The 2012 Republican Primary Field: October, 2011
Once a month, we give a rundown of the Republican field for the 2012 Presidential nomination.
In June, there were 11 candidates and potential candidates judged by Intrade investors to have a better than 1% chance of securing the Republican nomination. Throughout July and August and September the “more than 1% on Intrade” club still numbered nine, with about half undeclared candidates. Now there are seven, all officially declared. In a significant development, this month’s rundown has none of the undeclared candidate hoo-hah that sullied previous months. The time for latecomers and maybe-candidates seems to have truly passed, and the advancement of the primary calendar has the side effect of solidifying the field.
Still, the “anybody but Romney” movement seems strong, but its adherents have fallen into a sulky silence. Could Newt be next month’s anti-Romney? There’s a disconnect between the polls and political futures markets.
As with past months, I gathered Real Clear Politics aggregated poll averages and October 19 Intrade probabilities for each candidate, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Iowa Electronics Market closing prices for political futures contracts, Aug 30 to present. From top to bottom: teal, Romney; red, rest of field; gray, Perry; blue, Bachmann; gold, ironically, is Paul.
I listed the potential Republican candidates below, in order of their Intrade percentages, from highest to lowest. In each case, the polling numbers are given in parentheses after the candidate’s name, rounded to the nearest whole number, followed by the change from last month:
- RCP = the most recent available Real Clear Politics aggregated polling data.
- In = Intrade October 19.
I compiled rank-order listings from the six monthly surveys I’ve done, including this one.
This month’s big winner is the Mittster himself, who used strong debate performances (or his opponents’ weak debate performances) to ride to clear front-runner position in the political futures markets. In the polls, he’s still in a virtual tie, but this month his poll antagonist is Herman Cain. Perry holds onto a weak second place in the Intrade standings, and Cain is in third. After those two, there is another steep drop to Gingrich, Paul and Huntsman in a three-way tie for fourth. Bachmann is the only remaining candidate above 1% according to Intrade, and she’s right on the line.
| Candidate | May rank | June rank | July rank | August rank | September rank | October rank |
| Romney | 1 | 1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| Perry | none | 4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
| Cain | 5 | 7 |
none |
none |
none |
3 |
| Huntsman | 4 | 3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 (tie) |
| Gingrich | 8 | 9 |
none |
none |
8 |
4 (tie) |
| Paul | 9 | 10 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
4 (tie) |
| Bachmann | 7 | 5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
1.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (RCP 25% +5; In 68% +29)
Romney saw a huge spike in the political futures markets this month, but his poll numbers still lag. He’s in a virtual tie, poll-wise, with the October Flavor of the Month, Herman Cain.
2.
Texas Governor Rick Perry (RCP 13% –19; In 15% –21)
Perry sinks like a stone. Score one for filistro’s predictive capabilities: she said he wouldn’t wear well, and he hasn’t. Perry seems to be one of those politicians we like less and less, the more we get to know him.
3.
Businessman Herman Cain (RCP 24% +19; In 8% +7).
Cain, buoyed by a strong showing in a Florida straw poll and passable debate performances, is this month’s “NotRomney” darling. His meteoric rise has been matched only by his ability to put his foot in his mouth, followed by the standard comeback, “I was only kidding, guys.” It’s probably still not okay to kid about electrocuting illegal aliens, though.
4 (tie).
Former Utah Governor, former Obama Administration Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman (RCP 2% 0; In 3% –2)
Huntsman, like the other third-tier candidates, doesn’t have a clear path to the nomination, unless you count a hung convention.
4 (tie).
Representative Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson, TX) (RCP 8% –2; In 3% 0)
Paul’s position in the rankings has changed over time, but his overall poll numbers have been very steady. He has a core group of vociferous supporters, but can’t seem to extend his reach much beyond them.
4 (tie).
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (RCP 8% +7; In 3% +1)
After his spring and summer struggles, Gingrich has a strong showing in the polls this month, but it’s not reflected in the political futures markets. Clearly the public was impressed with his debate performances, but the people who would bet money on him don’t think as much of his campaign. There doesn’t seem to be a clear path to the nomination for him: through Iowa? New Hampshire? Perhaps South Carolina or Florida, but those still have to be considered longshots for Gingrich.
7.
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater, MN) (RCP 5% –2; In 1% –2)
Bachmann continues to sink in both polls and political futures markets. Apparently, the Representative from Stillwater keeps running deeper.

This entry was posted by Monotreme on October 20, 2011 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Republican 2012 Presidential Nomination. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
Chris, nail on the head time.
What we don’t know yet is whether the uncompromising far far far right will be able to get in line behind Romney (who will be the Republican nominee). Or will they mount a third-party candidate? Or simply stay home? Or will they be so angry at The Republican Establishment, that they’ll vote for Obama as a protest? (I don’t really that that last is very likely, but you never can tell with some of those people.)
-
#3 written by DrFunguy 1 year ago
Pierce sums it up nicely (linked in last weeks open mic also):
“…as soon as one of them starts acting like the Establishment, he gives all the others a chance to be Robespierre again, and the whole sprawling mess goes rolling back down the hill. Movement conservatism has so thoroughly imbibed the rhetoric of embattled victims, and it has so suffused the Republican party with the notion that it is some kind of revolutionary popular front in khakis, that the worst thing that anyone can do is look like they’re remotely in charge. Within minutes, you start hearing the wheels of the tumbrels closing in…”
-
I actually think the Rabid Right (aka RWNJs) like having President Obama at some level. It helps with fundraising, and like a dog chasing a car, they have no idea what to do if they actually catch it.
I predict that in the absence of a RWNJ Republican candidate, they’ll stay home or mount a third-party insurgency that damages the Republican nominee. If I had to choose between those two, I’d choose the insurgency. While 2008-version Hillary Democrats were accused of being Party Unity My Ass (PUMA) idealogues, the real PUMAs are Tea Party adherents.
-
#5 written by shortchain 1 year ago
My prediction: The far right will suffer an “enthusiasm gap” even though Mitt will pick a frother like Bachmann to sweeten the pot. That will make the 2012 election a lower turnout affair, since Obama has been working for almost his entire term to give his base no reason to be enthusiastic about voting for him.
This, combined with spectacularly low favorable scores for Congress, will make many seats up for grabs go into coin-flipping territory. The outcome will probably be a wash, with both houses splitting what little difference there might be. I rather suspect that, outside of the South and the West, the tea party representatives will discover that they need to spend a lot more time with their families, but, since the rest of the GOP has signed onto the tea party objectives, it won’t make a bit of difference.
After the election, the GOP will be even more embittered and reluctant to go along with Obama, because winning elections by depressing turnout is their bailiwick, and nothing infuriates politicians more than somebody treading on their turf.
Addendum: I should have added that the GOP has discovered the joys of running for governmental office on an anti-government platform — like the tea party’s success has shown: governing on an anti-government ticket means never having to apologize for doing something.
-
#6 written by mclever 1 year ago
@shortchain
The problem with Mitt picking a VP to please the Teavangelical wing is that he runs the risk of repeating of the same sort of fallout as McCain’s Palin pick. Those moderate-to-left-leaning independents and loosely-aligned Democrats who might be inclined to go with a seeming moderate like Romney could take a look at the second slot and run for the devil-you-know of Obama/Biden. I think Romney is politically savvy enough to be aware of that risk, so I think his VP pick is more likely to be someone NOT on the debate stage with him, but with solid conservative bona fides. Pawlenty may have preserved his potential consideration as running-mate by dropping out early, for example.
On second thought, of the current candidates, Santorum might be a reasonable VP pick for Romney. He’s a hawkish social-con, but he can present himself in a reasonable-sounding manner on a wide array of national policy issues. I may disagree with him vehemently on a non-trivial number of things, but he doesn’t come across as a ranting idiot. (I’ve actually had the opportunity to discuss issues with him personally, and he didn’t leave me screaming in terror or howling with laughter.) His fiscal policies actually mesh well with Romney’s, and his extremely conservative views on religiously motivated issues could staunch the bleeding with the far right evangelicals who would otherwise be averse to Romney’s religion. That tag-team could work well, with Romney targeting moderates while Santorum appeals to the evangelical conservatives.
Hmmm. Something to think about. I’ll have to run that past my Teavangelical relatives and see what they’d think about a Romney/Santorum ticket.
-
#7 written by rgbact 1 year ago
On second thought, of the current candidates, Santorum might be a reasonable VP pick for Romney.
He’s my pick. Only downside is too “white guy”. I think Santorum is just auditioning for VP. I think its a good choice. Catholic. From Reagan Democrat area. He’s a young Joe Biden.
Anyway, current buzz today on righty sites is that Cain implied he was pro-choice on CNN last nite. Looks like it may be the final straw or gaffe for Herman’s run. So, I’m back to wondering why the hell Pawlenty quit so soon? He’d be looking good right now.
-
All these analyses miss the upcoming influence of the most skilled campaigner America has seen in nearly a century. Once President Obama hits the campaign trail flat-out, the “enthusiasm” meter is going to radically change. With Congress’ dismal approval ratings, and with the Republican ticket teetering between boring and OMYGOD run for the hills!, President Obama may walk off with a victory that makes 2008 look like a close race.
He make even have significant coattails, since he’ll be contrasting his vibrancy with the Do-Nothing Republican-obstructed Congress, which has been working overtime to keep you, Mr. and Mrs. American, out of a job, while pandering to the 1%.
And if Romney does pick Santorum as a running mate, Googling the Republican ticket will become a dangerous affair that no one dares do at work…
-
@rgb… Anyway, current buzz today on righty sites is that Cain implied he was pro-choice on CNN last nite. Looks like it may be the final straw or gaffe for Herman’s run.
Actually, he didn’t. Apparently (getting this info secondhand from the furious Freepers) Cain reiterated his stance that he is opposed to abortion in all instances without exception, not even rape and incest. However, in situations where it is a genuine medical choice of the baby’s life or the mother’s, he believes in “letting the family decide.”
The idea that some pregnant woman’s life might be saved by aborting a fetus is too much for the Freepers, and many have just withdrawn their support from Herman. He is now dropping fast in the political markets.
Live by the crazies, die by the crazies…
-
-
#11 written by shortchain 1 year ago
mc,
Perhaps I remember things differently — but I recall that the McCain campaign was dead in the water until it brought Palin on board, and then it came out energized. Palin did, eventually, self-destruct and hurt the ticket, but if they could have avoided that by choosing someone a bit better vetted, they could get the upside and avoid the down-side.
As for Santorum — I don’t think so. You pick a VP candidate for several reasons, one of them being that they’ll bring in a flock of voters from a region or demographic. Santorum’s history is that he’s a loser. He wouldn’t win Pennsylvania for Romney, his right-wing extremist views would turn off all but the most right-wing Catholics, and he’s not attractive to blue-collar folks. I think Romney has to choose an evangelical to get through the general election.
-
-
#13 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Once President Obama hits the campaign trail flat-out, the “enthusiasm” meter is going to radically change.
Yeah, I keep hearing that once Obama speaks out on PPACA or campaigns for Martha Coakley or gives an address on the debt crises.….the opposition will soon crumble. Still waiting for the onslaught.
I’m hearing stories that his bus tour/campaigning in VA/NC was a real snoozer. Tim Kaine is in hiding.
-
rgbact, maybe you have been hearing those things, but not from me. You won’t find me having expressed those thoughts on any of those topics. President Obama has been too busy trying to govern over the last thirty-two months for any of his activities to be classified as “campaigning.” There’s a big difference, and I think you’ll see it over the next year.
-
#15 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Cain reiterated his stance that he is opposed to abortion in all instances without exception, not even rape and incest.
I suspected so Fili. I think the bigger point is he can’t communicate well enough so that people can actually understand his positions. This one should be a no brainer. So should the terrorist negotiations. Wait till we get to the tough calls.
-
#16 written by mclever 1 year ago
@DC
While I’m as much of an Obama cheerleader as anyone, I’m not ready to write his January 2013 Inaugural Address just yet. He’s got a lot of work cut out for him to shore up support amongst many disillusioned voters. Gifted though Obama may be as a campaigner, if he faces Romney, he’ll be competing against another extremely gifted politician with a considerable (personal) war chest of his own. Granted, if Obama faces any of the other current Republican wannabes aside from Romney, then you’re probably right that 2008 would look like a “close” election in comparison, but it would be foolish to discount someone as politically agile as Romney, especially this early in the game.
-
#17 written by mclever 1 year ago
@shortchain
Bringing in a flock of voters from a particular demographic or region may be one consideration in choosing VP, and in this case I think the Christian Conservatives are the demographic where Santorum would be a potentially vital help for Romney considering his known weakness with that very significant portion of the Republican base. You’re right that Santorum probably wouldn’t move the needle much in Pennsylvania, but he would shore up Romney’s weaknesses with the Christian Conservative Right.
Anyway, it was just a thought, and apparently RGB agrees that it’s worth considering. As I said, I’ll have to run it past my evangelical, conservative folks and see what they think. They’ve already soured on Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, so I’m not sure who they’re looking at next.
-
#18 written by mclever 1 year ago
@RGB
I think the bigger point is he can’t communicate well enough so that people can actually understand his positions.
Indeed. Cain is affable, entertaining, relaxed, and personable. But if he has to keep saying, “I was just kidding, folks!” or otherwise clarifying and re-explaining his views, then he loses the sound-byte war through self-inflicted fire.
-
#19 written by mclever 1 year ago
@shortchain
I should clarify that I think the results of McCain’s Palin pick will color the electorate’s perceptions such that any seeming “frother” pick by Romney would generate an “oh no, here we go again” response amongst voters, even though the actual pick would undoubtedly be less of a disaster as VP than Palin actually would have been. You’re right that a wiser pick by McCain wouldn’t have had the same boom-n-crash, but I think the recentness of that experience will make moderates leery of any similarities.
-
@rgb… I think the bigger point is he can’t communicate well enough so that people can actually understand his positions.
You’re partly right.. but the bigger problem is he appears not to HAVE firm positions… or at least ones that are well-thought-out and he is able to defend. Actually it seems like Cain’s entire presidential campaign falls into the category of “A funny thing happened on the way to my book tour.”
His winger support is already falling away rapidly… and I simply cannot see that 30% of GOP primary voters going to Romney. They HATE Romney. So they’ll have no viable choice except for Perry. But Perry can’t win the nomination. He’s so much like Dubya, but without the gravitas and keen intellect
So this will sift down to a long, entertaining, vicious 2-person primary, probably not decided till after Super Tuesday (if then) and Perry (and especially his staff) are junkyard dogs when it comes to politics.
By teh end of it, Romany will be so bloodied and Republicans so bitterly divided that the Obama folks will get exactly what they’ve always wanted… a presidential election that is a choice… (us or those really weird guys over there?) rather than a referendum (how has he done in his first term?)
And Obama will win that contest, even though by all usual political calculations this is one he really should lose.
-
My assessment comes from extrapolating existing trends. We have a right constituency mesmerized by the most unpalatable, noxious set of demands and assumptions we may have ever seen in the long haul of the nations life.
The Know Nothings from Lincoln’s time might be close but there wasn’t a media bullhorn like Fox then to proliferate the implausible and ridiculous among the adamantly ignorant.
And despite some views to the contrary, the steadfastness of one constituencies ignorance does not add up to the functionality of the other constituencies knowledge.
So, unless there is some mass epiphany along the lines of “Everything we think is absurd, broken and worthless, let’s try reason for a change”, Obama could be as arid and stiff as Harry Reid and still beat these wrecks.
That’s the problem, They are all mainly variations on the theme of Sharon Angle or that witch fighter in Delaware.
And Mitt is even more weaselly than his presumed opponent with none of the redeeming qualities.
-
#22 written by rgbact 1 year ago
You’re right that Santorum probably wouldn’t move the needle much in Pennsylvania,
Not so sure. PA has been a tougher state for Obama back to him losing to Hillary. And, it was a great state for the GOP in 2010. Obama has a weakness with white working class voters. Its probably worse if they’re pro-life. That why Biden was picked. Santorum fits this demo perfectly.
I’m seeing MI and PA as great GOP pickup opportunitites. Note Obama is campaigning in VA and NC.…2 red states with fewer white working class voters. That is there best chance, since OH and FL are likely lost.
-
#23 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
-
#24 written by parksie555 1 year ago
DC - you are kidding yourself if you don’t think Obama has not been in full-on campaigning mode for the last three months. The “jobs bill” was a naked political ploy that he knew even his own party would not get in line behind. Whaddaya think these “bus tours” are other than camapign events? Basically he has been camapigning on the taxpayer’s dime since August.
-
#25 written by shortchain 1 year ago
rgbact,
Except almost all the Democrats did get behind the “jobs bill”, after they urinated on it “to improve the flavor”.
And it’s not like Obama is being kept in Washington meeting with Republicans who are eager to reach a compromise on policy issues.
The wonderful thing about modern communication is that it allows us to multi-task. And the President’s job is not that much different. Pull your head out of the times, decades ago, when the President (or any executive) had to stay ensconced in the committee rooms to get anything done.
-
#26 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
parksie, as much as you see the bus tour as a campaign, it will pale in comparison to the actual campaign. A bus tour is not a campaign. It’s a series of appearances.
shorchain is right. Those appearances on the bus tour amount to an average of maybe an hour or two per day, tops. The rest of the time, President Obama is still governing (you can do incredible things from that bus.) That’s a far cry from a full-on campaign.
Contrast this with the entire Republican party, which has been in take-no-prisoners flat-out anti-Obama campaign mode for three years solid, devoting hardly a thought to governing. Is it any wonder the Congressional approval rating is approaching single digits? Republicans have proven the only thing they know how to do is throw spitballs.
Romney looked like a peevish child in the debate, pleading with Anderson Cooper to make the Perry bully stop beating up on him. In the fall, there will be an actual President on the debate stage, standing next to either that spoiled rich kid or that third-grade brat with a Cowboy Bob hobby horse. It’s going to be entertaining.
-
#28 written by parksie555 1 year ago
DC — Last time I checked, Congress is still about half Ds. The disapproval is as much of them as it is Rs.
I’m pretty sure that Obama’s job creation record will be a major subject of discussion in the Presidential debates. As will his support of Solyndra and other “job creation” scams. As will the savings attributed to his health care bill which are being revealed as smoke and mirrors (See “CLASS”). As will the anemic performance of the economy on his watch. As will his wretched performance in trying to bring Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table.
Watching Obama try to wriggle off those hooks will be the entertaining part of the debate.
-
#29 written by shortchain 1 year ago
rgbact,
Originally you said “full-on campaign mode”, now you just ask “campaign mode”. The traditional, Republican, strategy for presidential races is to campaign as Obama is doing until the winner of the opposing party’s primary becomes obvious, then retreat to the Rose Garden and pretend that “being President” is more important than campaigning or debating.
Maybe that’s what Obama will do. It’s quite likely that whatever hideous chimera comes out of the Republican primary process — which appears more fractured and warped every week — will turn the stomachs of the electorate, leaving us with Hobson’s choice.
Or we could see an old-style campaign such as DC imagines.
My own guess is that it will be somewhere in between, and the real battle will be joined by huge superPAC operations running blatantly false ads, to the extent that the candidates will be simply a side-show.
Won’t that be nice?
-
#30 written by shortchain 1 year ago
-
#31 written by rgbact 1 year ago
-
-
-
parksie,
Here’s some polling information from August. Perhaps you can find something more recent.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/downgrade-gop-approval
-
#35 written by shortchain 1 year ago
-
Another interesting polling tidbit is that the vast majority of American voters — even a majority of those who self-identify as Republican — wants the stuff that’s in President Obama’s jobs bill.
Why are we not hearing Teapers screaming about the anti-liberty anti-democracy authoritarian totalitarian Republican congresscritters who are thwarting the Will of The People?
Rhetorical question.
-
#37 written by Mainer 1 year ago
While there could well be a lack of enthusiasm for either ticket come next November I see state after where there is quite likely going to be an out push from the left to undo the damage from the last election. I certainly see it happening in my own state and others can be expected to be see an even more vigerous GOTV effort. Does any one seriously expect to have a significant left, progressive, union, teacher, college etc turn out for local/sate issues that when the individuals are in the voting booth they are not also going to pull te lever for the president. I see coat tails as I have said before but I think we are looking in the wrong direction. And yes Max to write off Ohio and or Florida or any of a number of other states at this point is not only foolish but most likely not happening in the real world.
-
I’m pretty sure that Obama’s job creation record will be a major subject of discussion in the Presidential debates.
I hope so. More jobs created under just Obama’s first two years alone, than in eight years of the prior Republican administration.
As will his support of Solyndra and other “job creation” scams.
The funny thing about “investments” is that sometimes they don’t pan out. Ask any investor. Solyndra is a great object lesson for the “privatize Social Security” people. Other than that, what’s your point?
As will the savings attributed to his health care bill which are being revealed as smoke and mirrors (See “CLASS”).
One aspect of it has missed a deadline because not all the necessary rules are in place. You’re really stretching
As will the anemic performance of the economy on his watch.
For which we can primarily thank the Do-Nothing Congress.
As will his wretched performance in trying to bring Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table.
Yeah, that didn’t work out so well. Everyone knows the Palestinians and the Israelis have a history of doing precisely what the US President tells them to. I have two words to answer that with: bin Laden.
-
#39 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
The 33% favorable rating for the GOP itself in the CNN/ORC poll is VERY interesting.
As we have discussed several times recently the 37.5/37.5/25 split in GOP/Dem/Middle, this means something like 5% of hard core GOP are not giving a favorable nod to their own party and NONE OF THE MIDDLE is!
-
#40 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
-
#41 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Yes I did Max. Still not a top collards fan but they certainly were worth eating that way. The grits were very much an uptick on previous efforts. Regardless my opinion of either dish my young black former Southern friend made sure I had no left overs to worry about. The Crappie we had with the meal took a pretty bad beating as well. How that kid can eat the way he does and not look like he gains an ounce is a great mystery to me.
Max I think the poll numbers you are looking at are national and if one were to look at some of the battle ground states the R/D/I splits and favorability ratings are much less favorable to the Republicans right this moment and that is where this thing is going to be fought and won with presidential candidates along for the ride as it were. If one were to factor out sates such as Mississippi and Alabama and SC etc. then one would expect a different result. Take out states where a rock with an R on it can be considered a serious candidate and things change. I suspect that there are still a few Dem states like that as well but not enough or by a large enough margin to tilt results like it does for the Republicans.
A Floridian friend was just telling me of a survey done down there (maybe by the League of Women voters or some thing like them) that would seem to show some tougher sledding for the right upcoming. Has any one seen such a poll or study as I can’t find it and my friend is also no where to be found. It is possible it is some thing done by one of the universities political science departments.
-
but he doesn’t come across as a ranting idiot.
Isn’t Santorum still looking for er convinced there’s WMD’s in Iraq? Just sayin’
The obvious: Whoever the Rep nominee is ie mittens, he probably won’t be campaigning in OH w/Kasich, in FL w/Scott, in WI w/Walker, in MI w/Snyder, in NJ w/chubs of fun … hmm mittens/Christie 2012. Indeed, Christie campaigned w/Whitman in CA and that went over well lol.
Things can change instantaneously in politics and the presidential election is over a year out notwithstanding, interesting our resident wingers are predicting er hoping/praying Obama’s electoral chances in OH, PA, MI, FL etc. Have they not been paying attention to the current laughable field of teabagger wannabe’s ?!? 2008, the Dems had one fruit loop, Kucinich
whereas Reps have a plethora this time around.As I often said to Bartles, pace yourself! You all remember Bartles as he was the fool er convinced Reid in NV and Bennet in CO were toast over a year before the mid-term. Oops! And p555 was convinced Blumenthal was toast in CT yada yada yada.
Yes Virginia, makin’ political predictions “now” is a fools errand at best, eh. Especially before the teabaggers pick their 3rd party candidate.
Did I mention Santorum is bat shit crazy … on a good day!
carry on
-
75% of Americans, according to the latest CNN poll, support the portion of the American Jobs Act that is before the Senate tonight. More that 60% of Republcian voters support it.
Republicans will filibuster the bill, and not even allow it to come to a vote.
Instead, Republicans have proposed cutting over $30 billion from federal discretionary spending, which means a loss of about 200,000 jobs.
Elected Republicans don’t have a clue as to what The People want. They are in the picket of the one percent.
This is why I’m convinced the 2012 elections won’t be what the pundits expect. We’ll have the next thirteen months of both Democrats and Republicans reminding the electorate that Republicans want to kill jobs. Americans hate that. Elected Republican are proud of it.
-
#44 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Shiloh, Kucinich may very well be a fruit loop but he has always been a harmless crazy that has been pretty danged supportive of the average Amerian. What keeps showing up on stage at the Republican debates and in their Congressional caucus are folks that seem to be mean or even dangerous crazy that don’t seem to even want to accept that there are large numbers of Americans that their actions will hurt now and into the future for the benefit of the few. Nope give me loopy crazy any day of the week over meanspirited crazy.
Santorum isn’t going to get any nod from any body. Not this time, not next time not any time. If one assumes the two candidates most likely to survive to the convention are Perry and Romney then why would either of them actually want or need him? If it is Perry he will not need a Santorum to translate for him with the evangelicals or the teaper hordes and he can get as good or better regional balance picking a Pawlenty (I know who Tiny Tim threw his miniscule weight behind but we all know that if Perry were to call Timmy would be going Mitt who so fast.….) and Pawlenty may be dull but he isn’t such a loose cannon that he would shoot both himself and Perry in the foot in his first speech.
Mitt on the other hand has different issues should he get the nod as he has several net negatives to offset with a VP choice. How does one find a balancing agent to his Mormonism nonevangelical, not really a teaper, damned if he ain’t a Yankee baggage? Well how about a Jim Demint? Ole Jimmy boy is an absolute threefer in this scenario. Southern, teaper evangelical. I find the man repulsive but what a balance he could bring to Mitt. Picture those campaign pics.….…
Another woman or some other minority as a VP in these two scenarios? Well he or she isn’t on the stage with them. Neither one of them would gain with a Bachmann and setting yourself up to become more SNL material isn’t going to happen. Both Mitt and Perry would like us to think they have a tax plan but so does Herman and that would just drag in too many obvious questions. Rubio? Nah his handlers aren’t ready to set him loose just yet they know what they want and Marco getting damaged this time around is probably not in the plans. Young female Republican govenors? Weak maybe for Mitt a no forPerry.
Really fun stuff. Hey I have one Perry and Walker. Heck it is possible the Wisconsin wild man could even be looking for work by then and have all kinds of time to campaign. Now that would be funny but I don’t think either Mitt or Rick want loosers, quiters, the obviously crazy or any one with better hair then they have. Does narrow it down.
-
#45 written by curious jane 1 year ago
I know that historically it seems the USA swings far right, far left and center. In my memory there has been been many times when there was partisan rancor. I don’t believe I have ever seen potential presidential candidates portray such negativism about “what is” without a “what can be”. The only one that seems to have a positive messsage is Herman Cain and he says how he’ll do it. I don’t agree, of course, but it is a possitive message. Everytime I here 999 I think of my German Grandmother who used to, sweetly, say” “nein, nein, nein”, instead of no, no, no.
I pray the voters realize they don’t care about “We the People”. The deficit is a huge problem. The jobs thing is an emergency that is felt on Main Street. It is hard to believe that Government servants can get by with disregarding the demands of their boss, “We the people”.
-
Mainer, absolutely correct, however I may feel about Kucinich, former mayor of Cleveland
at least he is a non-flip/flopping extreme liberal ie a true believer, whereas the current group of angry extreme teabagger, wannabe presidents are flip/flopping like there’s no tomorrow lol either to kowtow to their teabagger lemmings or to kowtow to the MSM when they say something totally outrageous er non-presidential that they have to walk it back.Except Cain, as he’s totally clueless/inept ’cause he just wants to increase his book sales and could care less about being president. So in that respect, at least Cain knows what he’s trying to do.
Soldier: Who the hell is kicking me in the butt?
Oh, sorry, sir.
Patton: What were you doing down there?
Soldier: Trying to get some sleep, sir.
Patton: Well.… Get back down there, son. You’re the only son of a bitch here who knows what the hell he’s trying to do.
Soldier: Yes, sir.
-
#47 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#48 written by Mainer 1 year ago
AW, I have heard this bit on Kucinich as well but what you have done is confuse David Welsh, a former Bush appointee and now Bechhtel mouthpiece that actually did advise Gaddafi’s people of what to do and Kucinich that asked for information that had it existed and been supplied to him would have most likely been used by Kucinich in his antiwar position. You remember Mr. Kucinich don’t you AW? He has been pretty anti (insert name of war here) war across the board. It appears the information was not supplied and Mr. Kucinich appears to have done nothing more about it. Oh and it was the Gaddafi side that initiated the contact where in contrast it appears that Mr. Welsh was much more proactive in the matter and actually did meet with senior Gaddafi people in Cairo. So Yes AW I will stick with my position that Kucinich is pretty much harmless, quite consistent in his anti war positions and not in the mean spirited screw every one not like me into the ground camp.
By the way AW just because some one is anti war does not mean they are anit American and in all too many cases it has meant just the opposite. Me and mine have always served and answered the call but I find Mr. Kucinich to be much less a danger to our land than far too many of the faux pocket book swaggering patriots that would try to have us believe they are the true patriots when they could give two shits about our military or our land.
-
#49 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
Mainer,
Kucinich appears to have met with representatives of a country the United States was actively conducting military operations against and requested specific information with which to undermine an American military campaign. Regardless of whether the information was supplied, he has accused American and allied forces of war crimes, called for the impeachment of the President over the issue, etc.
If the man is so “anti-war”, I wonder why he was volunteering his services to a régime which has been directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and which was at the time prosecuting a horrifically brutal campaign against its own citizens? That actually sounds rather pro-war to me.
-
#50 written by Mainer 1 year ago
AW it appears the only face to face meeting did not involve Mr. Kucinich or any one directly connected to him but as stated previously there was a face to face with David Welsh. Mr. Welsh is not associated with Mr. Kucinich in any way. I will grant you that Mr. Kucinich or one of his people did reply to the ovature from Libya but this is where we get into weirdville.
From the git go on this any number of folks on the right were having hissy fits about us backing the rebels because they were by their calculus in bed with Al Quaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Satan, really bad people yada yada. The best I can tell the only one that ever asked the Quadaffi side to put up on their and the American right wing allergations of all this neferarious stuff going on with the rebels was Dennis Kucinich. When even the Quadaffi folks couldn’t or didn’t produce such evidence that appeared to be the end of it. The oddest thing about all of this is that it appears that Kucinich had bought into the memo from the previous administration that Quadaffi had turned over a new leaf and was now on the right side of things to the point of him actually entertaining interceeding on their behalf for us having jumped the shark and attacked the wrong parties.
That Kucinich is staunchly anti war is hardly a secret and for you or any other individual to now think that stance is pro war is a stretch. I think we have been on the right side of this and that some on the right and the left have not been but the opposition from those two extreames seems to have been for very different reasons. One side is on the shit on the president for any and all reasons and one is and will be an aversion to war in general. Don’t try to make Kucinich any more or less than what he is. AW, you are like friends of mine that will never understand the Dennis Kucunich’s of the world. That is ok you would probably make lousy dinner companions together. You just see the world differently.
By the way you might want to check out Kucinich votes on things like veterans bills, hospitals, PTSD, and such. I’m told he is a staunch supporter of our veterans in ways that count just not so much a supporter of our leaders wars.
By the way I’m not a closet Kucinich backer as I still think the lad is crazy as a loon at times but there are others I think are far more dangerous to our military brothers and sisters and for them a special room in hell would be far too good. By the way your an “O” what? I ask because I suspect that the fact I was a very very senior E-8 when I retired, you know one of those that ran out of sleeve for hash marks, makes us look at some of this differently. Think there could be any thing to that?
-
#51 written by shortchain 1 year ago
Careful, mainer — you’re getting a tad close to insubordination.
AW, I’m in full agreement with mainer. My read on the Kucinich report (based on a long observation of the person in question) is that he gave the Libyans an opportunity to present their case, and told them what he needed if he was going to back them. As opposed to indulging in the Orwellian “we’ve always been at war with Oceania” flip-flopping that a lot of this country was doing. (We note that it was only a couple of years ago that high-ranking Senators were hob-nobbing with Kadafi in Libya and professing friendship.)
-
#52 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
Shortchain,
Hardly. As an officer I always listen to NCOs and occasionally agree with them.
Mainer,
It appears that the only thing keeping Kucinich from going to Libya in personal show of support for the régime (he wouldn’t have cast it that way, but that’s what it would have amounted to) was his fear of being injured or killed in the ongoing NATO operations there at the time. He had no problems with visiting Syria instead and has issued statements supportive of the Syrian régime’s position. To quote the second article cited,
In fact, in an interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer in May,Kucinich used words that sound almost identical to Assad’s to describe the Syrian uprising. While Syrian protesters are making legitimate demands for reform, he explained, some are trying to “capitalize on those legitimate demands for reform and use it to push a violent agenda.” The violence is preventing Assad from rolling out democratic reforms, he noted, adding, “We also understand that there’s very serious questions raised about the conduct of the Syrian police, but we also know the Syrian police were fired upon and that many police were murdered.”
Kucinich also personally admitted to direct communications with high-level members of the Libyan régime as well as with their intermediaries in America. His not having met directly with the Libyan régime did not stop him from carrying their water subsequently by baselessly accusing NATO in several different venues of committing war crimes. He appears to be, at best, a useful idiot with regards to these people.
In any event, I fail to see how Kucinich’s actions can be construed as anti-war. Even absolute pacifism should adhere to the principle of proportionality, as anti-war organizations like Amnesty and HRW have in regards to this conflict. If Kucinich was in fact anti-war he would have called for an end to the régime’s violence.
-
#53 written by shortchain 1 year ago
AW,
You seem a bit too eager to accept hearsay evidence in condemning Kucinich, and a bit too willing to interpret events and statements using your personal bias as a metric for what to accept.
I’m not a fan of Kucinich, but I believe we cannot accept, at face value, what some lobbyist says Kucinich said, as actual words out of Kucinich’s mouth. It may be true, but my experience with lobbyists indicates that, even when measured against politicians, their honesty isn’t impressive.
-
#55 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#56 written by shortchain 1 year ago
AW,
You acceped without skepticism hearsay from a libyan lobbyist — and not even hearsay, because the report was a supposed letter, supposedly found in documents that supposedly were in a government office, and supposedly seen by a reporter for al Jazeera. Which you interpreted in the most negative light imaginable, yet you say you have no bias.
-
#57 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#58 written by shortchain 1 year ago
AW,
Connection? Show me where Kucinich said the only reason he didn’t go to Libya was fear for his own safety. Show me where Kucinich said that he advised the Libyan government on propaganda ploys.
Last time I heard, it wasn’t illegal for anyone to have dealings with the Libyan government pre-rebellion. Unlike, say, the Koch brothers’ dealings with Iran.
You seem to be trying to tar Kucinich with some kind of guilt by association. I don’t fail to see where you’re going here.
-
#59 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Hell shorts I was way to close to being insubordinate on more than one occasion which might explain my retiring with one star on my anchors and not two. That and I knew every one of those above my and none of them were about to leave just to give me a chance at that second star.……oh well small service and even smaller rate can kind of box one in when they get up just about so far.
AW then you are an “O” that will probably continue to go up in your service. There is generally a pretty strong correlation between the “O’s” that work with and listen to their senior enlisted that advance and the “O’s” that don’t on either count and then wonder why they don’t advance/get passed over. Good for you. We don’t have to agree on Kucinich or any thing else for me to respect that trait in you.
AW, leave Mr. Kucinich out of this for a minute and comment on the actions of Mr. David Welsh.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Monotreme (240 posts)
Monotreme is an unabashed liberal and dog lover who lives in an almost-square state in the Western U.S. He keeps a second blog related to his work as a scientist and author at 7synapses.com.









They really are getting gored by a well deserved wretched dilemma. They have to assert ridiculous noxious things to pump the “base” and then, magically turn on a dime and convince the rest of increasingly disgusted America that they were only kidding about the electric fences. Sux to be them.
And Mittens McWillard is stuck trying to make the case that he’s preferable to an already congenial plutocracy minion on the job.
Why bother to pick a more dubious flavor?