The comment came in a speech in which she applauded voters for turning out three members of the Iowa Supreme Court who had voted to legalize gay marriage.)
Ms. Bachmann may yet decide not to run for president this year. But Republican strategists for her potential rivals believe she is serious about mounting a run for the Republican nomination, and they are planning accordingly.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/who-wins-and-who-loses-if-bachmann-runs-in-2012/?hp
Note: March 25, 2011, 7:29 am
mookiemookie
03-25-11, 09:47 AM
Who wins? The late night comedians. She'd be comedy gold. She makes Sarah Palin look like Brzezinski (or Kissinger if you prefer).
Who wins? The late night comedians. She'd be comedy gold. She makes Sarah Palin look like Brzezinski (or Kissinger if you prefer). It sounds like a real high odds :O:
Platapus
03-25-11, 06:56 PM
Bachmann/O'Donnell 2012
They are what's right about America.:salute:
At the moment I see Obama winning re-election and control of the Senate changing hands.
Aramike
03-25-11, 07:12 PM
At the moment I see Obama winning re-election and control of the Senate changing hands.Me too ... unless someone can convince Christie or Ryan to jump in the arena.
Slyguy3129
03-25-11, 08:09 PM
At the moment I see Obama winning re-election and control of the Senate changing hands.
August you aught to be a news analyst! That is the most common sense thing I have heard about what will happen in 12. Funny that it doesn't come from the media.:hmmm:
I would much rather a change in power happen in the Exe branch but if worst comes to worse, which I'm sure it will I would imagine us far worse off if we didn't swap the Senate.
Course one can always hope for a sweeping win to change both. :D
August you aught to be a news analyst! That is the most common sense thing I have heard about what will happen in 12. Funny that it doesn't come from the media.:hmmm:
I would much rather a change in power happen in the Exe branch but if worst comes to worse, which I'm sure it will I would imagine us far worse off if we didn't swap the Senate.
Course one can always hope for a sweeping win to change both. :D
Well not me. It's never a good thing for the country when one party controls both Congress and the White House at the same time.
Slyguy3129
03-25-11, 08:56 PM
Yea that's true. Oddly enough the old the house divided won't stand thing works the opposite here. Strange bit true, when was it 94 that we had the legislative while Clinton held office? Ol'e Newt was Speaker?
Armistead
03-26-11, 08:36 AM
Obama will win for sure. Doubt Trump will run like he's acting, but that would be interesting. The GOP field today has to be the worse ever.
GOP...doubt they'll take the senate.
Bachmann/O'Donnell 2012
They are what's right about America.:salute:
Christine, or Rosie (both are equally stupid)?
LOL. The current Republican field is terrible. The only one I know I like (who has had no press yet) is Gary Johnson (not that he has a chance, but he's great).
Torvald Von Mansee
03-26-11, 09:31 AM
Well not me. It's never a good thing for the country when one party controls both Congress and the White House at the same time.
What if the President has NO SPINE? Because Obama is apparently a jellyfish.
CaptainHaplo
03-26-11, 10:29 AM
Actually I suspect you will see a Gingrich/Cain ticket when all is said and done. I sincerely hope so. The Senate WILL change hands, very little doubt of that.
Platapus
03-26-11, 11:34 AM
LOL. The current Republican field is terrible. The only one I know I like (who has had no press yet) is Gary Johnson (not that he has a chance, but he's great).
That's what is bothering me. The GOP does not seem to have any "big names" to go against Obama.
IF the GOP were smart, they would put up a moderate candidate and sweep both sides :yep:
As an independent, I am willing to vote GOP but the GOP has to offer me something worthy of my vote.
I fear that 2012 will be the same -- voting for the lesser of two losers. :nope:
Tribesman
03-26-11, 11:40 AM
I fear that 2012 will be the same -- voting for the lesser of two losers.
Thats normal isn't it.
IF the GOP were smart, they would put up a moderate candidate and sweep both sides
That is a problem, they have shifted to pandering to the fringe and somehow thinking that is their "base"
What if the President has NO SPINE? Because Obama is apparently a jellyfish.
I suspect what you call "no spine" is because he is not radically partisan as you. Well a Presidents job is to represent all the people. Not just your party. His biggest mistake so far has been to let the Democrat controlled US Congress create his health care bill.
Platapus
03-26-11, 07:01 PM
What if the President has NO SPINE? Because Obama is apparently a jellyfish.
Having "no spine" being defined as not in agreement with your opinions right?
Takeda Shingen
03-26-11, 08:30 PM
I've been getting the impression that most of the Republican A-list talent is planning on sitting this one out and making preparations for 2012.
I've been getting the impression that most of the Republican A-list talent is planning on sitting this one out and making preparations for 2012.
2016 you mean?
Takeda Shingen
03-26-11, 11:32 PM
2016 you mean?
Oops. Yes, I did really mean 2016.
Oops. Yes, I did really mean 2016.
Well I agree. I don't see any of the present possibilities able to defeat incumbent Obama.
I am on the same line, :yep:
IF the GOP were smart, they would put up a moderate candidate and sweep both sides :yep:
McCain was a moderate. He lost.
Takeda Shingen
03-27-11, 01:19 PM
McCain was a moderate. He lost.
In fairness, McCain ran a poor campaign, and really fell apart in the home stretch.
His back-up and staff were not in the best shape, and Palin, yes, one of the reasons for the defeat
What the press pushes as "moderate" and what American think is actually moderate are two different things I think. The moderate Americans want has a live and let live attitude towards issues of importance to the so-called "social conservatives," and is likely very fiscally conservative. That means pay as we go. Balance the budget now, not a plan that maybe, kinda, could possibly balance the budget in 30 years assuming ridiculous growth rates (all based on bogus accounting).
That's why guys who are really hyper-conservative (libertarians) frequently read as "moderates." Governor Johnson falls in that category (a 2-termer in a state that has never had a Republican controlled house or senate since we became a state).
His back-up and staff were not in the best shape, and Palin, yes, one of the reasons for the defeat
C'mon. Palin had no more to do with McCain's defeat, than Biden had to do with Obama's victory.
We all have different perceptions of the situation
Tchocky
03-28-11, 04:26 PM
hehe - http://www.theonion.com/articles/even-newt-gingrich-a-little-depressed-by-prospect,19837/
Aramike
03-28-11, 04:37 PM
What the press pushes as "moderate" and what American think is actually moderate are two different things I think. The moderate Americans want has a live and let live attitude towards issues of importance to the so-called "social conservatives," and is likely very fiscally conservative. That means pay as we go. Balance the budget now, not a plan that maybe, kinda, could possibly balance the budget in 30 years assuming ridiculous growth rates (all based on bogus accounting).
That's why guys who are really hyper-conservative (libertarians) frequently read as "moderates." Governor Johnson falls in that category (a 2-termer in a state that has never had a Republican controlled house or senate since we became a state).Well said, brother. :salute:
Growler
03-28-11, 04:49 PM
That's why guys who are really hyper-conservative (libertarians) frequently read as "moderates." Governor Johnson falls in that category (a 2-termer in a state that has never had a Republican controlled house or senate since we became a state).
Wait wait wait... hyper-conservativism is libertarian? Then what the hell am I?
I'm confused is what I am.
And I think that's kinda the problem - labels just don't fit neatly in many cases, and people are getting tied up in and by them, and not really bothering to figure anything out past which group they associate with. Hell, I'm not totally clueless, but I'll be damned if I've seen any candidate yet that represents where I stand on issues.
I'm registered "Independent." I tend to be a libertarian, but not a Libertarian (capital L being a party member—in general the party types are too isolationist for me).
That said, libertarians are indeed hyper conservative. The things that some dislike about many conservatives are the "social conservative" bits. The trouble with social conservatism is that in many cases it's not actually conservative. It replaces one sort of government over-involvement with another.
I see hyper-conservative in the US as strict Constitutionalism. What would Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, or Paine (among many others) think? Shall not infringe means just that—infringement means virtually any inconvenience. Shall make no law... ditto. Not interpretive reading, but constitutional literalism, where the only filter is what they meant at the time they wrote it. Want to change something? Amend it or GTFO.
Less is more.
The opposite end seeks to involve the State in virtually all human endeavor. More is more.
And yeah, the left/right thing is a poor metric.
Platapus
03-28-11, 07:02 PM
I used to be a Republican, now I don't want to associate with that party as the Republican party has moved away from what is important to me.
I like to think of myself as a moderate as I believe in balance between the extremes. I am an independent only through a process of elimination as none of the political parties has the right answer (Right being defined as what I believe is right)
I think politically I am a curmudgeon. I am not pissed off, but rather annoyed at the other political parties. I don't believe the hyperbola but I do recognize that we have problems that can't be put off "until the future" Economically, the future is right now. And problems both parties have pushed off, really can't be pushed off any further.
The problem is that the political parties are so used to pushing off problems, I don't know if any of them really has the capability of solving them.
To me, political parties are a means to be elected. Once elected, I would a like a politician to forget his or her party and simply do the job they were elected to do. And that job is to run this country.
Forget impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. How about impeachment for not doing the job you were hired (through elections) to do?
But all this fantasy. Nothing is going to change until the American Empire falls. All empires fall. All empires thought that theirs would never fall.
Crikey, I have depressed myself again. :cry:
I used to be a Republican, now I don't want to associate with that party as the Republican party has moved away from what is important to me.
I like to think of myself as a moderate as I believe in balance between the extremes. I am an independent only through a process of elimination as none of the political parties has the right answer (Right being defined as what I believe is right)
I think politically I am a curmudgeon. I am not pissed off, but rather annoyed at the other political parties. I don't believe the hyperbola but I do recognize that we have problems that can't be put off "until the future" Economically, the future is right now. And problems both parties have pushed off, really can't be pushed off any further.
The problem is that the political parties are so used to pushing off problems, I don't know if any of them really has the capability of solving them.
To me, political parties are a means to be elected. Once elected, I would a like a politician to forget his or her party and simply do the job they were elected to do. And that job is to run this country.
Forget impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. How about impeachment for not doing the job you were hired (through elections) to do?
But all this fantasy. Nothing is going to change until the American Empire falls. All empires fall. All empires thought that theirs would never fall.
Crikey, I have depressed myself again. :cry: Not at all, you have dreams that will one day be realized
Let's also keep in mind, by the way, that A-list republicans may well have no interest in running in these circumstances. The economy is still doing poorly, and I don't think either party has a platform that would be able to tackle this. In fact arguably, anything done by politicians about it now is only likely to cost their party in the long run. And I'm not quite seeing 2012 as the year we get over the hill, either.
So perhaps it's completely in the republicans' interests to let Obama sit on. That way, he's the one who'll be remembered as the "recession president"....
Quite the opposite, I think the republicans should throw the worst of their populist clowns (Palin, Bachmann, etc.) into the 2012 election so as to purge them of any credibility and make sure that in 2016 the party looks at least competent.
UnderseaLcpl
03-29-11, 05:19 PM
I like to think of myself as a moderate as I believe in balance between the extremes. I am an independent only through a process of elimination as none of the political parties has the right answer (Right being defined as what I believe is right)
There is no moderation in government. Once that power structure is in place, it will attract the powerful and they will change it to suit their needs. Once they have, right will defined as what you are told is right, and everything else will be wrong if not illegal. It is all but an inevitability.
The only thing you can change is how long it takes to happen.
There is no moderation in government. Once that power structure is in place, it will attract the powerful and they will change it to suit their needs. Once they have, right will defined as what you are told is right, and everything else will be wrong if not illegal. It is all but an inevitability.
The only thing you can change is how long it takes to happen. And time is likely to take...
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.