Well, the previous months old Presidential thread has been relegated to the Old News Dump, so I've decided to start a new one, especially because of events that have come to pass since the last time we discussed the issue, such as Gingrich's slump, and Santorum's surge.
So anyway, what is your take on the current race? Why are Gingrich and Paul still attempting to compete when they're chances are all but dashed? Even Santorum has such a slim chance mathematically of accruing all the necessary delegates. But his upset wins especially in the South have shown how Romney still has not gotten the support of important sections of the Republican electorate; in almost all states he has won, he has gotten lukewarm support.
So, any predictions on this rather humorous race?
And before I forget to throw in the customary dig at Santorum; Santorum to all those who don't know, has another meaning since 2003, one that more aptly suits him. I'm sure all of you know what is.
With only two candidates, it can be assured that over 50% of the nation will be happy and want the guy who got voted in. With multiple candidates, someone with only 30-ish% of the votes would get voted in.
Not really for happiness. Many of Santorum's and Romney's supporters are half-hearted. They vote for them because they lack choices. Not that I support multi-party governments and coalitions.
I think you underestimate Romney. He's a solid Moderate and, as I've stated, is a good segue into a Conservative White House.
No, he isn't that solid a candidate in that he still lacks the supporter of the evangelical base, which he has to win before he can call himself an all round candidate.
It'll be a tough slog, but I'm pretty sure Romney will come out on top this year.
Ready to be chewed by Obama. Romney is just leaving so many gaps for Obama to attack him with.
The Two-Party system is often called into question, but one must remember the flaws that come with a multiple-party election (by multiple I mean 3+ Parties).
With only two candidates, it can be assured that over 50% of the nation will be happy and want the guy who got voted in. With multiple candidates, someone with only 30-ish% of the votes would get voted in.
The perfect example that displays the flaws in the Multiple Party system is the German election in the late 1930's where only 33-odd percent of Germans voted in a certain National Socialistic Austrian, enabling him to reach the height of power and create the largest global conflict ever seen.
Hitler rising to power had little to do with elections (Which he never really did get close to winning). It was shear strategy and exposing his political opponents weakness that would elevate him to chanclor. Lack of authority in the german government the great depression and WW1 were also more relevant factors to the rise of fascism in Europe. I don't think you can pinpoint one example and suppose that a multiple party election would not be efficient.
The problem right now in America is that all the leaders we have to chose from are moderates so we basically recycle the same failure over and over again. My point being if we could get some radical leaders in office they could shake things up a bit, I think that's what we need right now in politics.
Hitler rising to power had little to do with elections (Which he never really did get close to winning).
If you count getting a majority as winning, no he didn't. But he did win the elections with the highest number of votes, and hence got to form the cabinet.
My point being if we could get some radical leaders in office they could shake things up a bit, I think that's what we need right now in politics.
Oh, you're getting more of the religious crackers around. Fundamentalists are after all, radical religious politicians. We don't need to rock the boat further.
What more radical do you want? Far left liberals? Anarchists?
Santorum is against education so he should be able to convince the majority of the religious zealots which is very bad. People who don't think are easy to manipulate. Fortunately, there seem to be some intelligent people in the Republican camp but if (worst case scenario) Santorum end's up being the Republican candidate, will all conservatives vote for him just because he's against Obama? Man that's a scary thought!
People who don't think are easy to manipulate. Fortunately, there seem to be some intelligent people in the Republican camp but if (worst case scenario) Santorum end's up being the Republican candidate, will all conservatives vote for him just because he's against Obama? Man that's a scary thought!
Quite frankly, Obama's not half bad. He's not half good either. He just... is.
But I digress, if Santorum does eventually get the nomination, all bets are off. I'm going with the man who understands the workings of the Constitution, especially those that are blatantly explained in big red letters. (God I hate Santorum...)
It's called separation of Church and State, that's why you can't just vote your guy in because he's a certain religion. The fact that religion is an intangible subject, something one cannot prove/disprove, it has no place in the ruling of a nation, especially the most militaristicly, culturally, economically, and scientifically nation on Earth. This isn't a Theocracy, it's a Democratic Republic. Santorum, with all his Capitalistic jibber-jabber, is going farther and farther left with the biggest government there is, The Great Big Something.
-Chillz would like to remind you that, despite criticism of the Republican candidates, I'm quite the devout Right-Wing.
As a Republican, with Minarchistic views, I have to say, Ron Paul seems like the best guy for the job. I doubt he'll win, but it'd be nice to see him in the White House, or even as the VP. I'm hoping they pull a Teddy Roosevelt on him, make him the VP so he can't go any further in the Party, but still gets a bit of time to do something. I guess I'm for Romney in the end.
