Predictions: Who will be the GOP Candidate?

[Warren Dew]

If you want to see what happens when a "disappointing incumbent" meets a fringe candidate who cannot appeal to independents & moderates, I refer you to 1972.

1992 would be a better example.

[Ian]

You mean those American citizens who did nothing more than publish on line magazines objecting to the government?

If you think that's all Awlaki ever did to get himself targeted, I've got some bad news for you.

If you want to see what happens when a "disappointing incumbent" meets a fringe candidate who cannot appeal to independents & moderates, I refer you to 1972.

1992 would be a better example.

How on Earth does Bill Clinton equate to the term "fringe candidate"??
You're putting him next to George McGovern or Rick Santorum? Clinton had trouble appealing to moderates?
Keep dreaming.

[Warren Dew]

How on Earth does Bill Clinton equate to the term "fringe candidate"??
You're putting him next to George McGovern or Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum isn't a fringe candidate; his positions are exactly in line with the religious right, which is the base and still the largest faction in the Republican party at present, just as Clinton's positions in 1992 were exactly in line with the progressives.

If you want a cognate to a McGovern or Goldwater, you'll have to hope for a Ron Paul nomination.

[Ian]

How on Earth does Bill Clinton equate to the term "fringe candidate"??
You're putting him next to George McGovern or Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum isn't a fringe candidate; his positions are exactly in line with the religious right, which is the base and still the largest faction in the Republican party at present, just as Clinton's positions in 1992 were exactly in line with the progressives.

If you want a cognate to a McGovern or Goldwater, you'll have to hope for a Ron Paul nomination.

I totally disagree, but so be it.

If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'm gonna place a bet on who wins the election with you dude.

[Warren Dew]

If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I'm gonna place a bet on who wins the election with you dude.

I'll be happy to bet that Obama takes less than the 40 state minimum you predict. I said Santorum would have a fair chance, not that he's a guaranteed winner.

[Ian]

If it's Santorum, then 5-1 in Obama's favor sounds more than fair.

If it's Romney, I'm still trying to figure if it should be 2-1 against him or 3-2 against him.

EDIT: I'm in no rush to make any bets yet. Let's see who the GOP nominee will be.

[Warren Dew]

If it's Santorum, then 5-1 in Obama's favor sounds more than fair.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking eXcommunicate would not be too happy with a 1 in 6 chance of a Santorum presidency, which was my original point.

Out of curiousity, where would you put Gingrich?

[eXcommunicate]

If it's Santorum, then 5-1 in Obama's favor sounds more than fair.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking eXcommunicate would not be too happy with a 1 in 6 chance of a Santorum presidency, which was my original point.

I would be comforted by the fact that most of Santorum's agenda would not pass Congress.

But anything other than Nate Silver's analyses is just white noise. Intrade is so easily gamed, it's worthless. Silver's blog is where it's at:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Ian]

If it's Santorum, then 5-1 in Obama's favor sounds more than fair.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking eXcommunicate would not be too happy with a 1 in 6 chance of a Santorum presidency, which was my original point.

I would be comforted by the fact that most of Santorum's agenda would not pass Congress.

But anything other than Nate Silver's analyses is just white noise. Intrade is so easily gamed, it's worthless. Silver's blog is where it's at:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

You and I are of one mind about this stuff.

This blog is a close 2nd favorite though: http://electoral-vote.com/

[eXcommunicate]

If it's Santorum, then 5-1 in Obama's favor sounds more than fair.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking eXcommunicate would not be too happy with a 1 in 6 chance of a Santorum presidency, which was my original point.

I would be comforted by the fact that most of Santorum's agenda would not pass Congress.

But anything other than Nate Silver's analyses is just white noise. Intrade is so easily gamed, it's worthless. Silver's blog is where it's at:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

You and I are of one mind about this stuff.

This blog is a close 2nd favorite though: http://electoral-vote.com/

That is a pretty good one. RealClearPolitics is good for aggregated poll numbers. Their analysis is partisan hokum, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

And bring back to life the American citizen you assassinated without trial.

You mean those American citizens in open rebellion against the United States, giving aid and comfort to its sworn enemies, and who have renounced their citizenship?

This, I believe, is an argument you would not have made had the President at the time of the assassination been named "Bush."

[Coito ergo sum]

And are you seriously griping about Awlaki? Say it ain't so. Then go complain to Abe Lincoln about all those Confederates he shot down without trial.

That's precisely the argument I made when folks were being held in Gitmo and subjected to military tribunals. I cited examples of the Nazis captured during WW2 who had landed in Florida, and they were tried quickly before a military tribunal and executed. And, the Civil War incidents are another example.

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I, for one, am not griping about Awlacki. I merely marvel at the lack of complaint about his assassination from those who were so vocal about similar activities against non-Americans a mere 3-5 years ago.

It's like how, suddenly, drone attacks in non-consenting countries is fully compliant with international law, according to any Obama supporter I can find. Weird.

[amused]

"Consistency is not a human trait."

[Ian]

And are you seriously griping about Awlaki? Say it ain't so. Then go complain to Abe Lincoln about all those Confederates he shot down without trial.

That's precisely the argument I made when folks were being held in Gitmo and subjected to military tribunals. I cited examples of the Nazis captured during WW2 who had landed in Florida, and they were tried quickly before a military tribunal and executed. And, the Civil War incidents are another example.

What boggles my mind is that the same argument that Bush opponents rejected under Bush is now offered in support of an assassination without trial -- without even the benefit of a military tribunal. I don't know if you were one of the ones claiming that Gitmo detainees had a right to civil trial or any due process, but I fail to see how one can say that Awlacki did not have a right to be arrested and tried, and also say that Gitmo detainees have any greater rights.

I, for one, am not griping about Awlacki. I merely marvel at the lack of complaint about his assassination from those who were so vocal about similar activities against non-Americans a mere 3-5 years ago.

It's like how, suddenly, drone attacks in non-consenting countries is fully compliant with international law, according to any Obama supporter I can find. Weird.

I don't think such sentiments are as widespread as you're imagining. I'm a thorough supporter of Obama, and my opinions on these matters haven't changed between administrations.

And which governments are not consenting to US drone strikes? Not Pakistan or Yemen.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm going to go back and review the threads with all the heated arguments about how it was un-American to not give civilian trials to Gitmo detainees, and how they were presumed innocent, etc. I'll get back to you.

Pakistan formally protests drone strike: http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... one_strike

Pakistan's foreign ministry formally protested yesterday's drone strike in South Waziristan, which reportedly killed up to six suspected militants, with Pakistan's official statement calling the drones "a core irritant in the counter-terror campaign" that disrupt Pakistani efforts to separate tribes in the country's northwest from militant groups (NYT, McClatchy, BBC, Bloomberg, AP, AFP, Reuters, Pajhwok, ABC).

Pakistani foreign secretary Salman Bashir reportedly called the drones "counter-productive" in a meeting with U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter, while Pakistani prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told the country's National Assembly that Pakistan was "against drone attacks" and was increasing pressure on the United States to stop the strikes (Dawn, ET, Daily Times).

Yemen is a deal with the Yemeni interim dictatorship - he allows drone strikes, and the US turns a blind eye to his brutal suppression of protests: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... p-al-qaeda

Iran, of course, protests drone incursions: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=27622