Republican Presidential Primary
The field seems to be so wide open right now.
I like to ponder such things early and then after somebody wins, I come back and read what people thought and see how that turned out to be right, or how it turned out that there were other things to consider.
The Contenders (that I'm aware of):
MITT ROMNEY - establishment candidate
RICK SANTORUM - true conservative candidate
NEWT GINGRICH - neoconservative
RON PAUL- small government conservative
FRED KARGER - more info as it is available (who am I kidding? I'm never gonna look this guy up) OK I finally looked him up - Founder of Californians Against Hate, gay rights activist, former adviser to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Ford.
MICHELE BACHMANN
JON HUNTSMAN
HERMAN CAIN -
RICK PERRY -
LEADING VEEP PICKS
- Herman Cain - see above
-Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana
Bob McDonnell - governor of Virginia
-Jim DeMint - senator from South Carolina
-Chris Christie - governor of New Jersey
-Paul Ryan - representative from Wisconsin
-Allen West - representative from Florida
-Rob Portman - senator from Ohio
Marco Rubio - newly elected Senator from Florida
Nikki Haley - governor of South Carolina
Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GARY JOHNSON - Gary Johnson is now running on the Libertarian ticket
BUDDY ROEMER - Buddy Roemer is now seeking the nomination of the 3rd party group Americans Elect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Note - names are bolded, italicized and underlined if they have formed an exploratory committee to run for president
All caps means they have announced their candidacy
Strikethrough means they have stated they will not run for president
(I re-ordered them to put those with hats in the ring at the top, then those who still have exploratory committees, and then the no-thank-you's)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
PRIMARY RESULTS
01/03/2012 ~ Iowa Caucus
Romney 24.6%; Santorum 24.5%; Paul 21.4%
Santorum won after a recount, by 34 votes
Santorum 24.6%; Romney 24.5%; Paul 21.4%
01/10/2012 ~ New Hampshire Primary
Romney 39.3%; Paul 22.9%; Huntsman 16.9%
01/21/2012 ~ South Carolina Primary
Gingrich 40.4%; Romney 27.8%; Santorum 17.0%
01/31/2012 ~ Florida Primary
Romney 46.4%; Gingrich 31.9%; Santorum 13.4%
02/04/2012 ~ Nevada Caucus
Romney 50.0%; Gingrich 21.1%; Paul 18.7%
02/07/2012 ~ Colorado Caucus
Santorum 40.2%; Romney 34.9%; Gingrich 12.8%
02/07/2012 ~ Minnesota Caucus
Santorum 44.8%; Paul 27.2%; Romney 16.9%
02/07/2012 ~ Missouri Primary (non-binding)
Santorum 55.2%; Romney 25.3%; Paul 12.2%
02/04/2012-02/11/2012 ~ Maine Caucus
Results still pending!
02/28/2012 ~ Arizona Primary
Romney 47.3%; Santorum 26.6%; Gingrich 16.2%
02/28/2012 ~ Michigan Primary
Romney 41.1%; Santorum 37.9%; Paul 11.6%
02/29/2012 ~ Wyoming Caucuses
Romney 39%; Santorum 33%; Paul 20%
03/03/2012 ~ Washington Caucus
Romney 37.6%; Paul 24.8%; Santorum 23.8%
03/06/2012 ~ Super Tuesday
Alaska Caucus
Romney 32.4%; Santorum 29.2%; Paul 24%
Georgia Primary
Gingrich 47.2%; Romney 25.9%; Santorum 19.6%
Idaho Caucus
Romney 61.6%; Santorum 18.2%; Paul 18.1%
Massachusetts Primary
Romney 72.2%; Santorum 12%; Paul 9.5%
North Dakota Caucus
Santorum 39.7%; Paul 28.1%; Romney 23.7
Oklahoma Primary
Santorum 33.8%; Romney 28%; Gingrich 27.5%
Tennessee Primary
Santorum 37.2%; Romney 28.1%; Gingrich 23.9%
Texas Primary - postponed til May 29
Vermont Primary
Romney 39.8%; Paul 25.5%; Santorum 23.7%
Virginia Primary
Romney 59.5%; Paul 40.5%
-4/24/12
I saw the debate, Neko, no need to quote it. That answer was his most lucid of the night and it was simply defensive. He is more naive than heartless, but he is heartless.
He thinks a company like JetBlue would fix their planes before they need to, to save lives. Naive.
Original Post by kathygator: Anyone that wants to beat President Obama, needs the moderate vote to do it.
I think this is very important to note. If any republican figures this out and can also figure out how to win the republican nomination he/she'll go far.
I agree Kathy about the airlines. Anyone who thinks the corporate airlines won't figure in the cost of crashed planes and payouts to survivors against short term profit is extremely naive or willfully ignorant of how corporations have behaved in the past.
Get rid of the FAA and government overisight of airplane safety and we'll have a bunch of dead people and then have to reinstitute the FAA and all those regulations which will cost even more than if we hadn't gotten rid of them in the first place.
@562: The essential problem within the party, IMO, is that they can't, Moonie. Apparently the minority 'base' as bled too much of its Obama hatred to the rest of the party. No one in the GOP is allowed to even whisper the word 'compromise' - a key component of moderate thinking.
Original Post by kathygator:
I saw the debate, Neko, no need to quote it. That answer was his most lucid of the night and it was simply defensive. He is more naive than heartless, but he is heartless.
I quoted it, because you stated that he lacks compassion and that he is heartless. I used his own words describing the "compassion" accusation and to show that he isn't heartless. He just believes that help/governing should start from the bottom up, not the top down.
I understand, Neko, but I don't buy his defense. The problem with relegating all authority to the states is that there is no standard practice for multiple state events. Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, blizzards - these don't recognize borders.
You can't standardize education, food safety, water or air quality when you tell the states, handle it. We're responsible for each other - not some of the time, not when we can afford it, not if people who need our help go to our church - all the time.
Original Post by kathygator:
@562: The essential problem within the party, IMO, is that they can't, Moonie. Apparently the minority 'base' as bled too much of its Obama hatred to the rest of the party. No one in the GOP is allowed to even whisper the word 'compromise' - a key component of moderate thinking.
I completely agree Kathy. I believe the reps will nominate a wackadoo that the country will reject. And they still won't be able to figure out what went wrong. 2008 should have been a clue, but they didn't get it.
They misread 2010, no reason to think they'll catch up in 2012.
2010 was about jobs - that's it. Not about the dems, or the President or repealing ObamaCare. It was about jobs.
Right before Rick Perry got into the race, Michael Savage was talking about how the two parties are in cahoots, they're both corrupt, they're mostly the same, and they have an understanding that they'll take turns getting 8 years in the executive office. So, he was saying, nobody who could beat Obama is going to actually run because whoever they pick is supposed to lose this time. And he even said, don't look to Rick Perry to save us from Obama either because he can't win. None of them can win.
The other day I tuned in and he's talking about how scared the democrats and Obama are of Rick Perry and that Rick Perry is going to mop the floor with Obama. And he threw in a bunch of 'democrats hate America' and 'Obama is a Marxist' for good measure.
This demonstrates why I really think Savage needs to be on some kind of medication
Original Post by moonikins:
Anyone who thinks the corporate airlines won't figure in the cost of crashed planes and payouts to survivors against short term profit is extremely naive or willfully ignorant of how corporations have behaved in the past.
It's always better for the company's bottom line for the plane not to crash. Always.
There is obviously the same kind of agenda-driven lip service in both parties. I don't doubt that where corruption exists, it is bi-partisan corruption. Big business figured out a long time ago that it's necessary to hedge their bets by contributing to both sides.
I still like Buddy Roemer, btw. But then he's been on Colbert & Stewart, now, so that might have something to do with it. T-Paw quit too soon, IMO. He seems brilliant compared to the current 'top tier'.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by moonikins:
Anyone who thinks the corporate airlines won't figure in the cost of crashed planes and payouts to survivors against short term profit is extremely naive or willfully ignorant of how corporations have behaved in the past.
It's always better for the company's bottom line for the plane not to crash. Always.
Cars, not so much.
Original Post by kathygator:
The supposition that private corporations could be trusted to monitor themselves with no government oversite is fundamentally flawed, IMO.
Paul argues that Americans are smart enough to decide for themselves what is safe and what isn't - but that's not true. It's not that we're necessarily stupid, it's that we are too far out of touch with the technology and supply chains we rely upon.
We need the government to make sure our food, water, and air don't kill us - because corporations never will. It's not as if they'd band together and endanger people's lives, it's that they're run by humans who are fallible and prone to cut corners when no one's looking and justifying it by arguing that they owe their shareholders a profit.
Paul is either completely lacking in compassion, or incredibly naive. Either way, he's a no go in my book.
Air traffic control has been privatized in Amsterdam, Athens, Auckland, Brussels, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, London, Melbourne, Naples, Rome, Sydney, and Vienna, beginning in 1987. People aren't falling out of the skies yet.
Original Post by kathygator:
We're responsible for each other - not some of the time, not when we can afford it, not if people who need our help go to our church - all the time.
Morally. Not Constitutionally. And not paternalistically.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by moonikins:
Anyone who thinks the corporate airlines won't figure in the cost of crashed planes and payouts to survivors against short term profit is extremely naive or willfully ignorant of how corporations have behaved in the past.
It's always better for the company's bottom line for the plane not to crash. Always.
In text books, yes. In theory, yes. If a plane never crashes, they don't have to pay damages.
In real life, they'll keep cutting corners on tooling, inspections, parts and personnel to save money to increase profits which will cause safety and maintenance issues which will cause planes to crash. They will weigh the cost of X inspections over a period of X years to how many planes/flights they think will have problems over that period.
I've seen this in action in two different facilities. One manufactured brakes. One manufactured shock absorbers (or dampers as well called them).
Corporations are not far-sighted. They are reactionary.
Original Post by kathygator:
We're responsible for each other - not some of the time, not when we can afford it, not if people who need our help go to our church - all the time.
Yes, we should be responsible for each other. So why insist that some unfeeling, cumbersome federal bureaucracy should bear the responsibility instead?
Original Post by kathygator:
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by moonikins:
Anyone who thinks the corporate airlines won't figure in the cost of crashed planes and payouts to survivors against short term profit is extremely naive or willfully ignorant of how corporations have behaved in the past.
It's always better for the company's bottom line for the plane not to crash. Always.
Cars, not so much.
Ahhhh yes. The Ford Exploder is a good example. Can't sell dangerous cars to the American marketplace because there are too many regulations and lawsuits are too expensive, so just ship them to South American by the thousands instead and then deny they knew there was any problems.
Original Post by kathygator: Cars, not so much.
How big of a financial hit did Toyota take last year when people thought their cars weren't safe?
Original Post by gotborked:
Original Post by kathygator:
We're responsible for each other - not some of the time, not when we can afford it, not if people who need our help go to our church - all the time.
Yes, we should be responsible for each other. So why insist that some unfeeling, cumbersome federal bureaucracy should bear the responsibility instead?
Because any sane individual would rather be subject to a well-regulated federal agency with a defined mandate and predictable behavior rather than have your current mood decide whether one eats that month or not.
Original Post by lysistrata:
Original Post by kathygator:
We're responsible for each other - not some of the time, not when we can afford it, not if people who need our help go to our church - all the time.Morally. Not Constitutionally. And not paternalistically.
But constitutionally we are responsible for each other.
We elect/appoint our federal government to 'provide for the common defense', defense of the commons - these include our natural resources as well as our economic ones - as well as 'promote the general welfare'.
