Ticket to beat Obama

matthew8

I'm going out there and saying it:
Obama is extremely vulnerable and has been constantly undermined and is the most likely pres in a long time to last 1 term.

But who can beat him? Polls have showed Romney winning, Paul runs him close and Bachmann runs him close in places she campaigned. Palin is a dead duck if she runs. Perry has a good shot, as does Giuliani. Pawlenty is useless but there is nothing massively wrong with him so if things get very bad inflation-wise he can win. Ditto for Santorum. Hunstman will never be nominated and as much as I hate to say it as long as he describes himself as a social liberal Gary Johnson can't. What is the best president/vice president ticket to beat Obama?

Candidate must be a republican, vice president can be anyone American but don't name random celebrities as veep possibilities.

Good token tea partyers for the ticket:
John Thune (unopposed in the last election, from the mountain west, lean tea party)
Marco Rubio (Good for the latino vote, outspoken on bush tax cuts)

Romney/Rubio would be a good ticket to help get competitive northeastern states for republicans as well as Florida, Romney leads Obama in Pennsylvania and Florida is in the bag with Rubio on the ticket.

I have a wildcard pick: Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. These 2 are great friends, often the only 2 opposing foreign policy bills, both constitutionalists wanting to abolish the federal reserve and in 2008 they talked about running alongside one another. This ticket would be practically unbeatable I believe. Ron Paul is very popular with the tea party, Kucinich would win the liberals dissatisfied with Obama vote and the anti-Obama conservative vote is going to any republican, regardless of who is on the ticket.

Overheal

Well just remember, Bush shouldn't have been President. Twice. And I'm increasingly more convinced the outcome was stolen both times.

CT aside it will very much depend on the field of Candidates but it's weak right now. Giuliani?! lol, no

I don't know enough about Kucinich, and neither do the voters. Ron Paul is at the mercy of the media. If he can somehow get the media to work for him for a change rather than against, he has a shot. But I still wish he'd run Independent.

20Cent

Obama is very weak at the moment he needs to pull something big out of the bag before the next election but the republicans just don't have anyone to beat him at the moment. All their candidates seem insane. Bachman is nuts. Ron Paul has zero chance.

FISMA

It is quite simple: it's all about the economy and jobs.

Obama must turn the economy around to have any hope at re-election. Even the slightest hint of a double-dip will doom him.

Also, the Republican strategists and contenders are just playing this one brilliant. Kudos to their handlers and any young people out there should learn from this move.

Lessons learned from the last election include: getting into the race to early, spending a lot of money, and becoming a target for an extended period of time.

Right now, no serious candidate should try and emerge. There's so much bad press out there, why would any challenger want to stop that? Why would someone like Christie want to jump in and pay for good press when the bad press comes free?

Remember how silent the Reps were during Wienergate? Same play. Don't say anything when your opponent is making themselves look bad.

Right now it is looking terrible for Obama. He has failed those independents largely responsible for getting him elected. I wonder how many of them still relying on extending unemployment may vote different next time.

Obviously, he's not gaining support on the right! But is he holding the left?

His left support is angry with: the continuation of wars, escalation of something war-ish in Libya, failure to end Bush's tax cut for the wealthy, faltering economy, weakening dollar, massive foreclosures, sinking housing market, and unemployment at 16%, if you count unemployment the EU way.

If the DOW does anything in the next few months like it did after TARP, Obama's chances of re-election will be in serious jeopardy.

There are so many opportunities for Obama to demonstrate that he is more than a speaker, but a leader. He is just not doing so.

He had better start leading, or someone else will.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Obama is very weak at the moment he needs to pull something big out of the bag before the next election but the republicans just don't have anyone to beat him at the moment. All their candidates seem insane. Bachman is nuts. Ron Paul has zero chance.

Bachmann has more integrity than most in congress and despite her gaffes, as a general rule you don't get into a position of as much power as she has while being nuts. She is a frontrunner. Ron Paul has a great chance if he can win the Iowa straw poll, even 10% in Iowa would be enough to springboard him into being a frontrunner.

RichieC

Gu911ani hasn't a hope, the right wing despise him as much as the left.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

Bachmann has more integrity than most in congress and despite her gaffes, as a general rule you don't get into a position of as much power as she has while being nuts. She is a frontrunner. Ron Paul has a great chance if he can win the Iowa straw poll, even 10% in Iowa would be enough to springboard him into being a frontrunner.

She plays to a very certain kind of American, the center will run away from her extremist views.

There's literally hours of tape of her opening her mouth and saying absolutely ridiculous things. unelectable.

matthew8

RichieC wrote: »

She plays to a very certain kind of American, the center will run away from her extremist views.

There's literally hours of tape of her opening her mouth and saying absolutely ridiculous things. unelectable.

We also have Obama with his "57 states" gaffe and teleprompter mishaps.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

We also have Obama with his "57 states" gaffe and teleprompter mishaps.

Christ... there's a difference between a gaff and voicing incredibly ignorant and hateful views.

if you can't distinguish the difference let me know so I can pop you on ignore.

snow scorpion

Prediction for Republican ticket: Perry/Rubio

Prediction for 2012 campaign: Texas's economy under Perry v America's economy under Obama

Prediction for election: Perry wins

matthew8

snow scorpion wrote: »

Prediction for Republican ticket: Perry/Rubio

Prediction for 2012 campaign: Texas's economy under Perry v America's economy under Obama

Prediction for election: Perry wins

A sound prediction, Rubio seems like the ideal token tea partyer.

gargleblaster

snow scorpion wrote: »

Prediction for 2012 campaign: Texas's economy under Perry v America's economy under Obama

Yes, please let this happen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/governor-perrys-texas-economy_n_917460.html

AUSTIN, Texas -- It was 105 degrees outside late last week when Vanessa Surita, 24, planted herself on the sidewalk and stretched her legs. Her young daughter sat in a stroller within arms length, outside the Austin Resource Center for the Homeless. Her needs were great: housing, a job, a high school diploma. She could mark progress in job applications filled out.

(snip)

Surita said she and her 21-month-old daughter crash at her sister's place with her two children. "We've been on the waiting list for housing since she was born," she said.

(snip)

Surita and Johnson do not fit in the prevailing narrative about the Lone Star state. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas has created more jobs in the last year than any other state. These job openings have become known as the much-hyped, "Texas Miracle." In his February 2011 state-of-the-state address, Governor Rick Perry boasted: "Our economic strength is no accident. It's a testimony to our people, our entrepreneurs, and, yes, to the decisions made in this building. Employers from across the country and around the world understand that the opportunity they crave can be found in Texas, and they're headed our way, with jobs in tow."

Should he ultimately choose to run for the White House, Perry will be spending a lot of his time on the stump repeating those lines. Dig beneath the talking points and you find a more troubling picture: rising unemployment, a glut of low-wage jobs without benefits, overcrowded homeless shelters and public schools facing billions in budget cuts. Surita and Johnson have been airbrushed from the miracle. But they still can be found on the housing waiting lists and shelter entrances.

"If you want a bad job, go to Texas," said Texas Rep. Garnet Coleman (D), who represents a district in Houston, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "If you want to work at Carl's Jr., our doors are open, and if you want to go to a crumbling school in a failing school system, this is the place to come."

(snip)

There's a crowd outside the ARCH no matter the heat. The building was designed for 100 dormitory beds, but now sleeps 215 -- including 115 men sleeping on mats on the a second floor dining room and a conference room floor. Even then, Mitchell Gibbs, the director of development and communications, said they are turning away 15 to 50 men a night.

"Austin is supposed to be ground zero of the Texas Miracle," explained Doug Greco, lead organizer with Austin Interfaith, a nonpartisan group of some 30 congregations, schools and unions. "But we have the higher poverty rate and higher child poverty rate--nearly one in three children." He added that the need for shelter, food and clothing has spiked in the city. "It doesn't take much to pierce through the rhetoric," he said.

Texas is struggling right along with every other state. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Texas had recently bumped up to 8.2 percent unemployment in June which puts it below the national average. Still plenty of states without miracles posted lower unemployment rates; New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Wisconsin, among others are all out performing Texas. Drill down even further into the numbers and there are plenty of residents that haven't felt the miracle.

(more at link)

teol

I hope Gary Johnson does well. He seems to be my ideal candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

matthew8

teol wrote: »

I hope Gary Johnson does well. He seems to be my ideal candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

agreed, he really needs to get off the ground.

Suryavarman

matthew8 wrote: »

agreed, he really needs to get off the ground.

Apparently he's putting everything into New Hampshire. As much as I'd like to see him get the nomination it is unlikely.

If Ron Paul were to get the nomination Johnson would be a good running mate.

Next weeks straw poll is vital for both. With Mitt Romney giving it a miss, Paul needs to be finishing second to stand a chance. Johnson also needs to show a big improvement on his recent poll numbers to start the ball rolling.

RonMexico

Palin, Bachmann and Santorum are totally unelectable as POTUS.


Obama is so vulnerable all the GOP have to do is present a semi-decent runner and he is in big trouble. However, should they go with any of the above they can forget it.

matthew8

Suryavarman wrote: »

Apparently he's putting everything into New Hampshire. As much as I'd like to see him get the nomination it is unlikely.

If Ron Paul were to get the nomination Johnson would be a good running mate.

Next weeks straw poll is vital for both. With Mitt Romney giving it a miss, Paul needs to be finishing second to stand a chance. Johnson also needs to show a big improvement on his recent poll numbers to start the ball rolling.

Hunstman and Johnson have ignored Iowa, hoping it will be irrelevant like last time. Bachmann and Pawlenty are putting it all into Iowa, hoping to create some momentum similar to what Obama created. If Gary Johnson was included in polls he'd have around the same numbers as Huntsman and Santorum.

RonMexico wrote: »

Palin, Bachmann and Santorum are totally unelectable as POTUS.


Obama is so vulnerable all the GOP have to do is present a semi-decent runner and he is in big trouble. However, should they go with any of the above they can forget it.

There is potential destruction of the US economy so it's too late to say someone can't win.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

Bachmann has more integrity than most in congress and despite her gaffes, as a general rule you don't get into a position of as much power as she has while being nuts. She is a frontrunner.

She is a member of the house, which in the greater political scheme of things, is not that powerful of a position. There are PLENTY of nutjobs in the House, and always have been - on both sides of the aisle (Cynthia McKinney comes to mind). Plus, with all of the gerrymandering over the last 20 years, Congressional reps today are more likely to be ideologues than they were in the past.

matthew8 wrote: »

Ron Paul has a great chance if he can win the Iowa straw poll, even 10% in Iowa would be enough to springboard him into being a frontrunner.

Ron Paul's own party will work against him because he presents a huge threat to the military-industrial complex.

matthew8 wrote: »

There is potential destruction of the US economy so it's too late to say someone can't win.

That someone will not be Bachmann, Palin or Santorum. They are on the extreme right of their own party. And it doesn't bode well for politicians when they can't hang onto their own seats.

snow scorpion wrote: »

Prediction for Republican ticket: Perry/Rubio

Prediction for 2012 campaign: Texas's economy under Perry v America's economy under Obama

Prediction for election: Perry wins

Texas under Perry has been a disaster, and his own supporters are turning on him now that he is trying to gut the state university system. I would like to hear him explain to the American people why exactly he should be entrusted to uphold the constitution when he has openly spoken of secession.

Rubio is going to have a lot of problems on a national ticket given that there will be way more scrutiny of his political career in South Florida, which is a veritable cesspool of corruption and incompetence. If he is smart, he will sit this election cycle out so he doesn't end up the next Obama (not ready for prime time ), or worse yet, Bobby Jindal.

silja

I agree Bachmann, Palin or Santorum are unlikely to be on the ticket, and it would be a mistake if they are. I think Romney or Paul will be the GOP candidate. Can't fget excited about either of them, but being realistic, I doubt it'll be anyone else.

I would love to see Bobby Jindal as VP- wanted him to run actually- but it doesn't look like he will. He'd be good too- experience, appeal to the more conservative GOP members, and of a minority. I am thinking Herman Cain may have a chance at VP for same reason listed as Jindal.

And now off to fill in that N-400 so I actually get to vote next year...

matthew8

silja wrote: »

I agree Bachmann, Palin or Santorum are unlikely to be on the ticket, and it would be a mistake if they are.

I would love to see Bobby Jindal as VP- wanted him to run actually- but it doesn't look like he will. He'd be good too- experience, appeal to the more conservative GOP members, and of a minority. I am thinking Herman Cain may have a chance at VP for same reason listed as Jindal.

I would rather Bachmann to Cain, any day.

silja

matthew8 wrote: »

I would rather Bachmann to Cain, any day.

Can I ask why? I don't have a major problem with Bachman, but I think enough people do that a ticket with her on it would not be electable.

Overheal

silja wrote: »

Can I ask why? I don't have a major problem with Bachman, but I think enough people do that a ticket with her on it would not be electable.

Yeah but put her up next to John McCain. It's a bit like lining a Skunk up next to a homeless person.

Just joking: I don't have enough information on Bachman to be opinionated about her. McCain on the other hand though, is a skunk.

silja

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah but put her up next to John McCain. It's a bit like lining a Skunk up next to a homeless person.

I don't think John McCain is running again, he's had his chance. Are you mixing him up with Herman Cain? He has very different policies from McCain, much more conservative (and is black which, yes, it will matter to some voters, both good and bad). I don't think you can compare the two.

matthew8

silja wrote: »

I don't think John McCain is running again, he's had his chance. Are you mixing him up with Herman Cain? He has very different policies from McCain, much more conservative (and is black which, yes, it will matter to some voters, both good and bad). I don't think you can compare the two.

Basically he/she is saying Bachmann is a better candidate than McCain, which is a fair analysis.

Overheal

and i mistook cain for mccain, so youre both right.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

and i mistook cain for mccain, so youre both right.

This Herman Cain chap really is useless, I remember I watched the SC debate, going in I knew all about Paul and Johnson, and throughout the entire debate I could not figure out what Cain/Pawlenty stood for, at least I was able to figure out what Santorum stood for. Then after the debate SCers called Cain a straight-talker! All this despite the fact he has no track record and dodged most question in the debate. People in SC are a little bit slow however, it was the kingmaker last time for McCain. Herman Cain is dead in the water now though.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

People in SC are a little bit slow however,

......meh, you're right.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

......meh, you're right.

I was probably making unfiar generalisations because of the hicks that Fox asked about the debate after it.

If Cain got the republican nomination I couldn't support him.

Manach

Would certain GOP canditates look to non-political VP picks to add balance to their ticket, such as General Petraeus who had done a good job in Iraq. Or else Donald Trump, on second thoughts starch that, Americans will show some sense.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

I would rather Bachmann to Cain, any day.

There it is, was mentioned in another thread that libertarians love to jump in bed with the far right.

Bachman is as far right as you get in the states, wants to ban porn, gay rights and shove the bible down everyones throat.

so of course you'd rather her.. :rolleyes:

matthew8

RichieC wrote: »

There it is, was mentioned in another thread that libertarians love to jump in bed with the far right.

Bachman is as far right as you get in the states, wants to ban porn, gay rights and shove the bible down everyones throat.

so of course you'd rather her.. :rolleyes:

And Cain wants to continue Bush's policies. Bachmann has some integrity at least.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

And Cain wants to continue Bush's policies. Bachmann has some integrity at least.

Not total integrity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Religion

Bachmann was a longtime member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater. She and her husband withdrew their membership on June 21, 2011, just before she officially began her presidential campaign. They had not attended the congregation for over two years.[22][23] Salem Lutheran Church is a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. When challenged about that denomination's belief that the Pope is the Antichrist,[24][25][26][27] Bachmann responded by stating, "I love Catholics, I'm a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that's absolutely false."[28] More recently, according to friends, the Bachmanns began attending Eagle Brook Church, an Evangelical church closer to their home.[29]

Basically just trying to avoid another Reverend Wright, and to attract the huge Evangelical voter base.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Not total integrity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Religion

Basically just trying to avoid another Reverend Wright, and to attract the huge Evangelical voter base.

But of course, she's a politician after all. I would even take Huntsman over Cain.

gargleblaster

I would so much rather have Bachmann or Palin than Romney or Perry. Sadly, Bachmann is tied with Giu9/11liani for fourth place at the moment.

Overheal

Palin won't run, and if she does she's crazy.

If she wanted to stay in Politics she should have either remained governor or run for congress.

gargleblaster

:pac:

You seem to think that the only reason to run for president is to actually become president. That's funny!

(Just FYI, she's currently in 3rd place behind Romney and Perry.)

matthew8

gargleblaster wrote: »

I would so much rather have Bachmann or Palin than Romney or Perry. Sadly, Bachmann is tied with Giu9/11liani for fourth place at the moment.

Nationally maybe, but she leads in Iowa, where it counts.

gargleblaster

matthew8 wrote: »

Nationally maybe, but she leads in Iowa, where it counts.

Hah! She's leaving Romney in the dust there, isn't she?

Yee haw!

bnt

Well, Newsweek likes Bachmann:



(click for MSNBC report on the cover)

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

This Herman Cain chap really is useless, I remember I watched the SC debate, going in I knew all about Paul and Johnson, and throughout the entire debate I could not figure out what Cain/Pawlenty stood for, at least I was able to figure out what Santorum stood for. Then after the debate SCers called Cain a straight-talker! All this despite the fact he has no track record and dodged most question in the debate. People in SC are a little bit slow however, it was the kingmaker last time for McCain. Herman Cain is dead in the water now though.

Lolz, I used to have to listen to Herman Cain in the morning (he was right after Neal Boortz) as that was the radio that was on at work. He makes a goot talk show host, not sure about prez though.

southsiderosie

bnt wrote: »

Well, Newsweek likes Bachmann:



(click for MSNBC report on the cover)

I am no fan of Michelle Bachmann, but that cover is a disgrace. That's even worse that the Sarah Palin jogging cover.

Lockstep

Doubt Bachman or Paul will get the nomination.
Bachmann might be popular with the teabaggers and the fiscal conservatives but her views on social issues would totallly alienate the centre and social liberals (especially her outdated and bizarre views on homosexuality)

Paul would make a better president and has the bonus of integrity but he'd run into opposition from his own party, for example from Republicans anxious for the military vote and for those representing areas reliant on federal agri-subsidies.


Romney or Giuliani could swing it as both would appeal to the moderate voters although Romney could get flak for his fairly liberal running of Massachussets.

Amerika

Hmmm... Lets see how Newsweek treated Barack Obama on it's covers.



Fair... I THINK NOT!

And while we're at it lets look at our other "honorable" media treatment of Obama.



Looks like with the Tina Brown take over of Newsweek, the once proud publication has become a Liberal version of the National Enquirer.

And the mainstream media should now (not to be confused with N.O.W. anymore, who FINALLY grew a pair and voiced concern as to the treatment by the media of these women) be deamed "The Conservative Woman Haters Club" IMO.

Overheal

I wouldn't be too quick to believe that last image you posted Amerika. I'd rather see the images tied to their media. I mean hell did you notice you got the one put in there that someone on the web photoshopped with the angel halo? And one appears to be The Blessed Virgin. If the media was trying to portray Obama in that shot, they got more than several key details wrong!

I see two actual covers in there: Rolling Stone (fine) and TIME, which I can't even decipher in 20 square pixels or less.

What would be 'fair' in portraying Michelle Bachman? Photoshop her crow feet?

Amerika

Overheal... since you're pixely challenged, here is just Time Magazine's treatment of Barack Obama.

What would be 'fair' in portraying Michelle Bachman? Photoshop her crow feet?

How about something as simple as this...



And remember when USA Today had to admit they demonized the look of Condi Rice.

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/26/demonizing-condi/

Overheal

I dont think the cover in 3x3 was meant to be flattering

Get real though it doesnt matter how defined or undefined Obama's face is in any of these pictures or how many wrinkles and warts he has showing the guy still takes a good photo. He's Photogenic. Bachman just, isn't. Even that one you have there makes her look like part of a wax exhibit. Maybe they need to take cues from photos of Hillary, she's almost always giving a speech off angle in all of her media photos.




....






This thread has gotten ridiculous, hasnt it?

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldn't be too quick to believe that last image you posted Amerika. I'd rather see the images tied to their media. I mean hell did you notice you got the one put in there that someone on the web photoshopped with the angel halo? And one appears to be The Blessed Virgin. If the media was trying to portray Obama in that shot, they got more than several key details wrong!

I see two actual covers in there: Rolling Stone (fine) and TIME, which I can't even decipher in 20 square pixels or less.

What would be 'fair' in portraying Michelle Bachman? Photoshop her crow feet?

when they used Palin I remember the right flipping because you could see her pores. yet every time they do Obama they flip again saying they are flattering him.
It's like crazy land.

deepertheroots

Can't wait till Paul wins the Ames straw poll on Saturday! None of the other candidates have the intelligence, integrity and honesty as this man.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Who knew that Bachman was an auton.

Suryavarman

Lockstep wrote: »

Doubt Bachman or Paul will get the nomination.
Bachmann might be popular with the teabaggers and the fiscal conservatives but her views on social issues would totallly alienate the centre and social liberals (especially her outdated and bizarre views on homosexuality)

Paul is described as the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party, so he could easily attract the fiscal conservative vote. He also wants to end the war on drugs, therefore appealing to the social liberals. He's also pro-life and believes the abortion is a states issue which could attract the social conservative vote.

Paul would make a better president and has the bonus of integrity but he'd run into opposition from his own party, for example from Republicans anxious for the military vote and for those representing areas reliant on federal agri-subsidies.

Are we talking about the troops or people in favour of a large military budget?

At the end of the day Republicans are going to vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination. The important question is, who can attract the independents and disillusioned Democrats? As far as I can see Paul has the best chance of doing that.

Romney or Giuliani could swing it as both would appeal to the moderate voters although Romney could get flak for his fairly liberal running of Massachussets.

Is Giuliani running?

I can't see Romney getting the nomination. When candidates start attacking each other in debates and bringing up Romneys running of Massachussets, especially "Romneycare", his ratings are going to start falling.

sarumite

Suryavarman wrote: »

Paul is described as the intellectual godfather of the Tea Party, so he could easily attract the fiscal conservative vote

Though Paul has integrity and would cut expenditure that appeals to conservatives, whereas the current group of republicans who call themselves Tea partiers don't have integrity and favour selective cuts.