Page 53 of 55 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,060 of 1098
  1. #1041
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Right, but he had lost it in 1976. I thought that was the point of the original post -- candidates don't lose the nomination one year and then go on to win the nomination and then win the Presidency by a big margin in the next election. Generally this is true, but there are exceptions. That's basically what Reagan did in 1976 and 1980.
    I thought CB&B was talking about winning the general in the same election that you lost the primary. Of course, by definition, there's no empirical evidence to argue with, but I suspect he's probably right.
    Last edited by snowdenscold; 04-05-2012 at 10:28 AM.

  2. #1042
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Right, but he had lost it in 1976. I thought that was the point of the original post -- candidates don't lose the nomination one year and then go on to win the nomination and then win the Presidency by a big margin in the next election. Generally this is true, but there are exceptions. That's basically what Reagan did in 1976 and 1980.
    The point of my original post was that if Santorum can't coalesce the majority of his own party then he certainly would not win the general election in a landslide as was surmised by Verga3.
    As for 2016? I think Santorum has put himself in a great position for that year, just as Romney did for himself this year with his bid in 2008.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  3. #1043
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Right, but he had lost it in 1976. I thought that was the point of the original post -- candidates don't lose the nomination one year and then go on to win the nomination and then win the Presidency by a big margin in the next election. Generally this is true, but there are exceptions. That's basically what Reagan did in 1976 and 1980.
    No- people were responding to the comment that "Santorum is the only candidate that can defeat Obama. It would be a crushing landslide, I believe."

    That means *this* election, not the the next one.

  4. #1044
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure he won the nomination in 1980.


    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39806.html
    Of course he did. But the idea here is that performance in the party nomination isn't necessarily the best predictor for performance in the general election. This nomination probably isn't the best example, because I think all of the conservative republicans in the campaign have fatal flaws that would also prevent them from having a realistic chance against Obama. But, here's the idea:

    In a hypothetical Republican nomination, you have two candidates, both good candidates. The voters in the Republican primary include a subset of Republicans who will vote in the general election, and a few of the independents who will vote in the general election. The incumbent is a Democrat who is a good candidate who runs moderate (as Obama did in 2008 and is likely to do in 2012). The Republicans who take the time to vote are likely those who are more concerned about winning the general election, and they have a fairly dogmatic fear of losing the independents if they nominate a guy who is more conservative. So many of them will vote for the moderate Republican, even if their own views are more conservative.

    Say the moderate wins the Republican primary. Most Republicans will vote for the Republican, although some conservatives may sit it out being dissatisfied with both choices. Independents may see the Republican and Democratic candidates as being relatively similar (same old same old), and stick with the incumbent. The incumbent Democrat wins.

    But what if the conservative had won the nomination? He/She will get the conservative base and most republicans. Some independents, if they feel like the "same old same old" isn't working, will vote for the conservative. If enough independents feel that way, the conservative wins where the moderate Republican would have failed.

    That's kind of the talking points logic of conservative commentators in a nutshell, and has some basis in reality with regards to the Reagan-Carter election in 1980. Conservatives have been hoping for a repeat of 1980, but they have 3 problems. First, Obama has a much better mojo than Carter did in 1980. Second, he doesn't have an international crisis dragging him down the way the Iran Hostage issue did (although, interestingly, Iran, once again, seems to be a nasty brewing issue that may very well boil over before November). Third, the Conservatives didn't find their Reagan in this nomination process. If he's out there, he sat out 2012.

    As I implied above, I personally don't think Santorum beats Obama in the general election. Obama's not Carter, and Santorum is no Reagan. Frankly, I don't think Reagan would beat Obama in a landslide, althought it would sure be a fun campaign process and a lively debate. But I can see how a dynamic conservative candidate might struggle in the nomination process due to the moderate Republicans' fears that the conservative will be less "electable" than a moderate candidate, and still be able to win handily in a general election because independents turn out to like the contrast between the Conservative candidate and the Democrat candidate.

    (total aside: The idea of an Obama-Reagan debate got me thinking about what would be the most fun hypothetical presidential debate. I settled on Clinton-Reagan. Two guys with a quick wit, charisma, and a likeable stage persona.)
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

  5. #1045
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    (total aside: The idea of an Obama-Reagan debate got me thinking about what would be the most fun hypothetical presidential debate. I settled on Clinton-Reagan. Two guys with a quick wit, charisma, and a likeable stage persona.)
    Those two could have had their own traveling stage show.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  6. #1046
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Strategy question:

    Assuming Santorum does not pack it in after his current five-day "holiday" from campaigning, his home state of Pennsylvania looms large. State may be a toss-up. If Romney wins there, Santorum has to get out I would think. So, Romney could carpet bomb PA and try to knock Rick out. Flip side, if Romney spends a ton of cash there and loses, Santorum gets new life and can again argue that money can't buy the office.

    So, if you're Romney -- do you play big in PA and go for the knock-out, or play soft and then argue that a loss doesn't mean that much because it's Rick's state?
    Twerp-free since July 1, 2014.

  7. #1047
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Those two could have had their own traveling stage show.
    Certainly, two of the most gifted politicians since television became a prominent form of political communication.
    Twerp-free since July 1, 2014.

  8. #1048

    strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Strategy question:

    Assuming Santorum does not pack it in after his current five-day "holiday" from campaigning, his home state of Pennsylvania looms large. State may be a toss-up. If Romney wins there, Santorum has to get out I would think. So, Romney could carpet bomb PA and try to knock Rick out. Flip side, if Romney spends a ton of cash there and loses, Santorum gets new life and can again argue that money can't buy the office.

    So, if you're Romney -- do you play big in PA and go for the knock-out, or play soft and then argue that a loss doesn't mean that much because it's Rick's state?
    Very good question ...

    I would lean towards the first option. Romney HAS to end this soon (if he hasn't already). The etch0-a-sketch has to freset as soon as possible in a more moderate position. He can't do that until he eliminates Santorum. All his big wins (Florida, for instance) have come when he's used his bankroll to bombard the state with TV ... it's wotrked so far.

    The only way I wouldn't try that would be in my internal polling shows an insurmountable lead for Santorum. I don't think that's the case -- the public polling is fairly close in the state,

    So I think Mitt goes for the knockout punch. If he wins Pennsylvania it's iver for sure -- it's already to the point where nobody else can enter he convention with more delagtes ... all we're waiting on is the off-chance that Santorum, Gingrich, Paul can combine to keep Mitt from clinching and thus force a brokered convention. It's funny because Mitt is not getting 50 percent anywhere -- and is not close to it nationally -- but the way the primary rules work, it looks like he's going to enter the convention with more than 50 percent of the vote.

    He certainly will if he win Pennsylvani.

  9. #1049
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Very good question ...

    I would lean towards the first option. Romney HAS to end this soon (if he hasn't already). The etch0-a-sketch has to freset as soon as possible in a more moderate position. He can't do that until he eliminates Santorum. All his big wins (Florida, for instance) have come when he's used his bankroll to bombard the state with TV ... it's wotrked so far.

    The only way I wouldn't try that would be in my internal polling shows an insurmountable lead for Santorum. I don't think that's the case -- the public polling is fairly close in the state,

    So I think Mitt goes for the knockout punch. If he wins Pennsylvania it's iver for sure -- it's already to the point where nobody else can enter he convention with more delagtes ... all we're waiting on is the off-chance that Santorum, Gingrich, Paul can combine to keep Mitt from clinching and thus force a brokered convention. It's funny because Mitt is not getting 50 percent anywhere -- and is not close to it nationally -- but the way the primary rules work, it looks like he's going to enter the convention with more than 50 percent of the vote.

    He certainly will if he win Pennsylvani.
    Agreed. Interesting read on how PA delegates are awarded:

    http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-1...tate-committee

    Sounds like the vote, and the delegates, are only loosely aligned at best.
    Twerp-free since July 1, 2014.

  10. #1050
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Strategy question:

    Assuming Santorum does not pack it in after his current five-day "holiday" from campaigning, his home state of Pennsylvania looms large. State may be a toss-up. If Romney wins there, Santorum has to get out I would think. So, Romney could carpet bomb PA and try to knock Rick out. Flip side, if Romney spends a ton of cash there and loses, Santorum gets new life and can again argue that money can't buy the office.

    So, if you're Romney -- do you play big in PA and go for the knock-out, or play soft and then argue that a loss doesn't mean that much because it's Rick's state?
    I think Romney tries to win but does not need to "carpet bomb" the state with ads. He is pretty certain to be the nominee no matter what at this point. Santorum winning his home state -- whether Romney tries there or not -- is not going to change anything.

    -Jason "I think Santorum will suspend his campaign in the next few weeks, but will not release his delegates" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  11. #1051

    delegates

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I think Romney tries to win but does not need to "carpet bomb" the state with ads. He is pretty certain to be the nominee no matter what at this point. Santorum winning his home state -- whether Romney tries there or not -- is not going to change anything.

    -Jason "I think Santorum will suspend his campaign in the next few weeks, but will not release his delegates" Evans
    Jason, I agree with the point you make in your sig ... Although I think Santorum and Newt (but not Paul) will try and trade their support/delegates for something -- maybe something as small as a prime time speaking spot at the convention, maybe a key policy decision, maybe a veto on the VP or some cabinet spot.

    It's an interesting balance for Mitt (and a good early test of his leadership). On one hand, it doesn't look like he needs to buy off his rivals support to win the nomination, but he IS going to need their constituencies to win the general election -- Santorum's social conservatives and Gingrich's econimic conservatives (the split between those two groups pretty much explains the difficulty that Mitt's opposition has had in getting together). It could make a big difference in November whether Rick/Newt embrace Mitt enthusastically, grudgingly or not at all.

  12. #1052
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    "Gingrich Think Tank Declares Bankruptcy"

    Ah, the jokes that could have been made in the PPB days . . . .

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...for-bankruptcy

    But makes Newt look even more egotistical, staying in while his company goes kablooey.
    Twerp-free since July 1, 2014.

  13. #1053
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    No- people were responding to the comment that "Santorum is the only candidate that can defeat Obama. It would be a crushing landslide, I believe."

    That means *this* election, not the the next one.


    My mistake, then -- I misunderstood the original post. My bad.

  14. #1054
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Newt is attending a luncheon on Tuesday 2 miles from my house in New Bern; it would be pretty interesting to hear him speak even though I don't agree with much that he says. This is his second trip to NC in 2 weeks, he was in Wilmington last week. Still trudging right along.....
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  15. #1055
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Santorumís decision to suspend his campaign effectively stifles the opposition to Romney from within the GOP; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul remain active candidates, though neither of them have a plausible path to winning the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination.
    http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-campaign?lite

    So...when do we start the general election thread? (I hope y'all allow one, this thread has been fun)
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  16. #1056

    Romney's GOP support

    We were talking about Romney's failure to rally his Republican base and now we have some pretty strong evidence.

    Gallup's final poll among Republican voters shows him at 42 percent -- the lowest ever for a Republican nominee at this point (Gallup's final polls are when the nomination race is decided, which is usually Feb.-Mar.-Spril):

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153839/Ro...rum-Exits.aspx

    The only major party nominee to ever wrap it up with less support in his own party was George McGovern in 1972. How did he do?

    The only other major party candidate under 50 percent in his own party was Jimmy Carter in 1980. That one is amazing since he was a sitting President. His 48 percent popularity among Democrats foreshadowed his general election loss to Reagan.

    Not saying Romney can't win, but he's got a tough haul.

  17. #1057
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post

    The only other major party candidate under 50 percent in his own party was Jimmy Carter in 1980. That one is amazing since he was a sitting President. His 48 percent popularity among Democrats foreshadowed his general election loss to Reagan.

    And Carter was still very much in that race until almost the end. There was only one debate between Carter and Reagan in 1980, and it took place the week before the election. Up until that time, polls had it more or less a dead heat (and some even had Carter with a slight lead), but with a decent chunk of undecideds. That was the famous debate of "There you go again" and "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most of the undecideds broke to Reagan, and it was game over.

    Back to Romney -- Fox also had a poll out yesterday that covers the same time frame (Apr. 9-11) and seems to confirm Gallup's findings. Romney is in the 40s (though a few points higher than Gallup, 46 to 42), and the collective group of Santorum, Gingrich and Paul combine for 44%, same as the Gallup poll.

    Romney -- 46
    Paul -- 16
    Santorum -- 15
    Gingrich -- 13
    Someone else -- 2
    Too soon to say -- 4
    Unsure -- 4

  18. #1058
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    St. Louis

    1980

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    And Carter was still very much in that race until almost the end. There was only one debate between Carter and Reagan in 1980, and it took place the week before the election. Up until that time, polls had it more or less a dead heat (and some even had Carter with a slight lead), but with a decent chunk of undecideds. That was the famous debate of "There you go again" and "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most of the undecideds broke to Reagan, and it was game over.

    Back to Romney -- Fox also had a poll out yesterday that covers the same time frame (Apr. 9-11) and seems to confirm Gallup's findings. Romney is in the 40s (though a few points higher than Gallup, 46 to 42), and the collective group of Santorum, Gingrich and Paul combine for 44%, same as the Gallup poll.

    Romney -- 46
    Paul -- 16
    Santorum -- 15
    Gingrich -- 13
    Someone else -- 2
    Too soon to say -- 4
    Unsure -- 4
    In 1980, Jimmy the Greek Snyder was a working for one of the Triangle TV stations; he had a seriously ill child being treated at Duke. I'll never forget turning on the local news that afternoon, before any polls were closed. Snyder was noting that most pundits were saying the race would be close, and he said that was nonsense and predicted a Reagan landslide. Legend has it that Snyder made his first fortune by betting on Harry Truman to beat Dewey in 1948.

  19. #1059
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    And Carter was still very much in that race until almost the end. There was only one debate between Carter and Reagan in 1980, and it took place the week before the election. Up until that time, polls had it more or less a dead heat (and some even had Carter with a slight lead), but with a decent chunk of undecideds. That was the famous debate of "There you go again" and "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most of the undecideds broke to Reagan, and it was game over.
    People always seem to gloss over this, glad you raised it. Although it ended up being an electoral college slaughter, it was a tight battle until the very end. Not sure there's been a person who did more after he left office than Jimmy, whether you like him (or his causes) or not.

    Still teaches Sunday school in Plains when he is in town. But you have to want to get there; Plains is a long way from anywhere.
    Twerp-free since July 1, 2014.

  20. #1060

    carter

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    People always seem to gloss over this, glad you raised it. Although it ended up being an electoral college slaughter, it was a tight battle until the very end. Not sure there's been a person who did more after he left office than Jimmy, whether you like him (or his causes) or not.

    Still teaches Sunday school in Plains when he is in town. But you have to want to get there; Plains is a long way from anywhere.
    Carter is No. 2 on my personal list of bad presidents who were great men -- right ahead of Herbert Hoover (his WWI relief efforts deserved a Nobel Peace Prize).

    But No. 1 on my list is John Quincy Adams, a one-term failure in the White House, who returned to the House of Representatives as a congressman and was in the firefront of leading resistance to slavery. He accomplished more in his final years than he ever did as President.

Similar Threads

  1. Politics of Preschool
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •