US Politics - Pretending that the Iowa caucuses matter for some reason

[Shryke]

As much as I want to see the fucktard in the White House lose, I don't want to see the economy get to the point where Woody could win.

As a Republican, I'll be on record as saying I really dislike this crop of candidates. This was a very winnable election with a decent candidate, but none of them chose to run. So we get this group.

Santorum is rigid and humorless. He's gotten a free ride to this point, and I'm sure we'll see Romney launch on him. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out, because Romney is going to fight like hell in New Hampshire.

The really interesting question is what is going to happen if Romney's attacks on Santorum draw blood. It's almost funny -- Romney has proven adept at taking down other candidates, but he never seems to gain any support as a result. When he attacked Newt, folks leaning in Newt's direction went to Santorum. That creates a problem for Newt, because attacking Romney won't get those votes back. He's have to go after Santorum for that, and he likes Santorum, so that won't happen.

Newt's only hope is if Romney lands some body-blow ads on Santorum that causes him to lose support, which I suspect would just filter right on back to Newt. Newt would be smart to stick it out at least until South Carolina if he can, because if Santorum falters, he'd be the only remaining beneficiary.

It's been his problem from the beginning. People don't like Romney.

He's always listed as people's second choice, but when their candidate of choice tanks, they jump ship to the newest Not-Romney instead of their supposed second choice. They are basically saying Romney cause it's what they kind of think they should say, but ultimately they just can't stand the guy.

Romney and the media will now go after Santorum of course and likely he'll lose support under scrutiny just like all the previous Not-Romney's have. God knows where the support will go after that. The only other thing though is that the votes are actually happening now, which may very well change the dynamic. Of course, I don't think Santorum has much ground game going forward (he didn't even submit a application in Virginia). But Romney polls like shit in a few places (South Carolina was the big one I remember) so Santorum or maybe even someone else could gain momentum there.

The other big issue is the race is probably gonna start getting heated now, as Romney attacks more in earnest because votes are actually on the line. And you can expect Obama to start wadding into the fight too soon. And the thing with Romney is, he seems to get flustered under pressure and go from "robot trying to be your friend" to "dickish robot in a suit that fired your dad".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Goldwater--as I recall--was alienated from the New Right people who running his campaign, and ended up traveling with some of his core congressional staff while the New Right people were putting out race-baiting ads that Goldwater wasn't thrilled with. Which is to say, there were a bunch of different ideas about what Goldwater's campaign meant, and Goldwater's own opinion isn't necessarily the most historically significant.

I think that's all correct. Goldwater the man wasn't a racist, and I can understand his basis for opposing the Civil Rights Act. Shit, I don't like it to the extent it pertains to private property. But there clearly were people around him who tried to use that as a racial wedge issue to get in the South, which was offensive and wrong.

Certainly, his biggest successes were from his opposition to the CRA, not from his foreign policy.

I suppose that depends upon how you define "success". It did help him win those deep south states, but it also likely played a role in him getting clobbered elsewhere.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually, there was a great quote from a GOP Congressman that expresses the same idea that I was trying to express earlier:

Yes, I think that is very true. To some extent, I think it has always been true. The "moderates" in the past didn't think conservatism would sell to the general public either. But it likely is more true now. Also, don't you think that is true within the Democratic Party as well to some extent? Seems to me there are lots and lots of arguments between those Democrats who say the party isn't liberal enough, and push for more radical change, and those who say that incrementalism is more likely to succeed.

What makes that interesting is that there are good arguments on both sides. You have to craft your argument so as to appeal to folks other than your core constituency. On the other hand, if you change your substantive positions too much to get elected, then what's the point?

[Ken Stone]

Im not american and from what i see in the web about the gop nominees, it looks like some sort of crazy circus to me, i mean the level of extremism is scary, how did the Republican party got so extreme? Each candidate seems to be competing to see who is more radical, i wonder if there are republican voter in this forum and what do they think about this situation.

It really looks like Obama will win this one easily.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone with my comments about the GOP but thats what is looking like from a outside point of view.

Don't read too much into it right now. They are appealing to their base which means exaggerating those things the base cares about. In the actually election the nominee will race back to the center, counting on short attention spans to forget everything they said during the primary.

[Shryke]

Yes, I think that is very true. To some extent, I think it has always been true. The "moderates" in the past didn't think conservatism would sell to the general public either. But it likely is more true now. Also, don't you think that is true within the Democratic Party as well to some extent? Seems to me there are lots and lots of arguments between those Democrats who say the party isn't liberal enough, and push for more radical change, and those who say that incrementalism is more likely to succeed.

What makes that interesting is that there are good arguments on both sides. You have to craft your argument so as to appeal to folks other than your core constituency. On the other hand, if you change your substantive positions too much to get elected, then what's the point?

The difference is the Democrats don't whip well enough to keep people in line and, partially due to this, the centrist/moderates generally don't have to appeal to the lefter of the party.

That's why the primary candidates in the GOP sound so crazy. Because in the GOP, you've got to appeal to the far-right elements of the party.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Yes, I think that is very true. To some extent, I think it has always been true. The "moderates" in the past didn't think conservatism would sell to the general public either. But it likely is more true now. Also, don't you think that is true within the Democratic Party as well to some extent? Seems to me there are lots and lots of arguments between those Democrats who say the party isn't liberal enough, and push for more radical change, and those who say that incrementalism is more likely to succeed.

Absolutely, it's true of both parties now. But fifty years ago, it wasn't true of either party. Nelson Rockefeller didn't want a moderate version of Goldwater-ism, he wanted federal civil rights protections and an expansion of the welfare state. There were conservatives and liberals in those days, but they weren't sorted by party.

[lupis42]

There are a lot of Republicans who identify primarily as social conservatives, but most of them are also economically conservative. There are a lot of Republicans who identify as economic conservatives, but they're largely pro-life and opposed to gay rights. Nobody supports the ACA, everybody wants to get rid of the CFPB, everybody (save Ron Paul) favors an aggressive stance against Iran, etc. Like I said before, there have been studies: the most liberal Republican in Congress is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat.

That's probably true in aggregate, but it's not nearly as reliable an indicator on any particular issue. There are plenty of Republicans who either don't care about gay rights or view it as a loser issue, just as there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of poking Iran with a stick as long and as hard as possible. The minority party will tend to stick together more, but D or R doesn't give you nearly as much information about a candidate's stance on any given issue as you're making it out to.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

In the end it will be Romney/Obama in the most boring debates ever.

Healthcare: I agree with my opponent

Fiscal policy: I agree with my opponent

Foreign Militarism: I agree with my opponent

Support for Israel: I agree with my opponent

Gay marriage: I agree with my opponent

Campaign finance: I agree with my opponent

The economy: I throw out a bunch of Rep/Dem platitudes of no substance painting my opponent as trying to sabotage America without actually taking any substantial position.

[lupis42]

Attacking Romney is expensive, and most of the secondary candidates don't stand to gain much - any votes that leave Romney are just as likely to go to Paul or Santorum or Gingrich, so it's not worth it to any of them to invest in it too much until the field has been winnowed a bit. If it's down to a 3 or 4 man race in South Carolina, that will start.

Isn't it amazing how little Romney has been attacked, especially considering how assailable he ought to be within today's GOP?

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

That's probably true in aggregate, but it's not nearly as reliable an indicator on any particular issue. There are plenty of Republicans who either don't care about gay rights or view it as a loser issue, just as there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of poking Iran with a stick as long and as hard as possible. The minority party will tend to stick together more, but D or R doesn't give you nearly as much information about a candidate's stance on any given issue as you're making it out to.

Once again, I'm not saying that the Republicans are monolithic. I said already that there are differences in emphasis and tactics. Those things can make a difference. But that's nothing like the yawning ideological gap that used to exist in the Republican Party.

[Shryke]

In the end it will be Romney/Obama in the most boring debates ever.

Healthcare: I agree with my opponent

Fiscal policy: I agree with my opponent

Foreign Militarism: I agree with my opponent

Support for Israel: I agree with my opponent

Gay marriage: I agree with my opponent

Campaign finance: I agree with my opponent

The economy: I throw out a bunch of Rep/Dem platitudes of no substance painting my opponent as trying to sabotage America without actually taking any substantial position.

What campaign have you been watching?

Healthcare: Obama will agree with old-Romney. But this will be an attack, since Romney is running as fast as he can from his previous stance on healthcare. The GOP has also staked out a hardcore anti-ACA stance, so that will come up.

Fiscal policy: Romney will come down for "slashing the budget". Obama will come down against this.

Foreign Militarism: Romney will want to bomb Iran or some such. Obama will not. Romney will probably also try to come down anti-Lybia-intervention at the same time, cause cognitive dissonance doesn't effect the average voter.

Support for Israel: Obama will come down pro-Israel. Romney will try and paint Obama as anti-Israel for not being pro-Israel enough.

Gay marriage: I can't even take you seriously on this one. The GOP will continue to stake out an anti-gay platform. Obama will either essentially say nothing or tout his ending of DADT and his desire to get rid of DOMA.

Campaign finance: This won't even be talked about I imagine.

The economy: Same as financial stuff above. Romney will be pro-huge-austerity, Obama will be somewhere been anti-austerity and alot-less-austerity-then-Romney. Also the usually pro/anti-regulation stuff, the whole "job creators" bullshit from Romney and Obama will continue to pin the bad economy on the GOP being obstructionists.

You can't be paying attention if you think both candidates are gonna be saying the same thing.

[lupis42]

Once again, I'm not saying that the Republicans are monolithic. I said already that there are differences in emphasis and tactics. Those things can make a difference. But that's nothing like the yawning ideological gap that used to exist in the Republican Party.

I can't say how yawning the gap used to be, but I definitely see a considerable amount of blurring at the lines - and of course, there are always some outliers like Dr. Paul, who is either more conservative than almost any other Republican or more liberal than most Democrats.

[Fez]

In the end it will be Romney/Obama in the most boring debates ever.

Healthcare: I agree with my opponent

Obama would actually be clever to go this route, thanking Romney for the idea, particularly since the campaign has already said they will use the ol' "flip-flopper" attack on Romney if he wins the nomination. But no way Romney goes back on his recent going back on his own plan, he'll stick with some sort of voucher system no doubt.

Fiscal policy: I agree with my opponent

Romney has been attacking the 2009 Stimulus for 3 years now, one of Obama's signature accomplishments, I don't see that changing. Also Romney will be pushing further budget cuts.

Foreign Militarism: I agree with my opponent

Romney opposed the pullout from Iraq and has been much more militant on Iran.

Support for Israel: I agree with my opponent

Agreed.

Gay marriage: I agree with my opponent

No way. Romney will come out strongly anti-gay marriage and Obama will talk about how his views are still "evolving" and maybe mention ending DADT.

Campaign finance: I agree with my opponent

Not going to be brought up.

The economy: I throw out a bunch of Rep/Dem platitudes of no substance painting my opponent as trying to sabotage America without actually taking any substantial position.

It will essentially be the standard charges that anyone Republican/Democratic debate would have and will have almost no wonkishness. But the parties have very different idea about the best way to stimulate job growth.

In conclusion, you're wrong.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Yes, yes, yes... but what are the candidates going to say about the amero, the Cloward-Piven strategy, and the NAFTA Super Highway? I want a choice, not an echo!

[Fez]

Yes, yes, yes... but what are the candidates going to say about the amero, the Cloward-Piven strategy, and the NAFTA Super Highway? I want a choice, not an echo!

Well you got me there; or for that matter what about their defense against the charge that they are both Lizard People?

[lupis42]

Obama would actually be clever to go this route, thanking Romney for the idea, particularly since the campaign has already said they will use the ol' "flip-flopper" attack on Romney if he wins the nomination. But no way Romney goes back on his recent going back on his own plan, he'll stick with some sort of voucher system no doubt.

Romney will stick to his most recent flip, but after 6 months in office, who knows what he'd do. One Dem-victory in the midterms and he'll be rushing to get ahead of whatever wind is blowing.

Romney has been attacking the 2009 Stimulus for 3 years now, one of Obama's signature accomplishments, I don't see that changing. Also Romney will be pushing further budget cuts.

Unless Romney plans to ask the taxpayers for his money back, the stimulus is done and dead. Obama is unlikely to get anything similar through again. Romney will be pushing budget cuts, but he is unlikely to follow through on them.

Romney opposed the pullout from Iraq and has been much more militant on Iran.

Right, but ultimately, we're not in Iraq, neither candidate will get us out of Afghanistan, and both will get us into a war with Iran.

No way. Romney will come out strongly anti-gay marriage and Obama will talk about how his views are still "evolving" and maybe mention ending DADT.

Possibly - more likely, Romney would say that he doesn't think it's an issue for the federal government, or that he supports SeperateButEqualUnions, and Obama would say that he's looking at the issue. Neither one is going to do anything either way though.

And the issue that always gets neglected, the police state we live in - Romney and Obama both want to expand it, both believe that the executive branch should be hamstrung by pesky things like 'trials', 'evidence', and 'due process', but should have the power to murder or detain anyone, anywhere, by saying "he looked like a terrorist".

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Well you got me there; or for that matter what about their defense against the charge that they are both Lizard People?

Isn't it suspicious that there's no evidence that Barack Obama is a lizard person? None whatsoever? Almost as if he was organizing a conspiracy to get rid of the evidence?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Isn't it amazing how little Romney has been attacked, especially considering how assailable he ought to be within today's GOP?

That was a function of there being so many candidates in the race. When you're competing against a bunch of other people, spending your limited funds on taking down just one of them doesn't help you all that much. You need to stand out from the group.

Now that the race has narrowed -- Bachmann is out though Perry is still in -- I think you'll see Santorum now focusing a bit less on himself in his ads, and going more after Romney directly. And Romney will continue his practice of going after the leading "anti-Romney" candidate. Gingrich likely will go after Romney a lot harder too.

[Inigima]

For the record, I was planning to vote third-party for the presidency in 2012. If it's Santorum for the Republicans, I'm voting Democratic.

[TerraPrime]

In the end it will be Romney/Obama in the most boring debates ever.

Healthcare: I agree with my opponent

Fiscal policy: I agree with my opponent

Foreign Militarism: I agree with my opponent

Support for Israel: I agree with my opponent

Gay marriage: I agree with my opponent

Campaign finance: I agree with my opponent

The economy: I throw out a bunch of Rep/Dem platitudes of no substance painting my opponent as trying to sabotage America without actually taking any substantial position.

My dad can't tell the blue bin apart from the green bin. To him, they're the same. But then, he's also color-blind. *shrugs*