Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

robindch

In California, the republicans gerrymandered the electoral districts, then one of their own files for re-election in the wrong one:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/31/republican_congressman_files_for_reelection_in_wrong_district_after_gerrymander.html

The slate has put up a gerrymander-saw puzzle here -- enjoy!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/08/gerrymandering_jigsaw_puzzle_game_put_the_congressional_districts_back_together.html

robindch

Remember Mitt Romney? Well, he reckons that Putin is doing better than Obama:

http://nypost.com/2014/01/25/putins-a-better-president-than-obama-romney-says/

Mitt Romney wrote:

Mitt Romney thinks Vladimir Putin is better at being president than Barack Obama.
Romney, who lost the presidential race to Obama, told NBC that the Russian leader “outperformed” the president “time and time again on the world stage.”

The former GOP nominee called the US and Russia “geopolitical adversaries,” blamed Putin for giving cover to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and said fugitive leaker Edward Snowden’s asylum in Russia was a “bit of a stick in the eye of America.”

But Romney gave Putin grudging respect as his nation prepares to host the Winter Olympics. “I think most observers of the international political scene suggest that Russia has elevated itself in stature and America has been diminished,” Romney said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said he “obviously disagreed” with Romney’s comments.

Romney, who managed the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, said he had no qualms about bringing his family to the Olympics in Sochi next month, despite the threat of terrorism. “The hard sites will be safe. The athletes will be safe. Spectators when they’re in the venues will be safe,” he said. “It’s the soft places you can’t be 100 percent certain will be ­entirely safe.”

MilanPan!c

robindch wrote: »

Remember Mitt Romney? Well, he reckons that Putin is doing better than Obama:

http://nypost.com/2014/01/25/putins-a-better-president-than-obama-romney-says/

Not the same romney that said this in 2008:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

jank

robindch wrote: »

Remember Mitt Romney? Well, he reckons that Putin is doing better than Obama:

http://nypost.com/2014/01/25/putins-a-better-president-than-obama-romney-says/

Romney just echoing what the majority of Americans think, not sure if that qualifies as 'fruitcake'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/putin-obama-syria_n_4002351.html

Just 25 percent of respondents picked Obama as the most effective world leader during the Syrian chemical weapons crisis, while 49 percent named Vladimir Putin.

nagirrac

Obama is proving to be a very weak president in his second term. When you win a second term, you have the mandate to govern, but also the expectation to perform. Performance has been abysmal since 2012, Benghazi, Syria, Obamacare (more people have seen their health care insurance double than people who signed on for Obamacare, and most of the uninsured just go to the ER anyway and cannot be denied treatment), overseeing another stock market bubble with no fundamentals to support it, doing nothing whatsoever about the rapidly approaching meltdown in defined benefit plans, etc. Seems totally disinterested and distant in his second term, not exactly the trait of a strong leader.

If the Republicans get their act together, they will waltz 2016. Especially with the gibberish about accelerating economic recovery about to implode. China has slowed which means Walmart and Target are cutting orders, and Apple has just announced soft forward guidance, never a good sign for a consumer driven economy.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Romney just echoing what the majority of Americans think, not sure if that qualifies as 'fruitcake'.

Reading between the lines as carefully as I can, it looks like that huffpo article refers to a single international issue, while Romney was referring to his international performance overall.

That said, Romney no doubt approves of Putain's brave stand against the gay agenda and stinking liberals, while openly supporting a range of heavyweight religious weirdoes, so perhaps Romney's support is perhaps less surprising.

Still, when it came to the earthly paradise that Putin has created in Sochi, and the real-world effects of Putin's foreign policies, Romney suddenly seemed much less sure of himself:

Mitt the Batty wrote:

The hard sites will be safe. The athletes will be safe. Spectators when they’re in the venues will be safe. It’s the soft places you can’t be 100 percent certain will be ­entirely safe.

MilanPan!c

nagirrac wrote: »

Obama is proving to be a very weak president in his second term. When you win a second term, you have the mandate to govern, but also the expectation to perform. Performance has been abysmal since 2012, Benghazi, Syria, Obamacare (more people have seen their health care insurance double than people who signed on for Obamacare, and most of the uninsured just go to the ER anyway and cannot be denied treatment), overseeing another stock market bubble with no fundamentals to support it, doing nothing whatsoever about the rapidly approaching meltdown in defined benefit plans, etc. Seems totally disinterested and distant in his second term, not exactly the trait of a strong leader.

If the Republicans get their act together, they will waltz 2016. Especially with the gibberish about accelerating economic recovery about to implode. China has slowed which means Walmart and Target are cutting orders, and Apple has just announced soft forward guidance, never a good sign for a consumer driven economy.

Lots of not exactly right things in this ^^

Obama isn't running, and there's little chance that pinning Obama onto the Dem candidate is going to really work.

Why?

Americans STILL trust Dems more of healthcare.

Obamacare is getting more popular, not less.

Americas don't want to be in another war and rightly see the GOP as a guaranteed war.

Americans don't trust the GOP on the economy.

Americans DO blame them for the disastrous shutdown.

Americans ARE becoming more secular and less socially conservative - taking away a chunk of the GOP's base.

The GOP's base is at war with its power structure.

The country is sceptical of money buying power, more than ever, and this is the GOP's main advantage.



So basically the far right is a disaster. Unpopular, divided and appealing only to a shrinking demo.

The centre-right (aka Democrats) is in much better shape and will continue to improve their position between now and 2016.

joseph brand

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Lots of not exactly right things in this ^^

Obama isn't running, and there's little chance that pinning Obama onto the Dem candidate is going to really work.

Why?

Americans STILL trust Dems more of healthcare.

Obamacare is getting more popular, not less.

Americas don't want to be in another war and rightly see the GOP as a guaranteed war.

Americans don't trust the GOP on the economy.

Americans DO blame them for the disastrous shutdown.

Americans ARE becoming more secular and less socially conservative - taking away a chunk of the GOP's base.

The GOP's base is at war with its power structure.

The country is sceptical of money buying power, more than ever, and this is the GOP's main advantage.

So basically the far right is a disaster. Unpopular, divided and appealing only to a shrinking demo.

The centre-right (aka Democrats) is in much better shape and will continue to improve their position between now and 2016.

But you're forgetting about the GOP's 'Ace up their sleeve'. It's governor Chris Christie!! He's very popular with the media at the moment.

The GOP will easily win 2016, so long as they can find more bigoted, terrified octogenarians. Plus there's also the fact that hillbillys reproduce at a tremendous rate. I've seen Idiocracy.

MilanPan!c

joseph brand wrote: »

But you're forgetting about the GOP's 'Ace up their sleeve'. It's governor Chris Christie!! He's very popular with the media at the moment.

The GOP will easily win 2016, so long as they can find more bigoted, terrified octogenarians. Plus there's also the fact that hillbillys reproduce at a tremendous rate. I've seen Idiocracy.

Chris Christie is what plants crave.

robindch

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Chris Christie is what plants crave.

And he relieves teabillies from having to remember two names as well.

What's not to love?

joseph brand

Susanne Atanus, GOP Candidate: Autism, Dementia Are God's Punishments For Gays, Abortions.

A Republican congressional candidate in Chicago believes God controls the weather and that tornadoes, autism and dementia are his punishments for the gay rights movement and abortions.

"God is angry. We are provoking him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions," she added, blaming natural disasters like tornadoes and diseases including autism and dementia on recent advances in the LGBT movement. "Same-sex activity is going to increase AIDS. If it's in our military it will weaken our military. We need to respect God."

Republican leaders came out strong against Atanus Thursday morning. Illinois Republican Chairman Jack Dorgan called on the candidate to end her congressional campaign, saying in a statement: "The offensive statements by Susanne Atanus have no place in the modern political debate, and she has no place on the ballot as a Republican. Her candidacy is neither supported nor endorsed by the leaders of our party, and she should withdraw from the race immediately.”

It's all too easy to point and laugh at this woman, but.

joseph brand

There's a guy who rings the Jimmy Dore show, impersonating Chris Christie, among others such as Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKqLH8LuUto

Rick Perry phones in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2nEz9YgsVc

MilanPan!c

The other thing to note is that marijuana is having an impact at the polls, especially in places like Florida, where it's making it on the ballot despite public condemnation from the hard right.

They're scared that the marijuana initiatives will bring out the youth vote they've tried so hard to suppress.

Speaking of voter suppression.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-obamas-pick-enforce-voting-rights

Which has the right freaking out a bit, as they need every vote they can get, even in Texas and Florida.

Brian Shanahan

joseph brand wrote: »

But you're forgetting about the GOP's 'Ace up their sleeve'. It's governor Chris Christie!! He's very popular with the media at the moment.

The GOP will easily win 2016, so long as they can find more bigoted, terrified octogenarians. Plus there's also the fact that hillbillys reproduce at a tremendous rate. I've seen Idiocracy.

No the GOP's biggest trump cards are 1) the massive voter fraud and suppression of black, latino and native votes going on around the country. Remember Kerry won 2004 (and would have won by a wide margin if every valid vote were counted, some rural counties managed to return a vote higher than 100% for the Republicans), and the actual winning margin in both 2008 and 2012 was higher than what was counted, and b) they have control of the supreme court allowing such anti-democracy measures as the recent repeal of parts of the Voter Rights Act (a big turn around from as recently as the early 2000's where the Republicans had to regularly show they weren't illegally introducing bars to voting in the south) meaning it is now much easier to turn a valid voter away from the ballot box.

nagirrac

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Obama isn't running, and there's little chance that pinning Obama onto the Dem candidate is going to really work.

Americans STILL trust Dems more of healthcare.

Obamacare is getting more popular, not less.

Americas don't want to be in another war and rightly see the GOP as a guaranteed war.

Americans don't trust the GOP on the economy.

Americans DO blame them for the disastrous shutdown.

Americans ARE becoming more secular and less socially conservative - taking away a chunk of the GOP's base.

The GOP's base is at war with its power structure.

The country is sceptical of money buying power, more than ever, and this is the GOP's main advantage.

So basically the far right is a disaster. Unpopular, divided and appealing only to a shrinking demo.

The centre-right (aka Democrats) is in much better shape and will continue to improve their position between now and 2016.

All of this may be true, and I happen to agree with most of it, but at the end of the day Americans vote first and foremost on "its the economy stupid". The primary reason Obama was elected was the economy tanked in 2008, and even though Bush was not running, Obama could attach the slogan "ran the car into the wall, and want the keys back" to whoever was running. Americans choose the candidate that they feel has the best vision for the economy, and frequently cross party lines in making that choice. The "undecided" center determine presidential elections in the USA, not party affiliation. After the conventions are over, the respective candidates turn their attention to winning over this undecided middle.

Having said that, I agree the Republicans are a basket case and unless they ditch the Tea Party will stay such. A two party system however needs both parties to be strong, to offer options to the electorate. The Republicans being in disarray may be a positive for Democrats, but it is not a positive for the country.

MilanPan!c

nagirrac wrote: »

All of this may be true, and I happen to agree with most of it, but at the end of the day Americans vote first and foremost on "its the economy stupid". The primary reason Obama was elected was the economy tanked in 2008, and even though Bush was not running, Obama could attach the slogan "ran the car into the wall, and want the keys back" to whoever was running. Americans choose the candidate that they feel has the best vision for the economy, and frequently cross party lines in making that choice. The "undecided" center determine presidential elections in the USA, not party affiliation. After the conventions are over, the respective candidates turn their attention to winning over this undecided middle.

Having said that, I agree the Republicans are a basket case and unless they ditch the Tea Party will stay such. A two party system however needs both parties to be strong, to offer options to the electorate. The Republicans being in disarray may be a positive for Democrats, but it is not a positive for the country.

The issue is that Americans trust Democrats more on the economy. They are well aware of income disparity and for the moment seem to think it matters, on average. That's the trend, toward caring. Those that do care think the Dems are more able to fight it.

For example:

54% Favor Taxing the Wealthy to Expand Aid to Poor

www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/

70% of respondents think the government should do "a lot" to reduce income inequality. That not just Dems, but combined.

The idea of trickle down is basically dead in the water. And that's a huge problem for the right.

That poll also found that over 50% of GOP voters are for increasing minimum wage. Something the National party abhors.

More evidence that the GOP is wildly out of touch on the economy - and voters - even GOP voters - know it.

Edit:

So we're clear, if you look at polls the only group that is decisively against Obama is older white men.

Groups that consistently skew towards him are:

Black, Hispanic, young people, women, and of course democrats.

Those groups are all growing.

nagirrac

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The issue is that Americans trust Democrats more on the economy. They are well aware of income disparity and for the moment seem to think it matters, on average. That's the trend, toward caring. Those that do care think the Dems are more able to fight it.

In a recent Gallup poll, income disparity ranked #12 in what Americans care about. Creation of jobs is #1 and will stay #1 as long as unemployment is high. The pertinent question is what policies will lead to the creation of jobs, whoever wins that argument in the eyes of voters generally wins the election.

There is no question that income disparity between the highest earners and even the middle class, let alone the poor, is an issue, but not one that is likely to have a significant effect on a presidential election. However, the middle class, who make up the majority of actual voters, are not in favor of broad tax increases, as they are smart enough to see that tax increases lead to destruction of jobs.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

54% Favor Taxing the Wealthy to Expand Aid to Poor

Of course they do, taxing the rich is always the answer that appeals to the many who don't understand the only sustainable economy is a productive one. The answer is building a more productive economy, not creating a state where more and more are dependent on government aid.

Having said that, the biggest economic challenge facing America, and Europe for that matter, is the massive upcoming entitlement costs that are largely unfunded and cannot be funded due to the demographic changes in both regions (fewer people working and entering the workforce compared to those leaving it and in need of government support). This is the #2 issue that will decide upcoming elections, as older people tend to vote in higher numbers anyway, especially if "their" entitlements are on the line.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The idea of trickle down is basically dead in the water. And that's a huge problem for the right.

Agreed, trickle down has never worked. The Republicans need to get back to the emphasizing factors that made America great to begin with, hard work and determination to better oneself through education and ambition. The focus should be on improving education, incentives for business to stay in the US and create jobs there rather than abroad, training programs to generate the types of labor needed in today's economy, etc. Even with the high unemployment there is a shortage in many areas of the labor market, so the problem is not just business unwilling to invest in the US, but a mismatch between existing skills and required skills.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

That poll also found that over 50% of GOP voters are for increasing minimum wage. Something the National party abhors.

Its a fine line. A large increase in the minimum wage means many small businesses (which the economy is largely based on) will reduce their staff or go out of business. Most people are in favor of incremental minimum wage increases in line with inflation.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So we're clear, if you look at polls the only group that is decisively against Obama is older white men.

As you said, Obama is not running in the next election. The deciding factor in that election in my opinion, which is my only point really, is the state of the economy in 2016, and what the respective candidates are proposing to improve it.

MilanPan!c

nagirrac wrote: »

In a recent Gallup poll, income disparity ranked #12 in what Americans care about. Creation of jobs is #1 and will stay #1 as long as unemployment is high. The pertinent question is what policies will lead to the creation of jobs, whoever wins that argument in the eyes of voters generally wins the election.

There is no question that income disparity between the highest earners and even the middle class, let alone the poor, is an issue, but not one that is likely to have a significant effect on a presidential election. However, the middle class, who make up the majority of actual voters, are not in favor of broad tax increases, as they are smart enough to see that tax increases lead to destruction of jobs.



Of course they do, taxing the rich is always the answer that appeals to the many who don't understand the only sustainable economy is a productive one. The answer is building a more productive economy, not creating a state where more and more are dependent on government aid.

Having said that, the biggest economic challenge facing America, and Europe for that matter, is the massive upcoming entitlement costs that are largely unfunded and cannot be funded due to the demographic changes in both regions (fewer people working and entering the workforce compared to those leaving it and in need of government support). This is the #2 issue that will decide upcoming elections, as older people tend to vote in higher numbers anyway, especially if "their" entitlements are on the line.



Agreed, trickle down has never worked. The Republicans need to get back to the emphasizing factors that made America great to begin with, hard work and determination to better oneself through education and ambition. The focus should be on improving education, incentives for business to stay in the US and create jobs there rather than abroad, training programs to generate the types of labor needed in today's economy, etc. Even with the high unemployment there is a shortage in many areas of the labor market, so the problem is not just business unwilling to invest in the US, but a mismatch between existing skills and required skills.



Its a fine line. A large increase in the minimum wage means many small businesses (which the economy is largely based on) will reduce their staff or go out of business. Most people are in favor of incremental minimum wage increases in line with inflation.



As you said, Obama is not running in the next election. The deciding factor in that election in my opinion, which is my only point really, is the state of the economy in 2016, and what the respective candidates are proposing to improve it.

That's the thing though, no one seems to think the GOP has any sort of jobs strategy. And.

According to a recent article by a well known GOP pollster:

Mitt Romney put together a coalition that just eight years ago would have won the presidential election (hence the data comparisons to George W. Bush). However, instead of whites being 77% of the electorate, they were 72% of the electorate. Instead of Republicans and Democrats being equal, Democrats far outnumbered Republicans, and washed out Romney's advantage among Independents. Bush kept it close with younger voters (under age 40), while Obama won them decisively....Underscoring that there are considerably more Democrats than Republicans, Romney was the first national candidate in exit polling history to decisively win Independents and lose the election (John Kerry won Independents, but by just one point).

pos.org/2012/11/the-new-electoral-math-and-what-it-means-for-polling/

That means that even if jobs ARE the most important thing to people - the majority of voters are Dem voters by default. Even after Obama.

If we go back to 1980, the GOP won 12 years in a row, then won again after Clinton. That means there 5/7 presidents where GOPers. These stretches happen.

Add to that the other issues, such as a brutally divided party and the GOP has little chance in 2016.

I've managed to predict every win since Reagan in 1980, aside from Bush in 2000 (which I did pick actually...ahem) and feel pretty comfortable at this point, based on demographics and structural advantages and GOP infighting, picking the Dem in 2016.

nagirrac

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I've managed to predict every win since Reagan in 1980, aside from Bush in 2000 (which I did pick actually...ahem) and feel pretty comfortable at this point, based on demographics and structural advantages and GOP infighting, picking the Dem in 2016.

All streaks come up an end

Too early to call I'd say, but agree the Republicans are running out of time.

MilanPan!c

nagirrac wrote: »

All streaks come up an end

Too early to call I'd say, but agree the Republicans are running out of time.

Yep.

It's honestly my opinion that America is going to end up having another viable party before the GOP returns to sustained national prominence.

The GOP, the constituent bits that make up the current party, are just all shrinking, and their policies are unpopular with the party as a whole.

It's just untenable.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Reading between the lines as carefully as I can, it looks like that huffpo article refers to a single international issue, while Romney was referring to his international performance overall.

Yes, a single international issue that was the most important international event of 2013 where Obama (and Cameron) were left holding their dicks with their pants down. Putin wiped the floor with them on that issue and as a result made the USA/UK alliance appear weak and uncoordinated. It is of no surprise that Americans take a similar dim view on Obama therefore as evidence I put forward in that poll. If you have a different view perhaps you can post such a link?

robindch wrote: »

That said, Romney no doubt approves of Putain's brave stand against the gay agenda and stinking liberals, while openly supporting a range of heavyweight religious weirdoes, so perhaps Romney's support is perhaps less surprising.

Really? Can you back this up with any actual links stating that Romney approves of Putins strong arm tactics domestically towards gays by throwing them in jail more?, Or are you adding credits for your PHD in Strawman construction? Let me guess, he is a Mormon so he must hate all the gays. How original.:rolleyes:

robindch wrote: »

Still, when it came to the earthly paradise that Putin has created in Sochi, and the real-world effects of Putin's foreign policies, Romney suddenly seemed much less sure of himself:

And, your point?

jank

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Lots of not exactly right things in this ^^

Obama isn't running….
The centre-right (aka Democrats) is in much better shape and will continue to improve their position between now and 2016.

I will put a wager on that for the 2014 midterms. $100 says the Dems lose seats in Congress and the Senate. You want to put your money where your mouth is?

jank

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No the GOP's biggest trump cards are 1) the massive voter fraud and suppression of black, latino and native votes going on around the country. Remember Kerry won 2004 (and would have won by a wide margin if every valid vote were counted, some rural counties managed to return a vote higher than 100% for the Republicans), and the actual winning margin in both 2008 and 2012 was higher than what was counted, and b) they have control of the supreme court allowing such anti-democracy measures as the recent repeal of parts of the Voter Rights Act (a big turn around from as recently as the early 2000's where the Republicans had to regularly show they weren't illegally introducing bars to voting in the south) meaning it is now much easier to turn a valid voter away from the ballot box.

Conspiracy Theory = God is punishing America for the gays, frankly.

robindch

jank wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Still, when it came to the earthly paradise that Putin has created in Sochi, and the real-world effects of Putin's foreign policies, Romney suddenly seemed much less sure of himself

And, your point?

I'll spell it out for you -- strange for Romney to praise Putin's foreign policy, then, to turn around and admit that Sochi isn't safe (because of Putin's foreign policy).

It smacks of Romney not having thought very much before opening his mouth.

BuilderPlumber

I can see a split in the Republicans sometime soon. The party seems to be going in two different ways:

-one part wants to sell it as a moderate, progressive party that maintains conservative values on some issues, embraces liberal values on others and wants to do more to improve its image among many voters (who see it as 'lovers of invading Iraq and threatening Russia').
-the other part are those who thought Bush 2 was too moderate, did not do enough to stamp out America's (weak so called) 'enemies' and who have no interest in such 'boring mundane' tasks as funding healthcare, education, providing jobs, etc. The Klu Klux, er, Tea Party and other such subgroups come to mind.

Both wings are in conflict and the likes of the Tea Party almost see themselves as a separate party as it is. However, the more moderate elements will win out (in previous struggles of moderate and more hardline factions in both the Republicans and Democrats have shown).

America has no stomach for extremist politicians. Americans elected Obama twice comfortably. Bush was elected twice as well, at least once in dodgy circumstances. Even here, Bush's second term showed more constraint than his first (although, the damage was done in the first term). A legacy of un-needed war and poor economic management is what Americans for the most part see in hardline policies. The likes of Sarah Palin have disappeared from sight and even John McCain back in 2008 was embarrassed by her in the end. Again, showing the distinction between traditional Republicans like McCain and the new age Tea Party upstarts.

Impact of the split? Zilch. Tea Party and other hardliners will attempt to form a party. It will attract around 1% of Republicans. Thus leaving Democratics v Traditional Republicans as the two forces as is.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you -- strange for Romney to praise Putin's foreign policy, then, to turn around and admit that Sochi isn't safe (because of Putin's foreign policy).

It smacks of Romney not having thought very much before opening his mouth.

Putin is now to blame for Islamic terrorism and its associated Islamofascism? Ok, guess you can stop blaming the USA for that now, until of course it will be convenient to do so again…

Sarky

Jesus jank, must you twist everything?

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

Putin is now to blame for Islamic terrorism and its associated Islamofascism? Ok, guess you can stop blaming the USA for that now, until of course it will be convenient to do so again…

How did you reason such a position? Now, maybe Robin does believe this but I'd like to know how based on the words posted in this thread you came to this starkly black and white argument that Putin is to blame for Islamic terrorism. It seems oddly direct.

jank

Its all in the Game Yo!

robindch

jank wrote: »

Putin is now to blame for Islamic terrorism and its associated Islamofascism?

:rolleyes: