Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
OBAMA 2012
Theswingisyellow
Trying to be open to existenceSamsara Veteran
Not an endorsement just my prediction after the Iowa caucus.
Here is my thinking in this regard:
Romney and Santorum tied.
Paul came in a close third.
Everyone else you can forget about.
Romney: Will probably get the nomination, he has the money, staff and ground game to be highly competitive. He looks the part, plays the part and has been running for president for the last five years.
Problem: He doesn't excite his base. After all, his conservative credentials can be called into question, he has "flip-flopped" on many issues and his heathcare reform mirrors the dems. He actually did worse, albeit slightly, in this caucus than in 2008. The fact that Santorum and Paul did so well against him speaks of the republican disatisfaction with him and are still looking at other options.
Santorum: His tie with Romney is gonna be nothing more than that. This I believe will be a Santorum "bubble". After all Ohio has a history of picking evangelical candidates in its caucuses. Unlike Romney, Santorum has no money, really no ground game or staffing. He also was not vetted in this caucus, he will be and will have some 'splaining to do.
Paul: That fact that he is so out of mainstream Republican views (whatever those happen to be anymore) he will never get the nomination. I believe he will remain competitive due to his money staffing and grassroots support but in the end will not get the republican nomination. He might then take his supporters and go third party, possibly libertarian.
So Romney it is.......but:
He doesn't attract independents, probably not dems either (although I would hard pressed to find any real differences between the republican and democratic machines except where they conveniently disagree on lame wedge issues. Both are in love with big government and its largess)and worse of all among his base feelings are tepid.
He may get some Santorum people but his positions are so diametrically opposed to Paul's, I doubt he'll get much support in that regard. It's even worse for Romney if Paul goes third party and splits the republican vote.
Obama on the other hand has the advantages of an incumbent, will most likely still recieve the support of the dems by and large and will, given the Romney alternative, will attact independents and swing voters.
Will it be a landslide? No.
But Romney, IMO, is gonna be another McCain or Dole.
THIS WRITING IS ONLY MY OPINION. IT IS NOT FACT. IT IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE AND CERTAINLY IS NOT INTENDED TO INFLAME OR ANGER ANYONE. JUST DICUSSING POLITICS.
All the best,
Todd
Here is my thinking in this regard:
Romney and Santorum tied.
Paul came in a close third.
Everyone else you can forget about.
Romney: Will probably get the nomination, he has the money, staff and ground game to be highly competitive. He looks the part, plays the part and has been running for president for the last five years.
Problem: He doesn't excite his base. After all, his conservative credentials can be called into question, he has "flip-flopped" on many issues and his heathcare reform mirrors the dems. He actually did worse, albeit slightly, in this caucus than in 2008. The fact that Santorum and Paul did so well against him speaks of the republican disatisfaction with him and are still looking at other options.
Santorum: His tie with Romney is gonna be nothing more than that. This I believe will be a Santorum "bubble". After all Ohio has a history of picking evangelical candidates in its caucuses. Unlike Romney, Santorum has no money, really no ground game or staffing. He also was not vetted in this caucus, he will be and will have some 'splaining to do.
Paul: That fact that he is so out of mainstream Republican views (whatever those happen to be anymore) he will never get the nomination. I believe he will remain competitive due to his money staffing and grassroots support but in the end will not get the republican nomination. He might then take his supporters and go third party, possibly libertarian.
So Romney it is.......but:
He doesn't attract independents, probably not dems either (although I would hard pressed to find any real differences between the republican and democratic machines except where they conveniently disagree on lame wedge issues. Both are in love with big government and its largess)and worse of all among his base feelings are tepid.
He may get some Santorum people but his positions are so diametrically opposed to Paul's, I doubt he'll get much support in that regard. It's even worse for Romney if Paul goes third party and splits the republican vote.
Obama on the other hand has the advantages of an incumbent, will most likely still recieve the support of the dems by and large and will, given the Romney alternative, will attact independents and swing voters.
Will it be a landslide? No.
But Romney, IMO, is gonna be another McCain or Dole.
THIS WRITING IS ONLY MY OPINION. IT IS NOT FACT. IT IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE AND CERTAINLY IS NOT INTENDED TO INFLAME OR ANGER ANYONE. JUST DICUSSING POLITICS.
All the best,
Todd
0
Comments
Come to think of it, though, we're coming close to that on the gun thread. OK, never mind. :nyah:
The problem that I see is that there is no diversity, all of the canidants (except for Obama) are middle-old age white Christians who are "very" religious. Having a country run by people like that is not good for the public and will not bring around good change. How can we expect a leader who will take us into the future if half do not believe in evolution or use and accept science or someones personal rights to choose? (in regards to abortion and gay marriage)
Come to think of it, though, we're coming close to that on the gun thread. OK, never mind. :nyah:
Dakini,
The gun thread has been great!! By all means let off some stream tell me what you really think! After all what's the point in having a discussion if one can't be open and honest. The problem comes when we reify a position or idea-something we Buddhist strive not to do, I am certainly guilty of that.
I wasn't trying to advocate for a candidate one way or the other, just some post-caucus analysis. Personally I see very little substantive difference in either group, there are superficial differences of course but superficial they are.
I would also like to add that there is another thing that could happen: there is a chance Ron Paul will go third party and then steal votes away from Romney, getting Obama more votes. Winner winner chicken dinner.
here is how American politic function. Obama, Romney... all the same.
There is no way on earth they let Paul win. My guess is they give him a third place position so not too many people suspect it was rigged and enough people believe that voting for him is wasting your vote.
it sucks to learn how American politic work because all of our hopes and desires dissipate, but after we go through the mourning phase for our lost hopes, it can is liberating because we can stop getting angry about "why didn't he do this or that?" type of things, stop paying too much attention to it and this liberate energy for better things in our life.
Ohhh, just imagine if a Buddhist ever ran for President..... I don't think the Country could handle it.
I Like Paul out of the whole lot, Because he is honest. He's just not very articulate, which gets him in trouble. But he speaks the truth. Which is why people don't like him. The truth is not always an easy pill to swallow. Ultimatly, this is what makes him unelectable. Santorum...uh, that man. He'll never make it in NH. We're too liberal In the New England region to accept that. I agree it will Be Romney in the End, but I don't think he has what it takes to beat Obama. (Especially is Paul runs on the 3rd party ticket) Why vote Obama out, just to vote Obama in?
I think the nominy will be Romney for the same reasons you do and I think Obama will beat him. Obama is vulnerable but the republican candidates are weak. The wildcard in all this is the economy. If things take a turn for the worse things would change.
Thanks for the insightful video! Just went to amazon to pick up Hedges book.
@pattb said "here is how American politic function. Obama, Romney... all the same"
I couldn't agree with you more.
Maybe not so odd. Maybe buddhism is again changing and adapting, as it always has, when it has come to a new place. Batchelor said in "Buddhism without Beliefs"
(I am paraphrasing here) that as Buddhist we are very good at using our practice inwardly to cultivate and grow ourselves but outwardwardly we are not engaged /don't engage with the world ( :banghead: I don't have the book in front of me for a direct quote)He found that as a failing and I would agree with him; not that we have to "spread the Dharma" but through our practice, our conduct and our lives we remain engaged with the world and hopefully positively impact it. That's at least my thinking.
@craigpoff said "Ohhh, just imagine if a Buddhist ever ran for President..... I don't think the Country could handle it"
Your right, they couldn't! You know 'cause were essentially Satanists, at the very least we are going to hell :rarr: :rarr: :rarr:
Kennedy was considered by many to be unelectable, because he was a Catholic. The kinds of concerns arjquad raises were raised then. I suspect that to a certain extent, "Catholic" was a euphemism for "Irish", which raised similar prejudices for some people as the term/ethnicity "Negro" did. (The Irish used to be slaves/indentured servants in America, before Black slavery was invented. ) But even without ethnic prejudice, the religion issue was a big one. But Kennedy's presidency had nothing to do with religion, so that worked out fine.
Carter was a born-again Christian. I think he was elected only because he was running after the "Tricky Dick" disaster of the Nixon presidency, and the electorate was looking for someone ethical, a radical change. During his presidency, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was handed down, and had to be implemented as federal law. Carter was against abortion, but he wrote in one of his books that he was bound to uphold the law of the land, and he did. As a Christian, he worked to support the Christian position in other ways, he said, by supporting adoption, I forget the details of that side of it. The point is, he didn't allow his religious beliefs to interfere with his duty as President.
I wouldn't trust today's ultra-Christian candidates to have that kind of integrity.
Did anyone notice during the Bush-Kerry election, how Kerry was compelled to stress his church-going? Because Bush was touting his religious values, family values, etc., so Kerry had to compete to some extent on that score? That was sad, a sad commentary on how skewed politics has become in recent decades, rife with fundamentalism. A little scary.
@pattb said "here is how American politic function. Obama, Romney... all the same"
"Not only has Obama been a savior of the banking conglomerates that so generously financed his campaign, but he also has proved to be equally as solicitous of the needs of the military-industrial complex. He entered his re-election year by signing a $662 billion defense authorization bill that strips away some of our most fundamental liberties and keeps military spending at Cold War levels, and by approving a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia"
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/arms_dealer_obama_will_win_by_default_20120105/?ln
I read an article that said Bush Jr. discovered the Religious Right when he was managing his father's campaign, and started to court them, realizing they were a potentially strong, untapped electoral force. It worked, so after that, he really played it up, and cultivated those contacts, and fed that sector, helping them come to power (they took over Congress part way through the Clinton admin). So it's due to G.W. that this has become such a big focus in our politics today. Before his involvement in national politics, it was irrelevant and off the table. I'm not even sure the Reagans were church-goers at all. Nobody cared whether they were or not.
You're right, though. Who expected Obama to turn out to be a Bush in sheep's clothing, or something?