Who are your favored GOP candidates?

[GenSeneca]

What I said was, that the GOP KNEW that NO PRESIDENT could take the horrible (much deeper than it even looked at that time to most people) fiasco that Bush left behind and turn the economy around in less than 4 years. . .AND they didn't want to have the GOP name attached to another 4 years of disastrous economy!

So, they elected McCain as presidential candidate, because he was very unlikely to win. . .and when he (surprisingly) showed signs of MAYBE not losing, they stuck him with Palin. . .which was the fool proof way of losing the presidency!

BigRob knows where that quote is going...

You can take my opinion as "wacko," but show me where YOU can prove that it is "wacko?"

It's a conspiracy theory, right up there with ProudLefty's belief that earth is facing an extraterrestrial alien invasion.

 

[Openmind]

2008 was a bad time to be a Republican, but as late as August (and into September) McCain was up in most polls.

What destroyed him was that the economy collapsed, while he arguing that the fundamentals were sound, and his response to the collapse was amateurish and frankly pathetic. That is what cost him the election for good.

But BUSH and his men knew that that economic collapse was coming, and that it would be HUGE!

And, as you said, McCain (amazingly) still had a chance in September, so the GOP found "Palin" as his running mate. . .and that completed the "snow job," and assured Obama's victory!

And as soon as Obama was elected, before he even got in office, the GOP started the destructive job on him. . .and has not relented since, stating (very clearly) that the priority #1 was to "make Obama a ONE TERM President!"

And you call me "wacko!"

 

[Openmind]

BigRob knows where that quote is going...



It's a conspiracy theory, right up there with ProudLefty's belief that earth is facing an extraterrestrial alien invasion.

I am not a fan of "conspiracy theories."

But, try to prove that my theory is wrong. . .

Do you REALLY think that McCain could have handled the economy better than Obama did?

Do you really think that ANY Presidential candidate could have done better?

If you do, you are either blind or full of it!

 

[BigRob]

Whatever it takes to stop the pandering to the first few states... Because Iowa is so important, just as an example, politicians offer huge farm subsidies to "buy" votes and you can bet that anyone who promises to cut, or end, the subsidies can kiss his chances of winning that primary, and therefore the nomination, goodbye.

Plenty of people have gone on to win the nomination without winning in Iowa. How would you account for this?

 

[dogtowner]

No, Bob, this is NOT what I said!
I didn't say that the GOP got Obama elected to MAKE HIM FAIL. . .

What I said was, that the GOP KNEW that NO PRESIDENT could take the horrible (much deeper than it even looked at that time to most people) fiasco that Bush left behind and turn the economy around in less than 4 years. . .AND they didn't want to have the GOP name attached to another 4 years of disastrous economy!

So, they elected McCain as presidential candidate, because he was very unlikely to win. . .and when he (surprisingly) showed signs of MAYBE not losing, they stuck him with Palin. . .which was the fool proof way of losing the presidency!

But when Obama got elected, and they realized that he had SO MUCH Support, and that people actually believed in him, Obama became "ennemy #1" for the GOP, who IMMEDIATELY set out to make him fail. . .just in case the economy wasn't enough!

And, the fact that the GOP wanted Obama to fail from the beginning is CERTAINLY not a secret, or a "democrat" view point! That goal was CLEARLY stated by several top GOP leaders. . .

You can take my opinion as "wacko," but show me where YOU can prove that it is "wacko?"

to paraphrase... 'we hold these truths to be self evident...'

but to oblige you... could the GOP with majorities in th4e House and Senate have gotten it all back to go in under 4 ? Maybe so maybe no but they could have prevented it from getting far worse and without the unthinkable waste of money.

 

[BigRob]

No, Bob, this is NOT what I said!
I didn't say that the GOP got Obama elected to MAKE HIM FAIL. . .

What I said was, that the GOP KNEW that NO PRESIDENT could take the horrible (much deeper than it even looked at that time to most people) fiasco that Bush left behind and turn the economy around in less than 4 years. . .AND they didn't want to have the GOP name attached to another 4 years of disastrous economy!

So, they elected McCain as presidential candidate, because he was very unlikely to win. . .and when he (surprisingly) showed signs of MAYBE not losing, they stuck him with Palin. . .which was the fool proof way of losing the presidency!

So, the GOP ensured defeat, in order to make Democrats take blame for a bad economy?

And to ensure this, they stuck McCain with Palin. How then do you account for the fact that it was Palin that gave McCain the bounce in the polls and ultimately had McCain in the lead?

But when Obama got elected, and they realized that he had SO MUCH Support, and that people actually believed in him, Obama became "ennemy #1" for the GOP, who IMMEDIATELY set out to make him fail. . .just in case the economy wasn't enough!

And, the fact that the GOP wanted Obama to fail from the beginning is CERTAINLY not a secret, or a "democrat" view point! That goal was CLEARLY
stated by several top GOP leaders. . .

You can take my opinion as "wacko," but show me where YOU can prove that it is "wacko?"

SO MUCH support with what...52% of the vote? The mere idea that the GOP sabatoged the election to make Democrats take the blame for the economy is wacko...and hilarious.

 

[BigRob]

I am not a fan of "conspiracy theories."

But, try to prove that my theory is wrong. . .

Do you REALLY think that McCain could have handled the economy better than Obama did?

Do you really think that ANY Presidential candidate could have done better?

If you do, you are either blind or full of it!

Your argument is not "would anyone else have handled it differently", your argument is that the GOP sabotaged themselves so that McCain would not be elected.

That is absurd.

 

[Openmind]

So, the GOP ensured defeat, in order to make Democrats take blame for a bad economy?

And to ensure this, they stuck McCain with Palin. How then do you account for the fact that it was Palin that gave McCain the bounce in the polls and ultimately had McCain in the lead?



SO MUCH support with what...52% of the vote? The mere idea that the GOP sabatoged the election to make Democrats take the blame for the economy is wacko...and hilarious.

I'm glad you are entertained.

I still stand by my belief.

And . . . .Mc cain may got a little (very temporary) lift from Palin. . .until she opened her mouth, and the rational people realized she was absolutely NOT qualified to do anything but be a soccer mom. . . which pleased a minority of other "soccer mom" and "star struck" young men.

But the proof is in the pudding. . .they DIDN't get elected. . .

And, if 52% is not a definite advantage for the elections. . .what did you think of Bush's "advantage" over Gore?

 

[BigRob]

I'm glad you are entertained.

I still stand by my belief.

And . . . .Mc cain may got a little (very temporary) lift from Palin. . .until she opened her mouth, and the rational people realized she was absolutely NOT qualified to do anything but be a soccer mom. . . which pleased a minority of other "soccer mom" and "star struck" young men.

But the proof is in the pudding. . .they DIDN't get elected. . .

He didn't get elected because while he was busy saying that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, the economy was collapsing all around him....his further response to this was laughable...which all ultimately amounted to him never leading a poll again, and losing the election.

And, if 52% is not a definite advantage for the elections. . .what did you think of Bush's "advantage" over Gore?

That it was razor thin....

 

[Openmind]

He didn't get elected because while he was busy saying that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, the economy was collapsing all around him....his further response to this was laughable...which all ultimately amounted to him never leading a poll again, and losing the election.




That it was razor thin....

OR.. .non existent?

 

[BigRob]

OR.. .non existent?

A non-existent majority means you lost. Did I sleep through the Gore Presidency?

 

[GenSeneca]

I am not a fan of "conspiracy theories."

Apparently you are... There's this one about the GOP intentionally losing an election and then there is your other one about how Bush "stole" the election from Gore.

But, try to prove that my theory is wrong. . .

That's what all the Conspiracy Theorists say.

 

[GenSeneca]

Plenty of people have gone on to win the nomination without winning in Iowa. How would you account for this?

Every candidate promises to continue/increase subsidies for Iowa in order to gain an edge in the election... How do you account for this?

 

[PLC1]

I am not a fan of "conspiracy theories."

But, try to prove that my theory is wrong. . .

Do you REALLY think that McCain could have handled the economy better than Obama did?

Do you really think that ANY Presidential candidate could have done better?

If you do, you are either blind or full of it!

Interesting theory, but kind of out there. the Republican Party deliberately threw the election because they wanted a Democrat to be in power during the bad economic times?
It does make sense in a kind of way out there sort of way.

Did the Democrats also want to throw the election by nominating a freshman senator? Maybe the party moguls didn't think Obama could actually win, but he Republicans got the better of them by nominating an even worse slate.

No, I don't actually believe that, but it does make a good premise for a novel.

 

[BigRob]

Every candidate promises to continue/increase subsidies for Iowa in order to gain an edge in the election... How do you account for this?

Hold on now...aside from the fact that the above statement is false, your argument was as follows:

Whatever it takes to stop the pandering to the first few states... Because Iowa is so important, just as an example, politicians offer huge farm subsidies to "buy" votes and you can bet that anyone who promises to cut, or end, the subsidies can kiss his chances of winning that primary, and therefore the nomination, goodbye.

Plenty of people have won the nomination without Iowa. Plenty of candidates oppose ethanol subsidies. Now, those candidates might not win the nomination (or win in Iowa), but I don't think you can draw the link that they lost because they lost Iowa because they opposed ethanol subsidies.

Plus, that is just the nature of politics. Whenever a politician is speaking in a state (let's say California), they are going to talk about issues facing California, not issues facing (again let's say) Florida.