Michelle Bachman...: A poor man's Palin..?

Silvio.Dante

I'm watching the reaction to her on MSNBC and Fox. She engenders the same reactions in the American Left and Right as Palin does in my view. However I don't see the vote getting power Palin may get.

Which begs the question why is Palin not entering the race. Isshe not interested or does she see Bachman as her proxy and when she's good and ready to make a dramatic last minute entrance into the race that will get all the headlines...?

Intriguing...

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm watching the reaction to her on MSNBC and Fox. She engenders the same reactions in the American Left and Right as Palin does in my view. However I don't see the vote getting power Palin may get.

Which begs the question why is Palin not entering the race. Isshe not interested or does she see Bachman as her proxy and when she's good and ready to make a dramatic last minute entrance into the race that will get all the headlines...?

Intriguing...

You have it the complete wrong way round. Palin is a poor man's Bachmann. Bachmann has a chance, Palin has no chance.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

You have it the complete wrong way round. Palin is a poor man's Bachmann. Bachmann has a chance, Palin has no chance.

Ooh I don't know about that. the latest Bachman debacle, PR wise, is the clinic herself and her hubby own tries to re-educate gay people to become straight. She performed dreadfully yesterday when point blank refused t engage with interviewers about the issue.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure palin could do just as badly but has an X Factor Bachman doesn't seem to be able to channel...

Memnoch

Palin's brand is too toxic right now and she knows it. She's going to let Back-man lose to Obama then run next time around when the republicans might be in a stronger position to win.

Obama's approval may not be great but there is still plenty of time for the economy to pick up (hence the republican's desperate efforts to sabotage it as much as possible.)

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

Palin's brand is too toxic right now and she knows it. She's going to let Back-man lose to Obama then run next time around when the republicans might be in a stronger position to win.

Obama's approval may not be great but there is still plenty of time for the economy to pick up (hence the republican's desperate efforts to sabotage it as much as possible.)

Obama will be a 1 term president. As for republicans deliberately sabotaging the economy, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Raising taxes is sabotaging an economy. Fiscal responsibility is not.

charlemont

matthew8 wrote: »

Obama will be a 1 term president. As for republicans deliberately sabotaging the economy, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Raising taxes is sabotaging an economy. Fiscal responsibility is not.

Sure George Bush left the economy in an outstanding condition..:rolleyes:

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

Obama will be a 1 term president. As for republicans deliberately sabotaging the economy, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Raising taxes is sabotaging an economy. Fiscal responsibility is not.

Nothing wrong with raising taxes of those highest earners as they can take the hit. but these actions must be associated with a cut in wasteful spending plans...

matthew8

charlemont wrote: »

Sure George Bush left the economy in an outstanding condition..:rolleyes:

Are you saying he deliberately destroyed the economy, because that's what we're discussing here.

charlemont

matthew8 wrote: »

Are you saying he deliberately destroyed the economy, because that's what we're discussing here.

Sure why not.. He was capable of anything..:D

SharpshooterTom

matthew8 wrote: »

Obama will be a 1 term president. As for republicans deliberately sabotaging the economy, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Raising taxes is sabotaging an economy. Fiscal responsibility is not.

Obama's still 4/9 on to win the next election. Not saying that's right because I think it could still be very close, but he's no means a 1 term president.

Ethnic minorities will be even larger than in 2008, and I don't mean to make it a racial thing, but ethnic minorities will back him as much as they did last time I'm sure, meaning Obama only needs about 38% of the white vote again.

matthew8

Gnobe wrote: »

Obama's still 4/9 on to win the next election. Not saying that's right because I think it could still be very close, but he's no means a 1 term president.

Ethnic minorities will be even larger than in 2008, and I don't mean to make it a racial thing, but ethnic minorities will back him as much as they did last time I'm sure, meaning Obama only needs about 38% of the white vote again.

Ethnic minorities won't back him as much. Especially since McCain isn't the candidate.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

Ethnic minorities won't back him as much. Especially since McCain isn't the candidate.

A liberal Republican like McCain put off ethnics more than a Bachman...???

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A liberal Republican like McCain put off ethnics more than a Bachman...???

An old, male, warmonger republican you mean.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

An old, white, warmonger republican you mean.

I totally disagree with your analysis. A liberal McCain who has a long and distinguished reputation of working across the political divide would be far more attractive than a cristian fundamentalist like bachman...

And if you think McCain is a warmonger what do you think Bachman's record would be in dealing with the Arab World...?

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I totally disagree with your analysis. A liberal McCain who has a long and distinguished reputation of working across the political divide would be far more attractive than a cristian fundamentalist like bachman...

And if you think McCain is a warmonger what do you think Bachman's record would be in dealing with the Arab World...?

Right now, though she'd change if made president, she is for leaving Afghanistan.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

Right now, though she'd change if made president, she is for leaving Afghanistan.

That still doesn't explain how she'd be more attractive to ethnics... The woman is definitely an isolationist with 19th century views on many issues. Has one passed the Earth is round coundrum yet...:D

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

That still doesn't explain how she'd be more attractive to ethnics... The woman is definitely an isolationist with 19th century views on many issues. Has one passed the Earth is round coundrum yet...:D

It's not just Bachmann but the entire republican party is more attractive. They got a latino elected to the senate in Florida.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

It's not just Bachmann but the entire republican party is more attractive. They got a latino elected to the senate in Florida.

You are joking I take it...?

One Latinoe in Fl does not a summer make...;)

matthew8

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

You are joking I take it...?

One Latinoe in Fl does not a summer make...;)

I would imagine many of the unemployed latinos are tired of Obama and have gone republican. Also, gaining latino votes in Florida is key for the gop because it's the main competitive state where there are a lot of them. This senator, though a tea partyer, got a lot of latino support. This support will go republican at the next election.

Silvio.Dante

matthew8 wrote: »

I would imagine many of the unemployed latinos are tired of Obama and have gone republican. Also, gaining latino votes in Florida is key for the gop because it's the main competitive state where there are a lot of them. This senator, though a tea partyer, got a lot of latino support. This support will go republican at the next election.

Exiled Cubans in FL are a strange bunch. very selfish and will sell their votes to the highest bidder. FL may well go Red in the next election. However to say a Born again Fundi can win over Catholic Latinos acorss the States is just palin wrong...:)

irishh_bob

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Exiled Cubans in FL are a strange bunch. very selfish and will sell their votes to the highest bidder. FL may well go Red in the next election. However to say a Born again Fundi can win over Catholic Latinos acorss the States is just palin wrong...:)

cuban americans are a bit of an anomoly amongst the hispanic vote , they view republicans as being more anti castro , hence thier unique ( amongst hispanics ) majority support for the GOP

Silvio.Dante

irishh_bob wrote: »

cuban americans are a bit of an anomoly amongst the hispanic vote , they view republicans as being more anti castro , hence thier unique ( amongst hispanics ) majority support for the GOP

Spot on...

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

It's not just Bachmann but the entire republican party is more attractive. They got a latino elected to the senate in Florida.

matthew8 wrote: »

I would imagine many of the unemployed latinos are tired of Obama and have gone republican. Also, gaining latino votes in Florida is key for the gop because it's the main competitive state where there are a lot of them. This senator, though a tea partyer, got a lot of latino support. This support will go republican at the next election.

You have a very strange view of American politics.

The GOP is seen as relatively racist by blacks and extremely hostile to immigration, and Latino immigration in particular by Hispanics. If the party would stop playing 'see no evil, hear no evil' with race-baiting tactics, they would probably do better with blacks and Latinos, who tend to be more socially conservative than whites.

As irishh_bob said, Florida (and New Jersey) Cubans are wedded to the GOP due to island politics more than anything else. A lot of them are also small business owners who tend to favor the GOP because of their stance on regulation. However, at a local level (I used to do political work in Miami) you can generally get a lot of them on board on "progressive" issues. In addition, the non-Cuban Hispanic population in Florida is growing, and they don't really give a crap about what the Castro brothers are up to.

As a side note, Rubio had a lot of support from Tea Party activists, but he was very careful to not run as a "Tea Party Candidate".

Bachmann is extremely unattractive for many black and Latino voters, not because of her evangelicalism (which is actually something of a common point for many blacks and a growing number of Hispanics) but because of her hostility to government social programs and the kinds of far-right groups she is willing to get in bed with for political support. McCain had (emphasis on the had) far more credibility and goodwill among blacks and Latinos for both his military service and his moderate stance on immigration.

SharpshooterTom

southsiderosie wrote: »

You have a very strange view of American politics.

The GOP is seen as relatively racist by blacks and extremely hostile to immigration, and Latino immigration in particular by Hispanics. If the party would stop playing 'see no evil, hear no evil' with race-baiting tactics, they would probably do better with blacks and Latinos, who tend to be more socially conservative than whites.

45% of Republican voters support current immigration levels or want to increase it. 51% agree it's been a good thing.

Compare to that of the tory party in England, where only 10% support current immigration levels. You wont find too many conservative european parties where 45% support their current levels or want to increase it.

The GOP (or at least their members) are largely quite liberal on immigration for a right wing party in context to the rest of the western world.

southsiderosie

Gnobe wrote: »

45% of Republican voters support current immigration levels or want to increase it. 51% agree it's been a good thing.

Compare to that of the tory party in England, where only 10% support current immigration levels. You wont find too many conservative european parties where 45% support their current levels or want to increase it.

The GOP (or at least their members) are largely quite liberal on immigration for a right wing party in context to the rest of the western world.

The US's history as a 'nation of immigrants' means that the political response to immigration differs quite sharply from most of continental Europe. In addition, the fact that we have two large parties rather than multiple smaller ones (as in Austria or Netherlands where right wing parties have become extremely influential) means that both pro-immigration business interests and anti-immigration populists are both housed within the GOP. If the US had a PR system instead of first past the post, I'm sure we would have a wingnut anti-immigration/anti-globalization party that would regularly get at least 10-15% of the vote.

Also, I would be curious to see a breakdown of those numbers, because states like Georgia and Arizona have passed extremely anti-immigrant legislation in the last few years. The behavior of local Republican officials is tarring the party with xenophobia. John McCain is a perfect example as he has shifted far to the right on the issue in order to appease local voters in Arizona.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Also, I would be curious to see a breakdown of those numbers, because states like Georgia and Arizona have passed extremely anti-immigrant legislation in the last few years. The behavior of local Republican officials is tarring the party with xenophobia. John McCain is a perfect example as he has shifted far to the right on the issue in order to appease local voters in Arizona.

I don’t buy into that opinion, and neither does the rest of the country. It is my understanding that almost two-thirds of Americans would rather see stricter enforcement of immigration laws than offering illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Therefore I gather that the majority of America supports and agrees with the republicans on the matter of illegal immigration.

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t buy into that opinion, and neither does the rest of the country. It is my understanding that almost two-thirds of Americans would rather see stricter enforcement of immigration laws than offering illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Therefore I gather that the majority of America supports and agrees with the republicans on the matter of illegal immigration.

Keeping in mind that I was talking about how minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics, view the Republican party...

The view of the GOP among Hispanics see Republicans (in this case, as measured by voting in presidential elections) - has dropped in recent years after almost doubling from 1996 to 2004:



GWB since his days as the Texas governor has generally had a good relationship with the Hispanic community, Mexicans and Cubans in particular. But as the immigration 'debate' has grown increasingly nasty, even those who would favor more control over immigration resent the way that some on the right are essentially painting all Hispanics as border-hopping welfare cheats who bring nothing but crime and pestilence.

SharpshooterTom

Some of those figures are wrong, I'm pretty sure Bush got 44% in 2004 (Kerry 53%) of the hispanic vote in 04.

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Anyway the 2010 mid terms had Hispanics at 60/38 in favour of the democrats. So the gap had closed somewhat. I guess many hispanics voted for Obama indentified with him that he wasn't a WASP candidate in the same was as the blacks did, and wanted to break the mould of president of the US being an exclusive all whites club.

Overheal

and wanted to break the mould of president of the US being an exclusive all whites club.

InTheTrees

southsiderosie wrote: »

You have a very strange view of American politics.

Fox News.

Its all twisted half truths and spin.

InTheTrees

Gnobe wrote: »

45% of Republican voters support current immigration levels or want to increase it. 51% agree it's been a good thing.

Compare to that of the tory party in England, where only 10% support current immigration levels. You wont find too many conservative european parties where 45% support their current levels or want to increase it.

The GOP (or at least their members) are largely quite liberal on immigration for a right wing party in context to the rest of the western world.

Chalk and cheese.

There's a long history of immigration to the USA(!), which is a very large country.

There isnt a long history of immigration to the UK, which is a small island.

SO its nonsense to compare the two.

SharpshooterTom

InTheTrees wrote: »

Chalk and cheese.

There's a long history of immigration to the USA(!), which is a very large country.

There isnt a long history of immigration to the UK, which is a small island.

SO its nonsense to compare the two.

Umm no it's not, Britain has had large scale immigration from Ireland, the sub continant, west indies, china (half a million) and more recently Poland and eastern europe. Not to mention, the normans, the saxons and the jutes.

Britain is a nation of immigrants like America and will continue to be so.