The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem, jmfcst, is not that you abandoned Perry. The problem is that while you were supporting him, you did so to such a point as to almost completely preclude yourself the ability of later abandoning him, and still remain credible regarding your next choice(s). You were on the verge of selecting him as nominee on Sept 1st. Now just imagine for a second what a disaster that would have made 2012. If there was a ever a year Republicans should be annoyingly picky to the candidates and completely thorough in selecting the candidate, it was this year. Throwing onself at the feet of any "savior/knight in shining armor" is a good way to end up with a dud facing Obama next fall.

dude, I said he was worthless from the beginning, and I stated I was only supporting him because the jmfcst's would own him....so stop trying to sell me as a Perry fanboy...I'm going to support someone I agree with, and if I can't find that person, then I'll support someone whom I will own.   got it?

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

[Eraserhead]

Wow, the last few pages of this have been fantastic!

[Mr. Morden]

Final pre-debate update:  Cain gains a bit more.  Will he reach double digits?

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 60.8
Perry 19.4
Cain 9.1
Huntsman 3.0
Paul 2.2
Gingrich 2.0
Bachmann 1.2
Giuliani 0.7
Johnson 0.5
Santorum 0.5

Dem. presidential nominee

Obama 93.9
Clinton 3.5
Biden 0.6

Dem. VP nominee

Biden 90.0
Clinton 7.0

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

Remind me again what the harm was in taking Perry for a spin?...It was basically, "Ok, you've got a good resume, and I understand you've pledged to be a social and fiscal conservative...so, well make you are nominee if you can carry on a conversation…what’s that?  You can’t talk?...Next!  What?  We’re out of viable conservative candidates who have political experience?  Who is left?  A business man?  Then send in the business man.  He can speak clearly, actually says something when he speaks, has a good biography, and seems to be a true believer.  If he can tone it down a bit and keep speaking from the heart, then it looks like he’ll be the nominee."

So, again, what was the problem in seeing if Perry had what it took?  What, exactly, is the problem you’re attempting to solve?  Are you saying I should settle for Romney who only gives speeches full of slogans and empty words and who has NO IDEA what he would do if voted POTUS?  Or, are you complaining how quickly we gave up on Bachmann and Perry?  Should we have given Bachmann and Perry an extra two months?  You may think the process is erratic, but the GOP base is simply being systematic in its interview process. 

It seems to me, Herman Cain has caused many blue avatars to blow a gasket and veer towards the hackish side of thought.

[© tweed]

when you claim to have a direct line to God and a monopoly on certainty, you will gain yourself some rivals, and they will much enjoy pointing it out when fate proves you wrong.

I have NEVER claimed that God gave me any info on any candidate.  And you've been here long enough to know that, so stop lying about my testimony.

was not what I said and was not implied.  I do see points of connection between your existential certainty and your GOP primary predictive certainty, however: they're a fundamental constituent part of a coherent persona.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

as I said, someone strictly heeding your advice on 2012.REP.NOM.PERRY would have "probably lost minimal money".  minimal the operative word.  the problem is someone heeding your advice on 2012.REP.NOM.ROMNEY would be in a serious hole right about now, no matter the specific buying date.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the problem is someone heeding your advice on 2012.REP.NOM.ROMNEY would be in a serious hole right about now, no matter the specific buying date.

hold that thought a couple more hours... 

[Averroës Nix]

Perry is now down to 14%... Unless he's visibly drunk at the debate, we should be able to count on that moving up. Right?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Perry is now down to 14%... Unless he's visibly drunk at the debate, we should be able to count on that moving up. Right?

what is he, 0/3 for the debates?  And is there any indication that he is going to have a exceptional performance tonight?  I don't think so....So, unless he hits it out of the park (which is highly unlikely unless he just got a brain transplant), there is no reason for the GOP base to look his way again, they've already moved on.

...maybe he should try sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

Remind me again what the harm was in taking Perry for a spin?...It was basically, "Ok, you've got a good resume, and I understand you've pledged to be a social and fiscal conservative...so, well make you are nominee if you can carry on a conversation…what’s that?  You can’t talk?...Next!  What?  We’re out of viable conservative candidates who have political experience?  Who is left?  A business man?  Then send in the business man.  He can speak clearly, actually says something when he speaks, has a good biography, and seems to be a true believer.  If he can tone it down a bit and keep speaking from the heart, then it looks like he’ll be the nominee."

So, again, what was the problem in seeing if Perry had what it took?  What, exactly, is the problem you’re attempting to solve?  Are you saying I should settle for Romney who only gives speeches full of slogans and empty words and who has NO IDEA what he would do if voted POTUS?  Or, are you complaining how quickly we gave up on Bachmann and Perry?  Should we have given Bachmann and Perry an extra two months?  You may think the process is erratic, but the GOP base is simply being systematic in its interview process. 

It seems to me, Herman Cain has caused many blue avatars to blow a gasket and veer towards the hackish side of thought.

If you want, I can dig up an old quote explaining why (back when EVERYONE thought Perry was all that) Perry wasn't even a real frontrunner, let alone potential winner.

The long and the short of it comes down to:

-A lot of positions that are practically unjustifiable in a Republican primary
-No particular strengths that the other candidates don't have
-Sounds like a complete idiot in debates
-Was being hyped up like crazy by the media

[Averroës Nix]

The long and the short of it comes down to:

-A lot of positions that are practically unjustifiable in a Republican primary
-No particular strengths that the other candidates don't have
-Sounds like a complete idiot in debates
-Was being hyped up like crazy by the media

You could actually make a strong case that every current member of the Republican field meets most of these criteria (or has at some point).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The long and the short of it comes down to:

-A lot of positions that are practically unjustifiable in a Republican primary
-No particular strengths that the other candidates don't have
-Sounds like a complete idiot in debates
-Was being hyped up like crazy by the media

You could actually make a strong case that every current member of the Republican field meets most of these criteria (or has at some point).

yeah, but every candidate says things he later regrets, but Perry and Bachmann do it on a regular basis...so ModernBourbon has a point

[Averroës Nix]

yeah, but every candidate says things he later regrets, but Perry and Bachmann do it on a regular basis.

Unlike Cain, they can't get away with the "America's got to lean to take a joke!" act. (Or they're not witty and likable enough to pull it off.)

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The long and the short of it comes down to:

-A lot of positions that are practically unjustifiable in a Republican primary
-No particular strengths that the other candidates don't have
-Sounds like a complete idiot in debates
-Was being hyped up like crazy by the media

You could actually make a strong case that every current member of the Republican field meets most of these criteria (or has at some point).

That applies, to some extent, to Bachmann and Cain as well. However, both of them are infinitely better than Perry. Fortunately for my predictive record, however, I predicted their declines for the same reasons (and this is also why I suspect Cain will fall, though some of his views will be more of a problem than debate performances).

Romney's problem is that he also has several weak issues, he is just fortunate that most of the field doesn't want to attack him. I guarantee you, if someone besides that idiot Perry launched a real attack that consisted of more than "YOU DID ROMNEYCARE AND THATS LIKE OBAMACARE", he would begin to show some damage and would begin losing it. He is reasonably charismatic when he is in control and when he is being attacked by someone he is capable of controlling (again, Perry; though Perry managed to get a very good shot off at the beginning of the last debate).

Santorum is a relic of an older time, when a Republican's first duty was to "spreading freedom" or "promoting God" over "shrinking government", and where a Republican who wanted to increase spending wouldn't be lynched. He also comes off as a bigoted bible-thumper (with the bonus of being a Catholic, so actual Evangelicals will have problems backing him regardless). Thus, he can't become a flavour of the month (unless he sees the light in small government or something).

Johnson is being blocked from the debates constantly, and basically constitutes a younger, more boring and more left wing Ron Paul. I suspect he'll eventually drop out and throw his support to Paul (I still remember when you silly lemmings kept thinking Paul would be backing Johnson).

Gingrich is interesting enough, but he isn't running to win, he's running to sell his books and get his name in the media. If he actually tried to mount a campaign, he'd run straight onto two big problems; his multi-million dollar debt and his lack of a campaign infrastructure.

Cain is an old flavour of the month in new packaging. No longer is he clueless about every issue! However, he hasn't radically changed, and thus is more or less riding off of a good performance in Florida. He has no campaign infrastructure and lacks cash, not to mention that he has a fair amount of policies that could cause him extreme discomfort if anyone brought them up (eg. supporting TARP). He's a placeholder flavour in what is effectively a vacuum of anti-Romney voters.

Paul's doing fine. He hasn't had big dips, and has the best infrastructure right now to pick up the anti-Romney vote (at least unless Perry's brain or Cain's wallet quadruples in size). He's unlikely to get any big influxes of media support, but he has a solid enough campaign to survive without it until the other candidates wither away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That casual attitude can also cause problems.

As I recall, Cain's fall was a combination of:

-The business with "I wouldn't let any of them Muslims into MY cabinet without a background check!"

-The "Romney is okay, but he's a Mormon, and back in Atlanta they say Mormons are evil"

-"Afghanistan? Uh, I don't really know, so I'll go read a book or something"

I suspect the spotlight will cause him to make more gaffes, but time alone should get rid of his current popularity to some degree.

[Averroës Nix]

I suspect the spotlight will cause him to make more gaffes, but time alone should get rid of his current popularity to some degree.

Sound analysis, IMO. Forgive me if you've mentioned this before, but do you then expect a Romney victory?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Unlike Cain, they can't get away with the "America's got to lean to take a joke!" act. (Or they're not witty and likable enough to pull it off.)

more to the point, Cain is the only one, primarily because he is black and is unencumbered by the stigma of white guilt, who has the perceived moral authority to tell the whiners/losers to start with the person in the mirror before blaming others for what they themselves have failed to achieve through hard work.

And, IMO, it is this moral authority, coupled with a clear cut plan that he can articulate, that is going to hand him the nomination...if he has the right tact (by avoiding gaffes and keep it philosophical).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Santorum is a relic of an older time, when a Republican's first duty was to "spreading freedom" or "promoting God" over "shrinking government", and where a Republican who wanted to increase spending wouldn't be lynched. He also comes off as a bigoted bible-thumper (with the bonus of being a Catholic, so actual Evangelicals will have problems backing him regardless). Thus, he can't become a flavour of the month (unless he sees the light in small government or something).

Trust me, none of those reasons are why Santorum hasn't been giving a chance...rather it is because he was a hack (who seemed to look for opportunities to be a hack) while in the Senate...therefore, no one like me is going to give him a chance.  He's burned his bridges.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I suspect the spotlight will cause him to make more gaffes, but time alone should get rid of his current popularity to some degree.

Sound analysis, IMO. Forgive me if you've mentioned this before, but do you then expect a Romney victory?

More likely than anything else, but it certainly isn't guaranteed even with the current field. Romney just isn't that strong of a candidate, and has just been profiting from the media attempting to prop up a parade of anti-Romney candidates that make him look reasonable. His support is extremely soft, and if he ever makes a Perry style gaffe then he is as good as gone.

[Likely Voter]

Santorum is a relic of an older time, when a Republican's first duty was to "spreading freedom" or "promoting God" over "shrinking government", and where a Republican who wanted to increase spending wouldn't be lynched. He also comes off as a bigoted bible-thumper (with the bonus of being a Catholic, so actual Evangelicals will have problems backing him regardless). Thus, he can't become a flavour of the month (unless he sees the light in small government or something).

Trust me, none of those reasons are why Santorum hasn't been giving a chance...rather it is because he was a hack (who seemed to look for opportunities to be a hack) while in the Senate...therefore, no one like me is going to give him a chance.  He's burned his bridges.

This again proves my point behind the Cain surge. Perry, Santorum and Bachmann all have records in government that can be picked apart and revealed to be lacking purity. Cain is a clean slate and a pundit. He just has to pander to what the dittoheads want to hear...and it is working

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This again proves my point behind the Cain surge. Perry, Santorum and Bachmann all have records in government that can be picked apart and revealed to be lacking purity. Cain is a clean slate and a pundit. He just has to pander to what the dittoheads want to hear...and it is working

but Perry/Santorum/Bachmann didn't implode due to their records, rather they imploded for being either a hack (Santorum/Bachmann) or having failed Debate101 (Perry).  Perry's record was defendable, he just didn't know how to defend it and kept doubling down by pushing a bad position.

"The bogey has good position right here.  Freeze frame. A moment of choice.  The F-14 is defensive. He has a chance to bug out right here...You stay in that diamond another three seconds - the bogey's gonna blow you away.  You take a hard right, select zone five...You can extend an escape. You made a bad choice.  Better to retire and save your aircraft than push a bad position."

instead of a hard right, Perry made a hard left and crashed and burned

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is the answer to a question of "Why did you support him", when the issue deals more with "How" and "When". My question is, would it not have been more advisable to hold back somewhat until the debates? You did say, "he was invisible as Governor". Wouldn't knowing such tend to bring on bit of caution amongst the jmfcst's of the world?

And getting back to the answer you did give, it sounds like the critieria for "settling" for a candidate towards the end of the process, which seems out of place in August and September of the previous year.

Remind me again what the harm was in taking Perry for a spin?...It was basically, "Ok, you've got a good resume, and I understand you've pledged to be a social and fiscal conservative...so, well make you are nominee if you can carry on a conversation…what’s that?  You can’t talk?...Next!  What?  We’re out of viable conservative candidates who have political experience?  Who is left?  A business man?  Then send in the business man.  He can speak clearly, actually says something when he speaks, has a good biography, and seems to be a true believer.  If he can tone it down a bit and keep speaking from the heart, then it looks like he’ll be the nominee."

So, again, what was the problem in seeing if Perry had what it took?  What, exactly, is the problem you’re attempting to solve?  Are you saying I should settle for Romney who only gives speeches full of slogans and empty words and who has NO IDEA what he would do if voted POTUS?  Or, are you complaining how quickly we gave up on Bachmann and Perry?  Should we have given Bachmann and Perry an extra two months?  You may think the process is erratic, but the GOP base is simply being systematic in its interview process. 

It seems to me, Herman Cain has caused many blue avatars to blow a gasket and veer towards the hackish side of thought.

The issue isn't about taking a candidate for a spin. The problem is that the way you test drive candidates amounts signing the intial paperwork in my opinion.

The thoroughness is a great thing and I want it to continue as long as possible. The thoroughness isn't what I find eratic. I find eratic the level of support given as part of the "test drive", in your particular case. 

I am not saying anything about any particular candidate here.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Santorum is a relic of an older time, when a Republican's first duty was to "spreading freedom" or "promoting God" over "shrinking government", and where a Republican who wanted to increase spending wouldn't be lynched. He also comes off as a bigoted bible-thumper (with the bonus of being a Catholic, so actual Evangelicals will have problems backing him regardless). Thus, he can't become a flavour of the month (unless he sees the light in small government or something).

Trust me, none of those reasons are why Santorum hasn't been giving a chance...rather it is because he was a hack (who seemed to look for opportunities to be a hack) while in the Senate...therefore, no one like me is going to give him a chance.  He's burned his bridges.

This again proves my point behind the Cain surge. Perry, Santorum and Bachmann all have records in government that can be picked apart and revealed to be lacking purity. Cain is a clean slate and a pundit. He just has to pander to what the dittoheads want to hear...and it is working

Supported TARP, basically laughed at people predicting a housing collapse a few days before it occurred

[© tweed]

stepping in for Morden, one time only.  I'm a substitute but not a replacement. 

wealth transfer direct from Perry to Romney post-debate, who now approaches 2/3.  Giuliani falls off radar.

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 65.2
Perry 12.5
Cain 9.0
Huntsman 2.9
Paul 2.5
Gingrich 2.0
Bachmann 1.1
Johnson 0.5
Santorum 0.5


in the second slot, Iowa caucuses.

Romney 32.0
Cain 25.0
Perry 20.0
Bachmann 7.0
Paul 6.5

[© tweed]

returning to my default persona now.  here are the IEM numbers


general election

Republican 51.7
Democratic 48.1


GOP nomination

Romney 67.2
Perry 12.5
Bachmann 1.4
Paul 1.0
Rest of Field 15.6 [mainly Cain-driven]

[Mr. Morden]

With Giuliani now out, the top 9 are all actual candidates for the first time.  Also, Perry's collapse has been epic.  Cain could pass him for second place very soon.

Up: Romney
Down: Perry

Romney 69.8
Pery 11.9
Cain 9.5
Paul 3.2
Huntsman 3.0
Gingrich 2.0
Bachmann 1.1
Johnson 0.5
Santorum 0.5

[Zarn]

Wow, Paul is finally ahead of Hunstman...

Gingrich should also be ahead of him.