Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Candidate most likely to defeat Obama
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6
Candidate most likely to defeat Obama
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2012, 09:19 PM (496 Views)
chops1221 Jan 25 2012, 10:55 AM Post #16
Coach
Posts:
3,802
Group:
Members
Member
#28
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM
brumdog44
Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM
If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader.
Ummm..... No.

1) Too old
2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof)
3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve
4) Wants to legalize narcotics
5) Poor orator
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'.

I really don't get that one.
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 25 2012, 11:08 AM Post #17
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:55 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM
brumdog44
Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM
If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader.
Ummm..... No.

1) Too old
2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof)
3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve
4) Wants to legalize narcotics
5) Poor orator
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'.

I really don't get that one.
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
No, apples and oranges comparison: Narcotics are much more additive, and the physical affects much worse.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tAmazingHoosier Jan 25 2012, 11:18 AM Post #18
Coach
Posts:
4,797
Group:
Members
Member
#335
Joined:
June 21, 2009
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
tAmazingHoosier
Jan 24 2012, 02:17 PM
Santorum? LOL He doesn't have a penguins shot in hell. No way he out-bids Gingrich.
Gingrich has some serious issues.

1) He was impeaching Clinton for sex while he was having a scandal with an aid. Americans hate hypocrisy.
2) Ethics violations
3) Kicked out of the House leadership by his own party.

Yes, he would be good at bashing Obama, but the campaign will be about his dubious past, and sadly, Obama would prevail.
I get that about Gingrich... I know he has a dirty past like most politicians do...

But Santorum!? Barack Obama has more followers in the KKK than Santorum has total.


(OK, maybe I'm stretching it a little... but still. Frosty the Snowman has a better chance in South Africa)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 25 2012, 11:26 AM Post #19
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
tAmazingHoosier
Jan 25 2012, 11:18 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
tAmazingHoosier
Jan 24 2012, 02:17 PM
Santorum? LOL He doesn't have a penguins shot in hell. No way he out-bids Gingrich.
Gingrich has some serious issues.

1) He was impeaching Clinton for sex while he was having a scandal with an aid. Americans hate hypocrisy.
2) Ethics violations
3) Kicked out of the House leadership by his own party.

Yes, he would be good at bashing Obama, but the campaign will be about his dubious past, and sadly, Obama would prevail.
I get that about Gingrich... I know he has a dirty past like most politicians do...

But Santorum!? Barack Obama has more followers in the KKK than Santorum has total.


(OK, maybe I'm stretching it a little... but still. Frosty the Snowman has a better chance in South Africa)
I agree. There are more snowman KKK members living in South Africa.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chops1221 Jan 25 2012, 11:32 AM Post #20
Coach
Posts:
3,802
Group:
Members
Member
#28
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 11:08 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:55 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM
brumdog44
Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM
If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader.
Ummm..... No.

1) Too old
2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof)
3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve
4) Wants to legalize narcotics
5) Poor orator
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'.

I really don't get that one.
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
No, apples and oranges comparison: Narcotics are much more additive, and the physical affects much worse.
[citation needed]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jan 25 2012, 11:46 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 11:08 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:55 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM
brumdog44
Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM
If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader.
Ummm..... No.

1) Too old
2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof)
3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve
4) Wants to legalize narcotics
5) Poor orator
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'.

I really don't get that one.
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
No, apples and oranges comparison: Narcotics are much more additive, and the physical affects much worse.
Alcohol intoxication is much worse than several of the narcotics, however driving under the influence of either is already against the law. The war on drugs is a waste of money, as most "war on ..." usually are.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jan 25 2012, 04:49 PM Post #22
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
eelbor
Jan 25 2012, 11:46 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 11:08 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:55 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM
brumdog44
Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM
If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader.
Ummm..... No.

1) Too old
2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof)
3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve
4) Wants to legalize narcotics
5) Poor orator
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'.

I really don't get that one.
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
No, apples and oranges comparison: Narcotics are much more additive, and the physical affects much worse.
Alcohol intoxication is much worse than several of the narcotics, however driving under the influence of either is already against the law. The war on drugs is a waste of money, as most "war on ..." usually are.
Agreed. The "war on drugs" and the hundreds of billions spent on it haven't changed a thing about drugs except make them more expensive and fill our prisons. Drugs are still available and the very small percentage of people who are addicted will still do just about anything to get them. An arguement can be made that the "war" may have actually caused the crime rates to go up. If these drugs were legal, I seriously doubt that the % of addicts would change much and crime may actually fall.

Hey Lars, is there a huge monetary difference between supplying dependents with drugs and supporting an overblown prison population?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 25 2012, 05:15 PM Post #23
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 11:08 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:55 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:51 AM
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 10:44 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 25 2012, 10:41 AM
brumdog44
Jan 24 2012, 07:47 PM
If Ron Paul had 1/10th of the support from the republican establish as Dole had, he would be your primary leader.
Ummm..... No.

1) Too old
2) Foreign policy (or lack thereof)
3) Wacky ideas about Federal Reserve
4) Wants to legalize narcotics
5) Poor orator
I still don't understand why Republicans are so against legalization of narcotics. It makes fiscal sense and fits the whole conservative mantra of 'less government, more freedom'.

I really don't get that one.
What percentage of the country would become addicts, and dependent on you and me for support the rest of their lives? Some drugs are extremely addictive, and if you make them readily available, kids will become addicted at a young age. Would you have the state provide the drugs for them? If not, they will resort to crime, and/or sell them to kids.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
No, apples and oranges comparison: Narcotics are much more additive, and the physical affects much worse.
So you are fine with tobacco being outlawed? More addictive than alcohol and the physical affects are worse.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Jan 25 2012, 08:52 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 10:55 PM
Polls do not back up your supposition, yawnzzz. The reality is that there are some very important people in the republican pecking order that don't want Paul to be the nominee because, simply put, he isn't someone that they can control. Romney is and will support what their will is....if you take a look at the endorsements of legislatures that the difference candidates are getting the sheer numbers that Romney has been getting dwarf the rest....and controlability and electability are the major reasons.

Your question was, "Which republican candidates do you believe stand have the best chance to beat Obama, and in what order?"

If I translated that correctly, then for someone to be against Obama that means he is the Republican nominee, no? Paul is clearly behind Gingrich and Romney in terms of winning the Republican primary, but if somehow he did win, I think most Republicans would vote for him over Obama, and he'd win the most swing votes. The problem is that most swing voters do not take part in primaries.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mongo Jan 25 2012, 08:55 PM Post #25
Coach
Posts:
11,595
Group:
Members
Member
#160
Joined:
February 12, 2008
None of the above.
Posted Image

"Son, if you really want something in this life you have to work hard for it. Now quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 25 2012, 09:37 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
yawnzzz
Jan 25 2012, 08:52 PM
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 10:55 PM
Polls do not back up your supposition, yawnzzz. The reality is that there are some very important people in the republican pecking order that don't want Paul to be the nominee because, simply put, he isn't someone that they can control. Romney is and will support what their will is....if you take a look at the endorsements of legislatures that the difference candidates are getting the sheer numbers that Romney has been getting dwarf the rest....and controlability and electability are the major reasons.

Your question was, "Which republican candidates do you believe stand have the best chance to beat Obama, and in what order?"

If I translated that correctly, then for someone to be against Obama that means he is the Republican nominee, no? Paul is clearly behind Gingrich and Romney in terms of winning the Republican primary, but if somehow he did win, I think most Republicans would vote for him over Obama, and he'd win the most swing votes. The problem is that most swing voters do not take part in primaries.
This is what realclearpolitics have...it contains an average of all polls when a person is asked who they would vote for IF a certain candidate were the republican nominee.

Obama/Romney: Obama +2
Obama/Paul: Obama +5
Obama/Santorum: Obama +10
Obama/Gingrich: Obama +11

The truth is that there are many among the GOP leadership that are most scared of Gingrich winning the nomination because they feel it means death in the national election. There is a reason so many politicians are going public with support for Romney....because they feel it gives the best chance to win.

Personally, I think Paul's numbers are little inflated here (and I think you know that I certainly don't have a problem with him being the republican choice) because both he and Gingrich have had to weather something that Paul hasn't....Paul has yet to be 'the man' that everyone is gunning for. Lars is correct in his assessment that many people (not myself) will be troubled by his foreign policy. You don't hear other republican candidates going after it whole hog because it doesn't make sense to go after someone who truly doesn't appear to be a threat to the nomination. Even when Santorum surged in Iowa, the other candidates didn't go after him much because he really does not appear to be a threat to win. The candidates focused on Perry when he surged to the top, the media focused on Cain when he did, and Romney has had a steady stream of attention and Gingrich seems to rise when the focus isn't on him and fall when it is.

Another problem for Paul, IMO, is that he doesn't seem to do particularly well in swing states. Iowa is one thing -- but it's a republican state, one that is pretty much a republican lock -- but states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania -- ones that could go either way -- are another. He's polling horribly in Florida right -- at 9%, which trails all the other candidates.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chops1221 Jan 25 2012, 09:51 PM Post #27
Coach
Posts:
3,802
Group:
Members
Member
#28
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 25 2012, 09:37 PM
yawnzzz
Jan 25 2012, 08:52 PM
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 10:55 PM
Polls do not back up your supposition, yawnzzz. The reality is that there are some very important people in the republican pecking order that don't want Paul to be the nominee because, simply put, he isn't someone that they can control. Romney is and will support what their will is....if you take a look at the endorsements of legislatures that the difference candidates are getting the sheer numbers that Romney has been getting dwarf the rest....and controlability and electability are the major reasons.

Your question was, "Which republican candidates do you believe stand have the best chance to beat Obama, and in what order?"

If I translated that correctly, then for someone to be against Obama that means he is the Republican nominee, no? Paul is clearly behind Gingrich and Romney in terms of winning the Republican primary, but if somehow he did win, I think most Republicans would vote for him over Obama, and he'd win the most swing votes. The problem is that most swing voters do not take part in primaries.
This is what realclearpolitics have...it contains an average of all polls when a person is asked who they would vote for IF a certain candidate were the republican nominee.

Obama/Romney: Obama +2
Obama/Paul: Obama +5
Obama/Santorum: Obama +10
Obama/Gingrich: Obama +11

The truth is that there are many among the GOP leadership that are most scared of Gingrich winning the nomination because they feel it means death in the national election. There is a reason so many politicians are going public with support for Romney....because they feel it gives the best chance to win.

Personally, I think Paul's numbers are little inflated here (and I think you know that I certainly don't have a problem with him being the republican choice) because both he and Gingrich have had to weather something that Paul hasn't....Paul has yet to be 'the man' that everyone is gunning for. Lars is correct in his assessment that many people (not myself) will be troubled by his foreign policy. You don't hear other republican candidates going after it whole hog because it doesn't make sense to go after someone who truly doesn't appear to be a threat to the nomination. Even when Santorum surged in Iowa, the other candidates didn't go after him much because he really does not appear to be a threat to win. The candidates focused on Perry when he surged to the top, the media focused on Cain when he did, and Romney has had a steady stream of attention and Gingrich seems to rise when the focus isn't on him and fall when it is.

Another problem for Paul, IMO, is that he doesn't seem to do particularly well in swing states. Iowa is one thing -- but it's a republican state, one that is pretty much a republican lock -- but states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania -- ones that could go either way -- are another. He's polling horribly in Florida right -- at 9%, which trails all the other candidates.

Iowa is definitely not a Republican lock. It's gone for a Democrat in 5 of the last 6 elections
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 25 2012, 10:09 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
chops1221
Jan 25 2012, 09:51 PM
brumdog44
Jan 25 2012, 09:37 PM
yawnzzz
Jan 25 2012, 08:52 PM
brumdog44
Jan 23 2012, 10:55 PM
Polls do not back up your supposition, yawnzzz. The reality is that there are some very important people in the republican pecking order that don't want Paul to be the nominee because, simply put, he isn't someone that they can control. Romney is and will support what their will is....if you take a look at the endorsements of legislatures that the difference candidates are getting the sheer numbers that Romney has been getting dwarf the rest....and controlability and electability are the major reasons.

Your question was, "Which republican candidates do you believe stand have the best chance to beat Obama, and in what order?"

If I translated that correctly, then for someone to be against Obama that means he is the Republican nominee, no? Paul is clearly behind Gingrich and Romney in terms of winning the Republican primary, but if somehow he did win, I think most Republicans would vote for him over Obama, and he'd win the most swing votes. The problem is that most swing voters do not take part in primaries.
This is what realclearpolitics have...it contains an average of all polls when a person is asked who they would vote for IF a certain candidate were the republican nominee.

Obama/Romney: Obama +2
Obama/Paul: Obama +5
Obama/Santorum: Obama +10
Obama/Gingrich: Obama +11

The truth is that there are many among the GOP leadership that are most scared of Gingrich winning the nomination because they feel it means death in the national election. There is a reason so many politicians are going public with support for Romney....because they feel it gives the best chance to win.

Personally, I think Paul's numbers are little inflated here (and I think you know that I certainly don't have a problem with him being the republican choice) because both he and Gingrich have had to weather something that Paul hasn't....Paul has yet to be 'the man' that everyone is gunning for. Lars is correct in his assessment that many people (not myself) will be troubled by his foreign policy. You don't hear other republican candidates going after it whole hog because it doesn't make sense to go after someone who truly doesn't appear to be a threat to the nomination. Even when Santorum surged in Iowa, the other candidates didn't go after him much because he really does not appear to be a threat to win. The candidates focused on Perry when he surged to the top, the media focused on Cain when he did, and Romney has had a steady stream of attention and Gingrich seems to rise when the focus isn't on him and fall when it is.

Another problem for Paul, IMO, is that he doesn't seem to do particularly well in swing states. Iowa is one thing -- but it's a republican state, one that is pretty much a republican lock -- but states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania -- ones that could go either way -- are another. He's polling horribly in Florida right -- at 9%, which trails all the other candidates.

Iowa is definitely not a Republican lock. It's gone for a Democrat in 5 of the last 6 elections
I stand corrected.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hoosierinhogville Jan 25 2012, 11:55 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,812
Group:
Members
Member
#155
Joined:
February 11, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 25 2012, 09:37 PM
He's polling horribly in Florida right -- at 9%, which trails all the other candidates.

He's polling so low in florida because it is a closed primary so the polls are polling republicans only, and a large portion of the Republican base in florida are old Jewish people.
You think he is going to do well with a bunch of old Jewish people?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Jan 26 2012, 12:04 AM Post #30
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
obama is leading in the polls before he has even gone into campaign mode. This one shouldn't be close.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 6

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:51 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy