Difference between revisions of "Talk:United States presidential election, 2012"

Revision as of 15:52, May 24, 2011

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--Whizkid 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--Andy Schlafly 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--Andy Schlafly 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--Whizkid 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--Andy Schlafly 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Hillary Clinton

Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, et all, Hillary Clinton currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as US News has reported. [1] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. Rob Smith 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Sarah Palin

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. DouglasA 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--Andy Schlafly 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. DouglasA 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

Ken Cuccinelli

Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--IScott 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Please do. Great point, thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

A concern

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days. As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --JasonN 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

In 1968, incumbent Lyndon Johnson felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of Eugene McCarthy against him in the first primary.

As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--Andy Schlafly 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Rubio and Experience

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --LanceS 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--Andy Schlafly 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for absolutely no executive experience. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

"New" president

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. EMorris 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks for your clarifying edit.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --AlaskanEconomy 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Question

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. JimFullerton 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the Democratic side. Please feel free to improve further.--Andy Schlafly 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)

The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. JimFullerton 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)

That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. DevonJ 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)

She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. Rob Smith 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)

SoS used to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who was the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? James Buchanan? DevonJ 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Mitch Daniels

His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --Jpatt 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

Dropping Christie

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in New Jersey is that Christie is going to run candidates in the primary against incumbents more conservative than he.--Andy Schlafly 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Trump/Gingrich

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? SharonW 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life after his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--Andy Schlafly 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. SharonW 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? Rob Smith 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. SharonW 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

the republican table

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--SeanS 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--Andy Schlafly 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--SeanS 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Idea for improvement

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. DaleHoward 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

trump

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[2] LOL! Maybe Richard Dawkins, "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against William Lane Craig if he wanted to! :) conservative 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. JDWpianist 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? LloydR 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--IDuan 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--Andy Schlafly 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? LloydR 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. Nate 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? LloydR 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of jus sanguinis in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. JDWpianist 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the 14th Amendment -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? LloydR 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--Andy Schlafly 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. LloydR 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--Andy Schlafly 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" LloydR 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:

"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.

"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."

From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". BradB 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--Andy Schlafly 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?LloydR 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. BradB 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? AugustO 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. LloydR 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has."

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. LloydR 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

See above.--Andy Schlafly 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? LloydR 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)