The Primary Thread That Is Actually About Primates You Goddamn Monkeys

ElJeffe

This is a thread for discussing the upcoming US Presidential Primaries.

Before you post in this thread, ask yourself: "How does this post pertain to the primaries?"

If the answer takes more than a single sentence, stop. You are doing it wrong. Go back and try again.

Me, I think Romney is still going to take it in the end. If Bachmann takes the primary I will eat my hat. My hat is made of cookies, though, so it won't be such a terrible deal. I may just eat my hat for fun even if she loses, as long as I can find a big enough glass of milk.

And...

Go.

Quid

Sad Santorum didn't pull ahead. Surprised by Perry's sudden popularity.

RMS Oceanic

Mister Jeffe, does this mean you don't buy into the relatively sudden interest in Rick Perry?

Well obviously it does, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. Being a filthy socialist European I might not be properly familiar with the cultural context of the situation.

This said, from a pure "I could stand this guy as President" angle, I am rooting for Romney.

Lawndart

I'm pretty sure Bachmann is the Huckabee of this cycle, as she'll stick around as long as the donations keep coming in, even after she's been mathematically eliminated, in order to boost her profile and hopefully land a sweet post-2012 gig on Fox News. And if Romney stays the front runner and not Perry, she'll be getting the same values voter protest donations Huckabee did.

I seem to recall fewer of the GOP primaries are winner-take-all this year, so perhaps things won't be settled by South Carolina this time.

dbrock270

We can use this thread to celebrated our new President, JAMES RICHARD PERRY.

Absalon

What would Palin do to the race, I wonder.

That's a weird way to spell RON PAUL!

Lawndart

To be fair, if we aren't able to discuss the candidates who have no fucking chance of winning the GOP nomination, we get a thrill-packed thread of Romney and Perry discussion.

Quid

I'm actually happy Huntsman likely won't win the nomination. He seems like an actually relatively sane candidate who would be ruined like McCain was.

Bagginses

And now a listing of the candidates for this year's big primary:
Kent Mesplay
...
......
Okay, that's it.

Captain Carrot

Lawndart wrote:

To be fair, if we aren't able to discuss the candidates who have no fucking chance of winning the GOP nomination, we get a thrill-packed thread of Romney and Perry discussion.

Discussion of Paul always trainwrecks into how the media is keeping him down and he's the only candidate with integrity who will save the world when he's elected, which wouldn't be true for Cain or Santorum. Santorum, of course, would trainwreck in an entirely different direction.

tsmvengy

Everyone should read this interesting piece about Michele Bachmann in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza

I knew she was really nutty. I didn't know she was THAT nutty. She's even more extreme than Sarah Palin.

Robos A Go Go

Why are Romey's chances better now than they were last election? Is it because the Republicans want a business guy or because Perry is less of a threat than McCain?

dbrock270

Quid wrote:

I'm actually happy Huntsman likely won't win the nomination. He seems like an actually relatively sane candidate who would be ruined like McCain was.

He's far too moderate for the Republican party right now, but he is very sane and I wouldn't mind him being President.

Out of all the candidates, he's the most qualified.

Atomika

I've kind of been getting this feeling that Perry is going to fall off. He's failing to articulate a sound platform, and he's basically just positioning himself as the populists' choice, letting popular opinion dictate what policies he's for or against this week. So far he's been little more than a candidate of opposition; whatever Obama and the Democrats are for, he's against, and so on.

I've seen little more from him other than pandering to the far-right by virtue of being neither Mormon or a woman.



And seriously, Iowa? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Captain Carrot

Atomic Ross wrote:

So far he's been little more than a candidate of opposition; whatever Obama and the Democrats are for, he's against, and so on.

The only reason you can't say that of the entire field is Michele Bachmann, because there you have to say "she's been little more".

thatassemblyguy

I wonder if we'll get some last-minute primary-date jockeying that we saw in past elections. (i.e., states wanting to steal Iowa's thunder).

I googled this article (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/07/22/20110722brewer-arizona-primary-move.html) earlier, and based off the data in it, Arizona's governor has until the end of August to proclaim the Jan.31st primary date for that state.

Fencingsax

Atomic Ross wrote:

I've kind of been getting this feeling that Perry is going to fall off. He's failing to articulate a sound platform, and he's basically just positioning himself as the populists' choice, letting popular opinion dictate what policies he's for or against this week. So far he's been little more than a candidate of opposition; whatever Obama and the Democrats are for, he's against, and so on.

I've seen little more from him other than pandering to the far-right by virtue of being neither Mormon or a woman.

And seriously, Iowa? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Yeah, I think Perry was only popular because he wasn't in the race yet.

shryke

Robos A Go Go wrote:

Why are Romey's chances better now than they were last election? Is it because the Republicans want a business guy or because Perry is less of a threat than McCain?

Yeah, the only reason I can see Romney getting anywhere is because the field is so shit he can't not win.

He looks about how he did this time last election and that didn't go well for him either.

Couscous

shryke wrote:

Robos A Go Go wrote:

Why are Romey's chances better now than they were last election? Is it because the Republicans want a business guy or because Perry is less of a threat than McCain?

Yeah, the only reason I can see Romney getting anywhere is because the field is so shit he can't not win.

He looks about how he did this time last election and that didn't go well for him either.

The generic choice last time was McCain. The generic choice now is Romney. Everybody else is the crazy choice or the hopeless choice.

OptimusZed

My money is on Bachmann at this point. Perry is sinking fast, Romney can't get the tea partiers behind him, and everyone else is a joke.

Did anybody else see that Dan Savage is looking to redefine "Rick", since Santorum didn't take the hint the first time?

Atomika

Fencingsax wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

I've kind of been getting this feeling that Perry is going to fall off. He's failing to articulate a sound platform, and he's basically just positioning himself as the populists' choice, letting popular opinion dictate what policies he's for or against this week. So far he's been little more than a candidate of opposition; whatever Obama and the Democrats are for, he's against, and so on.

I've seen little more from him other than pandering to the far-right by virtue of being neither Mormon or a woman.

And seriously, Iowa? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Yeah, I think Perry was only popular because he wasn't in the race yet.

Every presidential campaign has an element of "the great yet-to-run hope." Last cycle it was Colin Powell and Newt Gingrich. Before that it was Elizabeth Dole. When they do run, they eventually turn out to be Fred Thompsons and (this cycle's) Newt Gingrich.

The bad thing is that this phenomenon occurs because voters don't want good politicians, they want good campaigners. They want a handsome, rousing, fearless man or woman of conviction to lead the party to victory; people like Gingrich and Ron Paul turn them off eventually because they're people of ideas and articulation. Voters, especially Republican voters, don't want articulation, they want an echo chamber of loud agreement and "conventional wisdom."

Captain Carrot

Gingrich doesn't have any ideas, and nobody can articulate worth a damn in this field. It's a solid mass of WHARBLGARBL with occasional exceptions.

Couscous

I'm still waiting for a plan from the front runners on how they expect to be able to jump start the economy with specifics.

Lawndart

Couscous wrote:

shryke wrote:

Robos A Go Go wrote:

Why are Romey's chances better now than they were last election? Is it because the Republicans want a business guy or because Perry is less of a threat than McCain?

Yeah, the only reason I can see Romney getting anywhere is because the field is so shit he can't not win.

He looks about how he did this time last election and that didn't go well for him either.

The generic choice last time was McCain. The generic choice now is Romney. Everybody else is the crazy choice or the hopeless choice.

The Republican Party seems to have a habit of elevating the second-place finisher in one primary cycle to the front-runner and (so far) eventual candidate in the next contested cycle. Reagan ran second in 1976, Bob Dole ran second in 1988, McCain ran second in 2000, and Romney ran second in 2008.

Captain Carrot

Bush also ran second in 1980.

Couscous

There is a large amount of "waiting until your turn" with Republican presidential candidates.

dbrock270

tsmvengy wrote:

Everyone should read this interesting piece about Michele Bachmann in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza

I knew she was really nutty. I didn't know she was THAT nutty. She's even more extreme than Sarah Palin.

The New Yorker wrote:

The Bachmanns attended Carter’s Inauguration, in January, 1977. Later that year, they experienced a second life-altering event: they watched a series of films by the evangelist and theologian Francis Schaeffer called “How Should We Then Live?”

Schaeffer, who ran a mission in the Swiss Alps known as L’Abri (“the shelter”), opposed liberal trends in theology. One of the most influential evangelical thinkers of the nineteen-seventies and early eighties, he has been credited with getting a generation of Christians involved in politics. Schaeffer’s film series consists of ten episodes tracing the influence of Christianity on Western art and culture, from ancient Rome to Roe v. Wade. In the films, Schaeffer—who has a white goatee and is dressed in a shearling coat and mountain climber’s knickers—condemns the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism. He repeatedly reminds viewers of the “inerrancy” of the Bible and the necessity of a Biblical world view.

The first five installments of the series are something of an art-history and philosophy course. The iconic image from the early episodes is Schaeffer standing on a raised platform next to Michelangelo’s “David” and explaining why, for all its beauty, Renaissance art represented a dangerous turn away from a God-centered world and toward a blasphemous, human-centered world. But the film shifts in the second half. In the sixth episode, a mysterious man in a fake mustache drives around in a white van and furtively pours chemicals into a city’s water supply, while Schaeffer speculates about the possibility that the U.S. government is controlling its citizens by means of psychotropic drugs. The final two episodes of the series deal with abortion and the perils of genetic engineering.

In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published “A Christian Manifesto,” a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed. In his movie, Schaeffer warned that America’s descent into tyranny would not look like Hitler’s or Stalin’s; it would probably be guided stealthily, by “a manipulative, authoritarian élite.”

BE AFRAID OF BACHMAN, BE VERY FUCKING AFRAID OF HER.

Atomika

Captain Carrot wrote:

Gingrich doesn't have any ideas, and nobody can articulate worth a damn in this field. It's a solid mass of WHARBLGARBL with occasional exceptions.

I really wish the grilling Michelle Bachmann got on Bill O'Reilly had gotten more press. Papa Bear took her to town on her lack of anything resembling an economic plan, despite the fact the lion's share of her platform is economic reform.

OR: What economic reforms would you instate?
Bach: First, I'd fire all of Obama's financial team.
OR: Um, sure. Obviously. And then?
Bach: We have to create more jobs.
OR: . . . . by doing?
Bach: Undoing the damage Obama has done to this economy.
OR: . . . . which is?
Bach: We have to put people back to work and get businesses hiring again!
OR: No, I'm asking what your plan is to do those things. We all know WHAT needs to happen, we want to hear HOW you plan on making it happen.
OR: Look, Obama has ruined the credit and the reputation of the American economy. I plan on making America a place where businesses aren't afraid to succeed.


I swear to god, O'Reilly wanted to rip her throat out.

ElJeffe

RMS Oceanic wrote:

Mister Jeffe, does this mean you don't buy into the relatively sudden interest in Rick Perry?

Well obviously it does, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. Being a filthy socialist European I might not be properly familiar with the cultural context of the situation.

This said, from a pure "I could stand this guy as President" angle, I am rooting for Romney.

I think Romney is the person to beat. He has the most street cred and that sort of generic competency. And he's remaining low-key, while the rest of the candidates savage the hell out of each other.

Perry has a certain charisma, but I think his abrupt out-of-the-gate momentum is going to be eaten up by his opponents tearing into them as he tears into them. And Perry just strikes me as unlikeable. He's like if Bush Jr. was mixed with a used car salesman and then the result was raised by sharks.

The media's lack of attention span isn't helping him, either. After 24 hours they were hungering for something new, which reinforces the narrative that he has no staying power, even if it's a somewhat artificial narrative.

ElJeffe

dbrock270 wrote:

Anyone who comes to this thread to promote Ron Paul...

HE'S NOT GONNA GET THE NOMINATION SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HIM.

Oh, hello there, I didn't know D&D was getting a new mod!

Oh, you aren't a mod? Then maybe you don't get to dictate the discussion topic in a thread you didn't create!

Wowsers!

ElJeffe

Lawndart wrote:

Couscous wrote:

shryke wrote:

Robos A Go Go wrote:

Why are Romey's chances better now than they were last election? Is it because the Republicans want a business guy or because Perry is less of a threat than McCain?

Yeah, the only reason I can see Romney getting anywhere is because the field is so shit he can't not win.

He looks about how he did this time last election and that didn't go well for him either.

The generic choice last time was McCain. The generic choice now is Romney. Everybody else is the crazy choice or the hopeless choice.

The Republican Party seems to have a habit of elevating the second-place finisher in one primary cycle to the front-runner and (so far) eventual candidate in the next contested cycle. Reagan ran second in 1976, Bob Dole ran second in 1988, McCain ran second in 2000, and Romney ran second in 2008.

This. It is Romney's turn, and there's a long history of the GOP throwing their weight behind whoever's turn it is.

That said, the GOP has, of late, been terrified of the fringe of their party (read: Teapers) in a way that's very atypical. I can potentially see them going with one of the crazypants candidates based on this, which would probably be Bachmann, because she comes the closest to having staying power.

So I give about an 85% chance of Romney with a 15% chance of some late afternoon Bachmann.

Atomika

ElJeffe wrote:

The media's lack of attention span isn't helping him, either. After 24 hours they were hungering for something new, which reinforces the narrative that he has no staying power, even if it's a somewhat artificial narrative.

Well, it REALLY hurts when your sole defining characteristic is, "Hey, I'm the new guy!"

MyDcmbr

ElJeffe wrote:

So I give about an 85% chance of Romney with a 15% chance of some late afternoon Bachmann.

If Romney gets the nod, I think there will be a real fight come election time.

dbrock270

Maybe when Romney gets the ticket he'll make Bachmann his running mate.

Lawndart

ElJeffe wrote:

This. It is Romney's turn, and there's a long history of the GOP throwing their weight behind whoever's turn it is.

That said, the GOP has, of late, been terrified of the fringe of their party (read: Teapers) in a way that's very atypical. I can potentially see them going with one of the crazypants candidates based on this, which would probably be Bachmann, because she comes the closest to having staying power.

So I give about an 85% chance of Romney with a 15% chance of some late afternoon Bachmann.

What's atypical is that the traditional Republican fringe has, post-Dubya, been rebranded as a separate political entity.

That worked gangbusters for reviving the Republican brand (or at least the Republican ideology) but as the debt ceiling debate showed, that fringe no longer considers itself beholden to the GOP leadership.

So I'm not sure there's going to be the same "rally around the electable candidate the party bosses want" this time around as there was in 2008, although to be fair Huckabee rode the crazy fringe protest candidacy pretty far then.

Johnny Chopsocky

I wonder what'll happen if the Tea Party favorite doesn't get the nomination. I'm not seeing much likelihood for a crazed rambling "Hillary44"-styled crowd of party defectors (that is, if the 'Hillary44' crowd actually HAD any real party defectors in their ranks) in that group.

MyDcmbr

Johnny Chopsocky wrote:

I wonder what'll happen if the Tea Party favorite doesn't get the nomination. I'm not seeing much likelihood for a crazed rambling "Hillary44"-styled crowd of party defectors (that is, if the 'Hillary44' crowd actually HAD any real party defectors in their ranks) in that group.

They will run their own candidate and make it into a 3 person race.

An Obama vs. Romney vs. Bachmann election p much clinches it for Obama.

KalTorak

Johnny Chopsocky wrote:

I wonder what'll happen if the Tea Party favorite doesn't get the nomination. I'm not seeing much likelihood for a crazed rambling "Hillary44"-styled crowd of party defectors (that is, if the 'Hillary44' crowd actually HAD any real party defectors in their ranks) in that group.

Hopefully a good chunk of them will stay home in November, chewing on their knotted panties.

And if the Tea Party fav does get it, it's pretty much guaranteed that a good chunk of moderate Republicans will stay home in November hating the rest of their party.

Here's hopin', anyway.

Kipling217

I am on the Romney train. Its very much like a roller coaster, because it goes up,down,left and right(even does a loop at some point), but it gets you to the exit at the end.

Perry might give him a run for his money, but in the end his douchbag atitude is going to sink him. One Dean scream into a mike will sink him. Or he will have a Maccaca moment talking about some teaper issue and cross the line. Either way he is a gaffe waiting to happen.

Bachman has gaffes on a daily basis, but nobody cares. Why because everybody knows she isn't going to get the nomination. If it even looks likes she is going to pull ahead, the GOP leadership will rally round Romney.

Robos A Go Go

I think that most of the Tea Party fervor just comes from a sense disenfranchisement among huge numbers of unemployed/underemployed people who don't have anything to do with their time. They want to feel like they have a voice on the national level, and they won't get that feeling by falling in line with the rest of the party and supporting Romney, a man can't convincingly pretend to care how they feel about social issues or the economy.

So, even if Romney wins, I fully expect them to unite behind someone else just to keep their fringe community active and worthy of media attention.

ElJeffe

I can easily see Palin hanging around and drawing away support from whoever gets the nom, because she's a complete attention whore and I doubt she has any qualms about tanking her party for the sake of her own popularity. I'm not sure about Bachmann; I think she probably has enough of a future in politics that she'd be loathe to blatantly fuck over the GOP by running as a third party or just implicitly putting herself above the party brand. Even in her capacity as head loon right now, she can ostensibly claim to have the party's interests in heart, which can't be said if she flat-out runs against the party's official nominee.

But yeah, I won't be surprised if we see a Romney/Bachmann dynamic that mirror's last cycle's McCain/Huckabee.