Bachmann thought she was in the running.

Bachmann didn't drop out of the race, she just suspended her campaign, like Cain did.  That means they can still collect donations. 

That means they can still collect donations.

A).  They still have campaign debt to try to pay off

B).  Of course, she's a Republithug, why stop taking money just because you're no longer going to do the job?  Yeesh, they are 'party of personal responsibility' and how could they be personally taken care of if they stop taking money?

When I spend more than I have I go into debt.  No one is there to donate to help me pay that off.  I say if you run for office and rack up a bunch of debt, it's your fault and you gotta get yourself out of it.  And if people are donating to help you out, you have to pay taxes on it.  But of course Bachmann will just get another grant from the government. 

Oh yeah, I forgot.  Personal responsibility only applies to certain people.

What the graph says to me is that the values held by Republican candidates do not match the values held by Republican voters, so the voters keep moving their potential caucus/primary votes around, hoping to find someone tolerable. Unfortunately, most of them refuse to vote outside the Republican Party (in November) either because "a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other guy" or because a third party candidate "doesn't stand a chance", so they will end up with a candidate that does not truly represent them. Ironically, if those dissatisfied voters (both Repubs and Dems) were willing to look outside their party, we just might see the emergence of a new political party that is more representative of the nation as a whole than what we have now. If Obama is re-elected, these "dyed-in-the-wool" Republicans will be partly responsible. As I have always said, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."

As for the Democrat side, I pretty much figure the nominee will be Obama as I have not heard of any real contenders within the Democrat Party rising to challenge him. I've heard mutterings of encouraging Hillary to run for the nomination, but at this time it doesn't look like that will happen; there is too much momentum behind the incumbent because he is...well...the incumbent.

If people would vote based on performance records and qualifications instead of personality, sound bites, and affiliation, this country would probably be in a much better place.

I just hope we don't end up with Santorum as the next President; he scares me even more than Obama did.

Just my opinion.

Edit: To reduce apparent conflation of Presidential election with caucus/primary voting process.

Quote from: tekla on January 06, 2012, 07:34:33 PM
That means they can still collect donations.

A).  They still have campaign debt to try to pay off

B).  Of course, she's a Republithug, why stop taking money just because you're no longer going to do the job?  Yeesh, they are 'party of personal responsibility' and how could they be personally taken care of if they stop taking money?

Perhaps she sees herself as a viable vice presidential candidate ... like Santorum.

She spent a year on the ground in Iowa, a place were she was born (and where that actually counts for something) and got a whole 5% of the vote, and nationwide she costs more votes than she attracts, so either way, that's a pretty unique definition of viable.

Quote from: Dana_H on January 07, 2012, 02:03:31 AM
I just hope we don't end up with Santorum as the next President; he scares me even more than Obama did.

I've heard a few liberals chomping at the bit, hoping to get that match up - Santorum vs Obama.  It would be easy pickings.  The one guy they have who will give Obama a run for their money is Mitt.  And the Pubs hate him.

Maybe what that graph shows is the nation is closer to moderate that what many believe.  The Pubs have moved so far right they are falling off the face of the earth.  And the the majority of the voters aren't going with them.  The Pubs are following the money because they are personally benefiting from it.  The voters don't get that benefit.  And the politicians don't get that.

Yeah in any rational (and in this case it means 'non-racist' because racism is irrational) world Obama would be seen for what he is (and the Democratic Left sees him this way) - as a center-right moderate who is prone to compromise.  Because they are not busy calling him names the DL actually gets to criticize him on policy decisions and the Patriot Act stuff, the continuation of the War on Drugs, the internet stuff are all seen by the DL as not nearly liberal, leftist enough.  Not by a long shot.

It just shows how far off the right-wing tracks many of the Republicans have got.

Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 09:29:26 AM
She spent a year on the ground in Iowa, a place were she was born (and where that actually counts for something) and got a whole 5% of the vote, and nationwide she costs more votes than she attracts, so either way, that's a pretty unique definition of viable.

Totally unsupported by any data.  As the only female in the campaign for president, my guess would be just the opposite.  However, I agree she was never anything more that a dark horse candidate.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 07, 2012, 10:33:03 AM
I've heard a few liberals chomping at the bit, hoping to get that match up - Santorum vs Obama.  It would be easy pickings.  The one guy they have who will give Obama a run for their money is Mitt.  And the Pubs hate him.

Maybe what that graph shows is the nation is closer to moderate that what many believe.  The Pubs have moved so far right they are falling off the face of the earth.  And the the majority of the voters aren't going with them.  The Pubs are following the money because they are personally benefiting from it.  The voters don't get that benefit.  And the politicians don't get that.

Gallup, June 2011, 10,265 respondents
"How would you describe your political views—very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?"

Very Conservative - 11%
Conservative - 30%
Moderate - 36%
Liberal - 15%
Very Liberal - 6%
No Answer - 2%

From the "Very liberal" perspective, everybody appear far right.

The election will turn on who captures the middle.

Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 10:40:01 AM
Yeah in any rational (and in this case it means 'non-racist' because racism is irrational) world Obama would be seen for what he is (and the Democratic Left sees him this way) - as a center-right moderate who is prone to compromise.  Because they are not busy calling him names the DL actually gets to criticize him on policy decisions and the Patriot Act stuff, the continuation of the War on Drugs, the internet stuff are all seen by the DL as not nearly liberal, leftist enough.  Not by a long shot.

It just shows how far off the right-wing tracks many of the Republicans have got.

Saul Alinsky must be chuckling in his grave!

The fact that her views couldn't find traction in her 'home' state, after a year of solid campaigning, after going to every single Iowa county - in what is pretty close to her target demographics 'an ideal state' (that gay stuff ain't washing in any area in economic trouble, or any major urban state - that's them with the big electoral votes) she couldn't get above 5% tells me that she's not an asset to any ticket.

It's not just being 'female' it's being female with mainstream views and policies.  And, at best, anyone with heavy Tea-Party/Evangelical support is a wash, but more likely a high negative among those they need to sway to win in the swing states.  Face it, the very people she counted on to vote her in would not vote for her because their bible tells them that you need a penis to lead, not a vagina.  She's a textbook case in delusion.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 07, 2012, 06:22:36 PM
Gallup, June 2011, 10,265 respondents
"How would you describe your political views—very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?"

Very Conservative - 11%
Conservative - 30%
Moderate - 36%
Liberal - 15%
Very Liberal - 6%
No Answer - 2%

And when you start asking them to more thoroughly define their political views, I'll bet those numbers would look like that graph.

Yeah, most people want to 'see' themselves as moderate - even if they are not.  Kind of like the people I know who make in excess of $150K a year, and call themselves 'middle class'

Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 11:04:36 PM
Yeah, most people want to 'see' themselves as moderate - even if they are not.  Kind of like the people I know who make in excess of $150K a year, and call themselves 'middle class'

I've noticed this, and it's why I try very hard to think of myself as very liberal and lower class, and to not obfuscate that no matter how normal and moderate I feel.

I'm a little mixed though, a gun-toting pacifist, more educated than most people in neighborhoods I usually live in, but too scuzzy to cut it in nicer settings.

Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2012, 06:32:09 PM
The fact that her views couldn't find traction in her 'home' state, after a year of solid campaigning, after going to every single Iowa county - in what is pretty close to her target demographics 'an ideal state' (that gay stuff ain't washing in any area in economic trouble, or any major urban state - that's them with the big electoral votes) she couldn't get above 5% tells me that she's not an asset to any ticket.

It's not just being 'female' it's being female with mainstream views and policies.  And, at best, anyone with heavy Tea-Party/Evangelical support is a wash, but more likely a high negative among those they need to sway to win in the swing states.  Face it, the very people she counted on to vote her in would not vote for her because their bible tells them that you need a penis to lead, not a vagina.  She's a textbook case in delusion.

Bachmann's result can easily be explained by "evangelical" voters having somewhere else to go.  For instance, a recent Pew poll reported that Romney had a favorable rating among 46% of white evangelicals and 45% of Catholics.

Given that "Tea Party" voters constituted about 40% of the electorate in the 2010 general election, if the percentage remains anywhere near that, Mr. Obama will lose in a landslide.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 07, 2012, 10:49:06 PM
And when you start asking them to more thoroughly define their political views, I'll bet those numbers would look like that graph.

Your graph reported only Republican respondents.

If you take the similar Gallup sample, and look at political affiliation, the breakout reports 45% Democrat, 39% Republican, and 16% independent/other.

Democrats tend to be more likely than average women, minorities, liberal, unmarried, and irreligious.  Since the 2008 election, those identifying as Democrats have dropped 7%,while those identifying as Republican or independent have gained 3% each.  (Gallup, 11/7/2011)

Voting follows that in that the more moderate candidate (and this is where Palin hurt McCain) tends to win over anyone viewed as 'extreme' be it right or left.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 08, 2012, 01:35:25 AM
Your graph reported only Republican respondents.

The comparison to the graph was only to the scattered imagery the graph portrayed.  Start asking those who categorize their political views by only one ideology questions like, "How do you identify yourself fiscally?" or "How do you identify yourself socially?"  or "How do you identify yourself religiously?" and those numbers you posted earlier will begin to change rapidly.

Of course the problem with any poll is you can find another poll that will contradict that poll.  Even if you have two different groups asking the same thing of the same people, the poll results could be very different by simply asking the questions differently.

On the other hand, you could ask questions like:
1. Should we be a warring nation?
2. Should we spend more than we collect in revenue?
3. Should every citizen of this country have the same rights?
4. Should we allow people to get sick and die because they have no money for health care?

The vast majority would probably answer: 1. No, 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. No.  The last two would indicate there's a lot of socialists living in the good ol' USA.  OMG! 

But that's what happens when you scrape away all the fluff, spin, crust, and other garbage heaped on by those trying to baffle people with their BS in order to get the people to follow them.  You get a clearer picture.

That GOP graph shows just how easily people are led.  Knowing practically nothing about a given candidate, they hop on their bandwagon at the first glimmer of... well, practically anything.  Simplify taxes?  "Great!  I'm in!"  And they have no idea that in the end most people will pay more in taxes.  Politicians know this about the voters and they take advantage of it.  They see the average voter as a lemming.

Looking back at this whole GOP primary, it appears the GOP has been testing the voter's tolerance for a far right candidate.  That candidate is appealing to the big contributors because of the tax advantages far right candidates will give them.  Think of it, we have a lobbyist who is considered by some to be the most powerful man in Washington.  HUH?  And that is solely because big money is backing him on his tax pledge and he has threatened to destroy any politician who does not sign and honor his pledge.  That's why the Pubs have so steadfastly refused to accept any tax hikes, even if it means leaving this country broke.

Romney is not far right enough for them.  So they offer up anybody and everybody and hope one of them sticks.  Their desperation to find that person has turned the primary into a joke, with such questions like, "Who will be the flavor of the week?"

I think they would have liked Palin if she had the backbone and classiness of Hillary.  But she turned herself into a media hound clown. 

The biggest problem with the Pubs today is they are owned by wealthy capitalists.  And the needs and wants of the wealthy capitalists is very different than the needs and wants of the average person.  This is not to say the Dems aren't dipping into that same pot, but at least they are throwing a bone to the dog once in a while.