Ron Paul will not be the nominee. He's like Al Sharpton... has his own cult following, brings up some interesting points and adds flavor to the mix, but totally polarizing and unelectable.

I will also be quite surprised if Christie doesn't end up on the ticket for VP. The guy's a shoo-in. His huge media event to announce that he wasn't going to run in 2012 set the stage for VP IMO.

If Romney gets the nod, it won't be Christie. (See above "pandering" discussion). No way they are going to have two east coasters on the ticket.

Happy Iowa Caucuses day. As a "thinks Obama isn't liberal enough" lefty, I'm interested to see how this plays out. Instinctively I think it will be Romney. My parents, Republicans god help them, are and have been Mitt fans and since I don't think they're COMPLETE wingnuts, I'll trust them to that extent. I think the tea-partiers should be beating down doors to be Ron Paul fans but I think when the rubber hits the road they don't want strict constitutionalism to the extent he proscribes. They like to TALK about less taxes but not where it butts up against shrinking our military to the extent he thinks it should be. I do think a general between true fiscal conservatism (Paul) and what will have to pass for liberalism would be an interesting fight and really force people to think about what they believe.

And I want to believe the era of religion over any sort of common sense or rights for anyone who doesn't believe just like you is on the wane. That cuts out a couple of candidates. And although I think there will be people who won't support Mitt just because of his religion, I don't think it should affect most voters. I personally think the religion is goofy but he's not going to be looking at any peepstones for decisions so I think we're safe.

I have a feeling Perry will fail because of how he chose to position himself, not how he actually believes. But then that's true of SOOOOO many politicians. Why oh why can't you campaign on your actual beliefs and plans and let the chips fall where they may?

I hear ya. I think it would be more about beliefs and plans if Presidents were limited to one term. Since they're already looking ahead to the next election though, they're too afraid to do what they believe until re-election is off the table. We've got it all backwards, I think. I'd like to see the POTUS term go from a maximum of two 4-year terms to only one 6-year term.

Regarding those who want a talented debater, I can't help but wonder why that is important in the grand scheme of things. I realize that this year, for a republican to win they'll have to outshine Obama, so I guess I'm asking a general question about why debating is important. It's not like POTUSes have to actually debate once they're in office. And they have all kinds of speech writers to make sure that what they deliver on camera comes out as antiseptic as possible. I just don't get why debating is such a crucial thing. It seems to me that it's crucial to a candidate's success in the election, but not crucial to the person who is actually elected. Like we're more interested in who can put on a good show instead of who can run a good show.

I would contend that the president has to be an excellent debater because all of his/her real work is done in the oval office one on one with other world leaders, congressional leaders, lobbyists, etc. THIS is why I want my president to be the smartest person in the room and I could care less if I could sit around drinking a beer with him. I don't need him to be able to talk to ME; I want him to be able to talk to a third world dictator. And I'm right and god's going to strike you down isn't going to get that conversation done.

Because presidential campaigns are highly scripted and controlled, the debates are among the few opportunities to see candidates forced to react to occassional unforseen moments. In these moments voters sometimes get a glimpse behind the mask, to see how a candidate thinks on their feet, unprotected by media handlers or strategy.

Look back to Gerald Ford "no soviet domination in the eastern (European) block" comment in his 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter. Or George H.W. Bush
(41)'s perceived "can't be bothered with this" when the camera caught him looking at his watch in a somewhat annoyed manner during his '92 debate with Bill Clinton.

Not to say that debates definitely provide game changing moments, but the media drama attendant to such events tends to set the story/campaign narriative going forward -- particularly for voters who are only casually, or more likely, minimially informed on the issues in the first place.


...I think a single, 6-year presidential term is an interesting idea also, but the office/process will obviously never be free of "politics."

Romney by 8 points in Iowa. That's not much of a win. Gingrich sounded pretty bitter in his speech. Ron Paul 3rd...

Ron Paul on the Today show "The top two were so close that it was more like they were tied for first and we were second" Um, when two tie for first, there is no second and third is still third. Sorry.

Place isn't as important as percentage - and the top three are amazingly close.
Argument that Santorum won - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ampshire_.html

On the plus side - looks like Texas will get its governor back - oh, wait . . .

Sorry don't have the original link. got this from another board.

That's a fabulous story! And AGDee, that's 8 VOTES, not 8 points. But the important thing for people to remember is the candidates all take their delegates with them, so top 3 (or 4 if it's close which in this case it wasn't) can hold their heads high moving forward.

As a person with no horse in this race, I was reasonably happy with the outcome. I don't like Santorum AT ALL, but knowing caucus goers are generally blue-hairs, it's not a surprise he did well. Paul was the big surprise to me, and the scariest for the Democrats in my opinion because he provides the clearest counterpoint to the president. Romney may be the most sane of the bunch, but like Kerry, (is everyone from MA boring?) it's hard to get very excited about someone who's such a yawnfest. And you need exciting to get out the vote. "I think he'll do an ok job and not run the country into the crapper" is no way to get frenzied voters beating down the doors on November 6th.

With all of the disenchanted former Obama lovers, six months ago I would have though that this is the GOP's race to lose...I see they're doing a pretty good job of it.

Sad to say, the GOP has no real winner running.

Mitt, is a hot air balloon. No substance.
Newt, to much bagage.
Ron Paul, to old and to far out.
Perry, should hang it up.
Bachman, well, she is gone.
Santorum, to smiley and meely mouth. Talks a lot and says nothing.
Huntsman, gone.

Possibles?

Christie, size will kill him.
Jeb Busch, a Busch, country not ready for another one. He could be a good one. Hope he is sane enough to stay retired and live like a human being.
Trump, well he is The Donald.

GOP is in trouble, no new Ronald Reagan to come forward on his white horse. Heck, the whole country is in trouble!

Hi Tom.

He did manage to hold off on using emoticons. :) I know it had to have been hard for him!

I know. Ironic, given this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveg (Post 2115596) Santorum, to smiley . . . .

I liked the part about another Busch in the White House, though.