Originally Posted By Dabob2 ...Republican division. Since the Democratic presidential nominee for 2012 is a done deal already, let's have some fun and armchair-handicap the Republican field. Who do you think takes the nomination? This is harder to pick than usual for the Republicans. Normally, they go with primogeniture, i.e. "next in line of succession." So they either nominate whoever was second the time before, or in 2000 went with the more traditional notion of primogeniture and nominated the scion of the last GOP president. This year, it's harder to pick who's "next in line" to begin with. Many would say Romney, who was in 2nd place when he dropped out. But he has major problems with the Republicans who typically vote in primaries, especially since the rise of the Tea Partiers. Huckabee actually was the last man standing against McCain. But he's not running. Losing Veep candidates typically don't do well, but Palin is kind of a special case. She actually has a case for "next in line." Pawlenty seems to be everyone's second choice (he's assiduously courting both the far-right "base" AND the establishment money types) and looks to be hoping that he becomes the least objectionable "oh, all right" candidate for the voters. Yet he's mired at about 5% in the polls, half of what Herman Cain (!) got after one good debate performance. Pawlenty was in that debate too, which shows you how well he went over. Huntsman would seem to have a decent chance in the general election, but seems too moderate by GOP primary standards. Bachmann and Palin have a real chance in primaries where the loonies predominate (and that includes recent Iowa caucuses on the GOP side), but will that carry through to larger, more diverse states? Can Cain or Ron Paul ever get above 10-12% that would SEEM (at this point) to be their ceiling? What about those who might jump in but haven't yet? Rick Perry? Palin herself? Guiliani? Someone else? Complicating matters further is the fact that the GOP is NOT going with their traditional winner-take-all primaries, and going to proportional awarding of delegates. No one on that side is used to that. That would seem to favor people like Pawlenty and Huntsman, but who knows? I have my own thoughts (and have let some slip already) but what do you all think? Who's going to be the nominee? Channel your inner clairvoyant and let's see who's right a year from now! And whoever you pick - does he/she have a real chance against Obama?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox First off, I doubt any GOP candidate has a real chance against Obama, even with the voter suppression crap of state-sanctioned I.D. cards and reducing early voting going on states with newly elected Republican governors. As for the nominee, I have no idea who's actually going to win. But it would be interesting to see a GOP ticket of Herman Cain and Alan West, just to watch the racist teabagger heads explode.
Originally Posted By ecdc Dabob, you've summed up the complication quite well for this time around. A decade or two ago, before Republicans went insane, I'd say Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman, probably in that order, were most likely to get the nomination. But they aren't conservative enough for the primary voters nowadays, especially since the primary now begins in Iowa. Most Iowans strike me as moderate, but those Republican caucus voters are pretty extreme. So of course it may be a Palin that gets the nomination, but I don't think she stands a chance against Obama. Moderates who may be disappointed in Obama over jobs and the economy would never vote for the Wasila Hillbilly where they might for Pawlenty or Romney. All that said, I think it will be a more traditional, entrenched party Republican. At the end of the day, this is about money and that's who'll get the nomination--those with business, longtime contacts. The Ron Paulinistas and Palinites just can't give the kind of money to compete with that raised by big business-friendly Gingrich, Romney, or Pawlenty. My vote: Pawlenty followed closely by Romney. This will result in a closer general election than Obama would like, but unless something drastic happens, I think Obama will be very tough to beat.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 How does asking for ID suppress anyone's ability to go vote? I realize that none of these are rights but you do need valid ID to: Cash a check Use Credit (and sometimes debit) card Get on a plane Drive a car Buy Cigarettes Buy Booze Rent a car And even if you don't have a photo ID some sort of proof of residence should be required. Because I've lived at my house for about 7 years now. Prior to that I lived with a friend for a year and a half then I was at my parents all that time prior. Both my parents and friend lived in the same voting district. After 7 years they still had me on the registration for that area along with were I live now. I could very easily have voted at both places. And I even called the county and told them that I'm no longer at that address. But still I remain at two places. As the question. I'd like to see Huntsman or Pawlenty. Romney I'm too thrilled about and anyone else I'll sit it out next election.
Originally Posted By ecdc I actually don't have a problem with being required to show ID at the polls, either. So long as it's implemented early enough before an election that it gives everyone a chance to get their ID. Political parties that go around and try and get people to register would have the added burden of helping those people get an ID card. Nine times out of ten, that will be the Democrats, but that's okay, as an ID would also help the poor in other ways. But in a modern society, photo ID doesn't seem like a terribly unreasonable idea to reduce voter fraud. I haven't thought about the issue a lot, and I'm happy to be corrected though.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I realize that none of these are rights but you do need valid ID to: Cash a check Use Credit (and sometimes debit) card Get on a plane Drive a car Buy Cigarettes Buy Booze Rent a car*** You already said it, because none of those things are a constitutional right. And to both you and EC, the reason this concerns me is because it opens up more opportunities for shady poll workers to screw with people. Case in point (though unrelated), when I moved a while back (same state) I followed the instructions of the DMV and changed my license to the new address within 14 days as required by law. The license was fairly new and not up for renewal for several years. Well, the new license I got read "duplicate". I suppose they all did. I can not TELL you how many times over those 3-4 years (I was young then so I suppose I could've looked 20) I was in a restaurant or at a liquor store or wherever and wanted a beer and was refused service because the stupid thing read "duplicate". Now, this is a case where the people in question weren't even TRYING to be nefarious (just perhaps overly though unfairly cautious). Given that simple example, can you imagine ways that poll workers could screw around with certain segments of the population simply by finding ways to "invalidate" their I.D.? And what about someone who loses their license on the way to the voting booth? I guess they lost their rights along with their wallet?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Cash a check Use Credit (and sometimes debit) card Get on a plane Drive a car Buy Cigarettes Buy Booze Rent a car<< You also need an ID to get a job (as well as proof of right to work in the USA)
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones What do we know about in-person voter fraud? Has anybody ever gone to the polls to find out that someone else voted as them? And did this happen at a rate sufficient to swing the election one way or the other? I doubt an ID would really solve the problem of election fraud because in-person voter fraud probably isn't happening at a significant rate.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Probably not, but like I said I was appearing on two voter lists in two different districts.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Was that a result of in-person voter fraud or administrative mistakes or something else?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It also seems like when it happens, the person is caught. This guy was certainly caught. <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/indiana_secretary_of_state_indicted_on_voter_fraud.php" target="_blank">http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi...raud.php</a>
Originally Posted By markymouse I had no idea the Republicans had gone away from winner take all primaries. That would suggest that whoever isn't having to share their base will win. If two tea baggers and a moderate dominate, the moderate pulls ahead slowly but surely. But two moderates and a tea bagger, and the tea bagger wins. One argument suggests that the establishment will let the tea baggers have this one because they expect to lose. Then they'll groom a couple of big guns, probably governors, for 2016. 2016? Weren't we supposed to be voting on the moon by now?
Originally Posted By Mr X I wonder about 2016. Methinks the Democrats had better start thinking about who THEY will groom post-Obama. All their heavyweights are aging pretty rapidly too. I can't imagine Biden running in 2016, and I certainly can't see him winning even if he does.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>All their heavyweights are aging pretty rapidly too.<< Cory Booker, Claire McCaskell, Anthony Weiner quickly jump to mind. I'm sure there's a dozen others.
Originally Posted By Mr X Hard to get past the notion of having a "President Weiner" though, ain't it?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<How does asking for ID suppress anyone's ability to go vote?>> You missed the descriptor, DD. "State sanctioned ID cards" as in "issued by OUR state, not YOUR state." Which effectively eliminates *college students* who attend a school in a different state from where their parents reside. They have driver's licenses from their home states, but these new laws will prohibit them from using those licenses at the polls. And most college students don't have any other form of photo ID, like a passport. The driver's license is pretty much it. Now ask yourself... why would a Republican Governor and Republican State Legislature NOT want college students to vote where they attend college? Simple. Most of them vote Democrat. There are 8 states with photo ID laws currently, and more are on the way. Your governor, DD, just signed Wisconsin's bill the other day, and it really stinks. Those who vote absentee must send a copy of their photo ID along with the ballot, which puts an extra burden on the disabled, poor, and elderly who would have difficulty getting copies of their IDs made. Also, for students who don't have driver's licenses (some don't), they could use their student ID cards, provided it had the student's signature on the card and an expiration date within two years of the card's issuance. Well... University of Wisconsin does not have these criteria on their ID cards as of yet. How convenient! So students wanting to vote in the upcoming recall elections in July who only have their Univ Wisconsin student IDs are out of luck. They won't get to vote because of the limitations and restrictions recently put into place by this bill. There were only five proven instances of voter fraud across the entire nation last year. This is not a major concern that needs these bills to make voting even more difficult than it already is (like standing in line for five hours to vote in a largely poor minority district vs 15 min in a largely rich white district on the other side of town). These bills are nothing but voter suppression, pure and simple.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Now ask yourself... why would a Republican Governor and Republican State Legislature NOT want college students to vote where they attend college? Simple. Most of them vote Democrat.<< Now that is messed up. Is there anything more un-American than trying to restrict people from voting?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Unless something catastrophic happens to the economy (some would say we are in catastrophic) then I think Obama is a lock for '12. What the Republicans need is a fresh face to emerge during the Convention.
Originally Posted By Mr X OMG, NO! Remember the LAST time a fresh face emerged during the Republican Convention!? I don't think America can take another one!!!!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Not exactly what I meant. Palin didn't "emerge" on the scene. She was "thrust" on the scene...if you will. No, I think it needs to be old school like Reagan wowing the crowd in '76.
