Plan B Forum

A political outsider, any comments?

Personally I figger Romney will be the GOPs front runner.

However can someone like Cain give him a run for his money?

If the GOP was smart they wouldn't waste their time on this presidential bid, instead spend their resources on controlling the bicameral.

But that's just me and everyone knows I'm an idiot...

Oh My!!!

Sorry, but since I 've already opened it may someone will post...

Keld, I'm crushed....

You haven't been reading my posts....

Here's what I said earlier about Mr. Cain:

There's one GOP candidate I haven't mentioned...

Herman Cain. I had occasion to see Mr. Cain interviewed by Chris Wallace last Sunday; a few observations:

Mr. Cain comes across as a very genuine, affable and likable person. And he certainly isn't an idiot, (well, except of course for the thinking he could actually win the nomination thing) nor is he a self absorbed pompous ass, (like Alan Keyes) He's done his homework on some issues, and was able to speak with a passable level of knowledge about some things (he has a fairly detailed tax reform plan for example, that he was able to answer a number of questions about)

But his knowledge of international affairs is so bad, he makes Sarah Palin look like Henry Kissinger....some of the things he said were down right comical..

Actually, I've been meaning to post some further observations about Herman....

When I first heard about Cain's candidacy a few months ago, I pretty much put him in the same category as Morry Taylor....

I'm sure everyone here remembers Morry...( )

He was the tire company CEO who ran for the GOP nomination in 1996....

Morry spent about six million dollars of his own money in that campaign, (a respectable sum in those days) and garnered a a total of .14% of the vote in the GOP primaries...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1996

But I have to say that I was stunned by that CNN poll showing Cain as the current choice of 10% of the GOP voters... As I said I doubted that 10% of the voters even knew who he was...I guessed that either the result poll was some sort of anomaly (he hadn't had a number like that in any earlier poll) or that it was a reflection of general unhappiness with the GOP field by many Republicans, and that some of the respondents were picking him because they had never heard of him; that a vote for Cain was more a vote for "none of the above" than really a vote for Cain.

But I did a little research, and I regret to report that some of my assumptions were erroneous. (yes, I know this will come as a shock to many here, but on exceedingly rare occasions this has been known to happen.)

First of all, he has far better name recognition with the GOP electorate than I thought.

According to a Gallup Poll conducted in mid May, Cain's name is recognized by 29% of GOP voters. (Higher than John Huntsman or Gary Johnson, both former Governors, and only six points lower than Mitch Daniels)

Also according to this poll, among those voters who have heard of him, Cain has what Gallup refers to as "positive intensity score" ( the percentage of those who have a "strongly favorable" opinion, minus those who have a "strongly unfavorable" opinion) of 24 which is the highest of any GOP candidate. (Romney, by contrast has a positive intensity score of 14)

You can see all the numbers for all the candidates here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147584/hucka ... unner.aspx

So if you put both the CNN and Gallup poll results together it shows that slightly better than one third of the voters who have heard of Cain, (29%) name him as their first choice for the nomination, (10%)

(Romney would kill for a number like that. His name recognition is 83%. If a third of the people who have heard of him named him as their choice, he'd be at 27% overall, well ahead of any other contender for the nomination.)

So what accounts for this? Why is Cain, who is personally wealthy but running his campaign on a shoestring, who has virtually no organization, no support from any elected officials or heavy weight, experienced political organizers, and absolutely no traditional qualifications for the job whatsoever, doing so well?

Well, in addition to being the former CEO of Godfather Pizza, Cain has also been a radio talk show host. So I thought maybe this was how he had become much better known than I thought he was. But then I checked, and this really couldn't be the explanation because the show he had was a local one in Atlanta; it wasn't syndicated nationally. He's also written an op-ed column that has been syndicated, but not widely.

He's also been a commentator with FOX Business; which no doubt has given him some exposure. But I'm guessing that where he's gotten the most exposure, ("guessing", because contrary to what some folks think, I don't sit around glued to FOX News) is probably on popular FOX news programs like The O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity... these shows are watched by millions, and if he's been making regular appearances on them, that would go a long way towards accounting for his name recognition.

Couple that with the appearance of him I saw on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, (where as I pointed out he came across as a fairly appealing fellow in a number of ways) and from what I've read, (as I've said I didn't see it) he came across pretty well in that first GOP debate, (Though it has to be said that given the other characters who showed up for that, Kermit the Frog could have emerged as a star) and his name recognition and positive ratings become easier to understand.

Does any of this means he has a snow ball's chance in hell of being nominated? Absolutely not. It's still very early in the process, and most folks are not that focused on the contest. It is undoubtedly true that factors I mentioned earlier (like lack of enthusiasm for the other announced candidates) play a significant role in Cain's poll showing and as the nominating process and election moves closer, other candidates will start to look better, and people will think twice about supporting a man with no experience or qualifications for the job, when it actually comes time for them to vote in their primary.

But this does mean that he could play a much more significant role then some give him credit for in some of the early contests, particularly in Iowa. The Iowa caucuses are a strange beast to begin with; Iowa GOP voters are more Conservative than GOP voters nationally, and Iowa GOP caucus goers are even more Conservative than that, particularly on social issues. (In 1988, Pat Robertson finished second there with 25% of the vote...ahead of George HW Bush) Cain is a solid social conservative.

It hasn't been out of the realm of possibility that Michelle Bachmann could finish first in Iowa, (given the number of candidates, a showing in the low to mid 20s could well be good enough for a first place finish, and Bachmann has been putting together a serious organizational effort there; starting with hiring the guy who pulled off Huckabee's upset win in '08). Bachmann would probably be hurt the most by a strong Cain showing there.

The prospect of Obama v. Cain in 2012 would cause too many GOPers to become apoplectic, for obvious reasons. In my opinion it would be fantastic - but it will never happen because the GOP won't get behind a black candidate. Realistically they can't without losing the redneck base.

He supports defunding Planned Parenthood. He is anti-abortion thug. He supports the defense of marriage mess and is quite anti-gay (as Are the vast majority of blacks apparently).

Pizza's godfather ain't the one.

but it will never happen because the GOP won't get behind a black candidate.

That's complete and utter bullshit BSG...

I guess you don't remember this (or aren't aware of it) but for years starting in the mid-90's in poll after poll after poll of GOP voters, Colin Powell came out on top (by a good margin) as the number one choice for a Presidential candidate.

In my personal opinion, I wouldn't consider Cain for the job because I see him as completely unqualified. The man has never held any elective or appointive post, major or minor.

A lot of people find that appealing, but I know enough about how the political game works to know that a guy like that would not get a damn thing accomplished if he was elected. This country can't afford a President who requires that level of on the job training.

The closest we've come to having someone who was that big a novice was Jimmy Carter, (who spent 4 years as governor of Georgia, and ran in'76 bragging about how he didn't know any Washington politicians) and we know what a disaster that was....

Additionally he was treated for stage IV CA and now claims to be CA free which is unlikely. It will pop up again.

Lord Jim wrote:This country can't afford a President who requires that level of on the job training.

The closest we've come to having someone who was that big a novice was Jimmy Carter, (who spent 4 years as governor of Georgia, and ran in'76 bragging about how he didn't know any Washington politicians) and we know what a disaster that was....

Ah, the richness of irony.

That comes from a guy who voted for George W. Bush twice.

In his first four years in the White House, Shrub managed to make the Carter presidency look like a smashing success.

And then some people actually voted for him again.

I've done many stupid things in my life, but even if you add them all up, the total does not amount to so much as a tenth of the stupidity intrinsic in voting for Shrub a second time.

The truth of the matter is that no African-American candidate could win the presidency on the Republican ticket. Sure, he might run ahead in the polls, but when it came right down to it, at least 20% of Republicans would not vote for him. Not that they would vote for the other guy; they just wouldn't vote at all. So even if he got a majority among Republicans who actually voted he would lose.

That might change, of course. Someday, the Republican party might be able to elect someone via the votes of adults. But don't look for that to happen any time soon.

And speaking of things not to look for any time soon, there is the apology owed to the American people by those who got up on their hind legs and voted for Shrub ....

Just what this board needed....

two rubatos....

Lord Jim wrote:Just what this board needed....

Someone telling the truth ....

Fixed the typos.

@meric@nwom@n wrote:He supports defunding Planned Parenthood. He is anti-abortion thug. He supports the defense of marriage mess and is quite anti-gay (as Are the vast majority of blacks apparently).

Pizza's godfather ain't the one.

Maybe the Republicans will elect a self-hating black man as long as he hates all of the same other people they do ...

Home is where the hatred is, for some.

yrs,
rubato

Again, I see this "election" (wholesale whoring of candidates and their money) of a candidate to lead each party as one of the major weaknesses of American politics. Couple that with the tendency of the American public to then hamstring the person elected as pres, by election his opposition to congress, and you have a whole bloody political mess which fights amongst itself while the USA goes slowly but surely down the drain.

Actually it sort of works in our (the voters) favor because it lets us know how far each candidate is willing to pander to the extremes in order to get their vote.

Since there is no "Mitt" thread anywhere I'll post this here.

I think the best thing he can do regarding the "Religious Right" is to drop the Mormons are/are just like Christians routine. Pretending they are simply irritates and antagonizes them. By all mans believe what you want just don't claim equivelence when the god you believe in is fundamentally different than what other Christians believe.

Crackpot wrote:Since there is no "Mitt" thread anywhere I'll post this here.

I think the best thing he can do regarding the "Religious Right" is to drop the Mormons are/are just like Christians routine. Pretending they are simply irritates and antagonizes them. ...

Mostly because Mormons are better Christians than nearly all Christians.


I think that's why the religious right are driven to such hate-filled fury by them.


yrs,
rubato

The percentage of Republicans who absolutely won't vote for Romney because of his religion is extremely tiny, (just as the percentage of Republicans who absolutely wouldn't vote for a black nominee is very small, and would be more than offset by votes they would attract from other constituencies, such that it would be a non-factor in their ability to be nominated or elected... anyone with a basic understanding of contemporary political dynamics who's views aren't shaped by simplistic , cartoonish anti-Republican bigotry would know this.) I don't see where he needs to talk much about his religion at all.

To get back to Keld's OP observation about Romney being the front runner:

Romney has to be considered the front runner for the nomination, but for a number of reasons that go beyond whether he's coming in first in preference polls for the nomination with 16% support, or second with 15%...

A little digression about these preference polls:

At this point, with so many candidates, and when the voters are so unfocused on the race, they are pretty much meaningless at least in terms of trying to determine a "front runner"... The primary reason they get the attention they do is the need for the 24/7 news channels to have something to feed on...

A headline that reads, "Candidate X leads the field", or "Candidate X comes out on top" or "Candidate X is the number one choice" when Candidate X has 16% per cent support could just as easily be written as,
"84% Choose Someone Other Than Candidate X"...in fact that would probably be a lot less misleading...

But the modern news media is so driven to drawing neat conclusions, even when the data suggests that no neat conclusions can be drawn, that they frequently present "conclusions" that aren't really justified.

But back to Romney...

Romney has to be considered the front runner, (albeit a fairly vulnerable one) for a number of reasons that could be called "strategic depth":

First of all he's demonstrated an ability to raise money that the other candidates haven't. This has enabled him to attract a lot of top campaign talent and put together a solid campaign structure. He has very high name ID. He's already been through the crucible of a Presidential campaign before, so the chance of some unpleasant surprise about him coming out is very remote. He's proven himself to be a reasonably effective campaigner. He may not be an electrifying speaker, but he's proven he's not going to fall on his face in a debate. He occasionally misspeaks, (just like every politician does in a campaign, including Obama) but he's not a "gaffe machine." He also benefits from a tendency within the GOP to nominate candidates who have run strong campaigns before. He may not be an exciting pick, but he's a safe pick, and under the right set of factors he has enough ability to appeal to moderates and independents to actually win the election.

It's this whole collection of factors that go in to making him the "front runner".

Lord Jim wrote:under the right set of factors he has enough ability to appeal to moderates and independents to actually win the election.

Maybe, but first he has to get past the Teabagger vote in the GOP primaries, and they hate him. His current efforts to pander to the extremists makes him look like a flip-flopping hypocrite. His "Believe in America" theme is even more stupid and vapid than "Hope and Change."

Come down to the end (party nomination) I'd tend to agree but there is a sizable amount that would prefer anyone but him simply for his Mormon beliefs and their stance that they're Christians. the claim is equivalent of Christians calling themselves Jews or Muslims calling themselves Christian (or Jews). It comes down to a question of intellectual honesty that your beliefs differ sufficiently for the group from which you sprang and/or were influenced by to be a religion unto itself. Mormonisms insistence on casting themselves amongst the rubric of Christianity reflects itself upon all Mormons be that fair or not.

Sue, I think that the basic theme that Romney struck in his kickoff speech, is precisely the one that a Republican will win on, (if a Republican is to win)

That theme boils down to:

"Obama has proven that he doesn't have what it takes to turn the economy around. We need a President who understands business and economics if we want to restore the economy and put people back to work."

If there is a winning theme, that's it. And Romney is a messenger who can credibly carry that theme.

However, how effective that theme will be rests entirely on what the condition of the economy is at election time, which is something no one can know for certain now. (Though the indicators aren't good; if I were Obama I'd be a lot more concerned about what appears to be a re-softening in the housing market than the small upticks in unemployment these past two months....housing prices are usually a leading indicator of the direction of the economy and if that trend continues, we could be mired in a double dip recession by the fall of 2012...if that happens, Obama's refrain about "blips" and "bumps in the road" will ring hollow...and after four years he won't get a lot of mileage out the "it's all Bush's fault" argument either...except of course with folks who were going to vote for him anyway )

If the economy is seen as bad and getting worse at election time, and the election is a referendum on Obama, then Obama is toast.

However....

Were the GOP to do something really foolish, and nominate a candidate who could not credibly make the argument that they know more about business and economics than Obama, then the economy could be bad and getting worse and Obama could still win.

In that case, the Obama people would have a much better chance to turn the dynamic into a "choice" rather than a "referendum" election and run on the theme, "well yeah, maybe things aren't great, but you have to vote for Obama, because so and so is just too nuts to be trusted with the Presidency"