A new survey of likely voters indicates that in a hypothetical match-up between former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and billionaire Donald Trump, a majority would choose suicide over either candidate.The original of this Andy Borowitz report can be found here, somewhere.♠
The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, shows Mr. Trump drawing 21%, Gov. Palin 18%, and various forms of suicide 61%.
It is satire. But still, my comment back to my Brother was:
My position remains that Obama wins in 2012 and therefore the Republicans should nominate a woman for president and an Hispanic for VP. Seems like the thing to do, unless Herman Cain is available for VP.My thinking is that if we are going to whiff and we know it, we should give the voters a chance to look at some non-standard options from our side. It would cost us nothing and it would give all of the voters a chance to think about us in new ways.
That leads to this blog post from The Other McCain on the Republican Party's "Reality TV Show" Thursday last.♥
Here is the embedded video clip from that blog post with Pollster Frank Luntz talking to likely Republican Primary Election voters:
OK, so Businessman Herman Cain is too good to be true or not a "serious" candidate, as opposed to our former Governor, Mitt Romney, but he generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst Republican Primary voters in South Carolina. Probably a bunch of Tea Party attending fuddy-duddy red-neck WASPs.♦ But still, voters.
The Spring of 2011 is the time to think about POSSIBILITIES, to have DREAMS, to HOPE, to envision CHANGE.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Check 6 May 2011.
♥ I was in class, taking a final.
♦ Except maybe for that lady down on the first row, toward the left end.
5 comments:
My view is that the GOP might as well have some fun with 2012 as it is probably their final gasp. Once Osama...oh...sorry...Obama wins....we will embark on a long period of single party politics in America.
Those few conservatives who visibly remain in American society will have moved to the thinly populated regions of North Dakota, and the mountains of Idaho and Montana...close to the Canadian border so that they can exfil when the Feds come looking for them. The blizzard of executive orders and legislative fiats that will ensue the 2012 final victory will ensure that EVERY American will qualify to be a potential Federal lawbreaker, and only the government will determine who will feel its wrath. Who you give your political tribute to will be a prime determinate.....be sure that you place an X in the block asking if you want to contribute to campaign funds....and a Y where it says "DNC." There will be of course declining numbers who out of sheer stupidity or blind ego will mark the RNC block which is simply a ruse to entrap those who are disloyal.
Besides, the really BIG conservative money, you know...the filthy rich capitalists....will have moved to Canada once they install the new business tax rate, I'm guessing in the next few months.
Given the way the Republican field is shaping up, it might be a real cost saving idea to simply have a write in campaign....put down down the guy or gal who YOU personally like......an expression of real choice. It will be fun to see who makes "The List." My bet is on "Alfred E. Neumann"
Today's NYT suggests that the big Republican money is sitting on the sidelines for the time being. Likely a good strategy since the demise of the Republican Party as we know it today might be a good thing, allowing for a new party to emerge and a realignment of voters who are disaffected by both parties. But we should remember that the real dividing line will be abortion and family planning.
I read the article Lance referenced. I see it as too early to tell. And, as noted in the original post, it is still President Obama's to lose—and I wouldn't put it past him to do just that.
But, to the comment, on what do we base the line "we should remember the real dividing line will be abortion and family planning"? And is that within the current Republican Party or between the future Democratic Party and this future Whig Party?
Notwithstanding Nicholas D Kristof's OpEd in today's New York Times, family planning is as much about culture as it is latex and chemicals. Birth rates in the US were falling long before Margret Sanger started her eugenics based movement and before "The Pill" came along.
I think the line will be drawn between Classic Liberals and the Neo-Liberals/Progressives. Classic Liberals will go with Pope Leo XIII and Neo-Liberals will follow the line of Hoover and Roosevelt.
Regards — Cliff
My non-partisan frustration with partisan politics includes this sort of overwrought over-calculation of "odds" to determine action. The implied and extremely arrogant premise is that only a particular hegemony of party can be good for the country. (The D's are, if anything, worse about this than the R's). My approval of Scott Brown is wholly due to his relative rejection of this premise in considering his legislative participation. (Certainly, by the logic discussed here, he never would have even bothered to run otherwise).
We'd all be better off if qualified candidates weren't ground through this mill of money-based cynicism before rising to our consideration.
I happen to prefer to think any reasonable candidate has a reasonable chance in any year.
Hey how about the Tom Coburn and John Ensign presidential ticket, it represents what the GOP is, rather than what they profess to be. But I guess it would be like the Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump presidential ticket, right?
Post a Comment