Jump to content
IGNORED

Michelle Bachmann -- the Next POTUS?


demgirl

Recommended Posts

In my opinion...

Michelle Bachmann is what happens when the average American lowers its standards for media to the point that Fox News Channel is considered to be legitimate news reporting. All the media wants is ratings, and people now LOVE to watch train wrecks to the point where they can be taken seriously. There's virtually no difference between how Bachmann and Paris Hilton/the Kardashian sisters are presented. They are people who are famous for being famous. And they know the way to stay that way is to appear to be stupid and controversial.

People love to giggle guiltily about how they love watching shows like Jersey Shore, et al. They claim that it's just a harmless guilty pleasure, and it's fun to watch people who are so outrageous that it makes them feel better about themselves. But look what it has led to. Completely unqualified and idiotic people are voted into office because they know how to be "media darlings". And don't blame media for it, they're just delivering what the public wants.

Unless we raise our own standards and stop watching and giving attention to Bachmann and her ilk, then yes, she will do well in the polls. In our country right now, popularity=qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
In my opinion...

Michelle Bachmann is what happens when the average American lowers its standards for media to the point that Fox News Channel is considered to be legitimate news reporting. All the media wants is ratings, and people now LOVE to watch train wrecks to the point where they can be taken seriously. There's virtually no difference between how Bachmann and Paris Hilton/the Kardashian sisters are presented. They are people who are famous for being famous. And they know the way to stay that way is to appear to be stupid and controversial.

People love to giggle guiltily about how they love watching shows like Jersey Shore, et al. They claim that it's just a harmless guilty pleasure, and it's fun to watch people who are so outrageous that it makes them feel better about themselves. But look what it has led to. Completely unqualified and idiotic people are voted into office because they know how to be "media darlings". And don't blame media for it, they're just delivering what the public wants.

Unless we raise our own standards and stop watching and giving attention to Bachmann and her ilk, then yes, she will do well in the polls. In our country right now, popularity=qualified.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"-H.L. Mencken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except she's surging in the polls and that's after all the pray the gay away and slavery stuff came out.

She's surging with crazy primary voters. There is no way moderates or independents would vote for her. Obama would crush her in the general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she is definitely being pushed by the media. Honestly, I think most of the big people in television are extremely liberal and would rather a moderate, likeable candidate NOT run against Obama. And, yes, I'm sure there are moderate, likeable Republicans because every Republican I know personally falls under that category. The Republicans that run in local elections here seem to fall under that category.

Of course the media is pushing for her. They are addicted to the crazy. They know she would give them lots of story that is entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but the media won't push crazier Democratic candidates. They focus on conservative crazy. With, perhaps, the exception of Fox, which considers every liberal crazy apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys... I'm starting to worry.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -gop-field

She can't actually win this thing right? Can you imagine? It would be like having the Stinking Housewife in the White House. I know we have some anti-fundie Republicans around here... what would you do if she were the nominee?

We're still a year out. A LOT will change once we start getting into primaries. If you look back at elections, the whole field shifts once the serious primary campaigning begins. What would be interesting is if, with all the crazies running for the GOP nod, all the crazies cancel each other out and leave a more moderate person standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're still a year out. A LOT will change once we start getting into primaries. If you look back at elections, the whole field shifts once the serious primary campaigning begins. What would be interesting is if, with all the crazies running for the GOP nod, all the crazies cancel each other out and leave a more moderate person standing.

This time in the last election cycle, I believe John McCain was all but dead and people thought there was no way he would get the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For now, looks like I'm going to be talking with some of my Ron Paul supporting Republican friends and trying to sway them over to supporting Romney if it starts looking close, to keep this loon out of the running.

:D you made me smile when I read this!!! I urge you to continue your campaign, if you really do believe in Romney and don't like Ron Paul, but I really don't see Paulites going over to the Dark Side (which is how most of us view Romney).

The problem is fundamental: Romney is very pro-establishment and Paul is very anti-establishment. If you support Paul, you're not likely to support Romney, and vice-versa.

On the topic at hand-- no, I don't think Bachmann has a chance. Like another poster said-- even if she is surging in the polls now, the election is still over a year away. If she's still doing well in the polls next year, then I'd worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're still a year out. A LOT will change once we start getting into primaries. If you look back at elections, the whole field shifts once the serious primary campaigning begins. What would be interesting is if, with all the crazies running for the GOP nod, all the crazies cancel each other out and leave a more moderate person standing.

Honestly, at this point, I'd rather have one of the "crazies" win than another damn moderate. Why? Because no politician is "moderate;" they're simply really good actors if they seem moderate. Obama and Bush both tried to look like moderates, and neither are anything but stooges.

Bottom line: http://youtu.be/t63xY0VwLJU (George Carlin)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, at this point, I'd rather have one of the "crazies" win than another damn moderate. Why? Because no politician is "moderate;" they're simply really good actors if they seem moderate. Obama and Bush both tried to look like moderates, and neither are anything but stooges.

Bottom line: http://youtu.be/t63xY0VwLJU (George Carlin)

I don't think moderate means weak and ineffectual. It's another term rendered meaningless by the mud-slinging and hyperbole that passes for campaigning these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could she receive the Republican nomination? It's possible? Could she win the presidency? Doubtful. She wouldn't be able to win over Democratic or Independent voters. Within her own party, she might have many of the Republicans vote for her simply because they want to take the White House back, but the religious right, which she purports to represent, I don't think the majority would back her. When it comes to the likes of those who truly believe in Patriarchy, she's the opposite of what is preached. She has a career (regardless of her statement that her hubby guides her decisions), she's still the one in the position of leadership and power. What does that symbolize to the all the daughters in patriarchal families? Will they start to question their own fathers? I don't see them backing Bachmann. It would open up a huge can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could she receive the Republican nomination? It's possible? Could she win the presidency? Doubtful. She wouldn't be able to win over Democratic or Independent voters. Within her own party, she might have many of the Republicans vote for her simply because they want to take the White House back, but the religious right, which she purports to represent, I don't think the majority would back her. When it comes to the likes of those who truly believe in Patriarchy, she's the opposite of what is preached. She has a career (regardless of her statement that her hubby guides her decisions), she's still the one in the position of leadership and power. What does that symbolize to the all the daughters in patriarchal families? Will they start to question their own fathers? I don't see them backing Bachmann. It would open up a huge can of worms.

Those who support Patriarchy are not supporting her. People like Tony Perkins are part of Rick Perry's camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D you made me smile when I read this!!! I urge you to continue your campaign, if you really do believe in Romney and don't like Ron Paul, but I really don't see Paulites going over to the Dark Side (which is how most of us view Romney).

The problem is fundamental: Romney is very pro-establishment and Paul is very anti-establishment. If you support Paul, you're not likely to support Romney, and vice-versa.

On the topic at hand-- no, I don't think Bachmann has a chance. Like another poster said-- even if she is surging in the polls now, the election is still over a year away. If she's still doing well in the polls next year, then I'd worry.

That's the irony of it. I actually really like Ron Paul, but I think Romney is more electable and would rather see Romney vs. Obama than Bachman vs. Obama. One of the problems with the GOP is people get so attached to the concept of being ideologically "pure" or refusing to ever support a RINO that we end up fighting among ourselves.

All that has to happen for a weak candidate like McCain or Giuliani (or Romney, by some measures) to get in is to introduce at least 2 potential candidates that appeal to both the more conservative & more libertarian leaning Republicans. We get so hung up on "our" candidates & on badmouthing the other potential nominees that we've done a done of trash-talking them and nitpicking their records before the primaries, and all the opposing candidates have to do is pick that up and run with it.

It wouldn't totally surprise me to see Huckabee resurface at the last minute and throw things totally out of whack, especially if Bachman and/or Palin threw their support behind him. Then you have all of the people who support the outspokenly right-wing "Christian" loons on the same page, in a package that even the patrios would vote for because now it's a man running. (Yeah, I know too many conspiracy theorists, but the last election made me thing anything can happen.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the irony of it. I actually really like Ron Paul, but I think Romney is more electable and would rather see Romney vs. Obama than Bachman vs. Obama. One of the problems with the GOP is people get so attached to the concept of being ideologically "pure" or refusing to ever support a RINO that we end up fighting among ourselves.

This is a logical fallacy: I like him, but no one else does, thus he is unelectable and I shouldn't "waste" my vote on him.

But if everyone stopped being afraid of voting for a "loser," that loser might win. If you vote for someone you don't like, you lose-- because you provide support for someone you don't believe in-- and America loses, because you're just jumping on the bandwagon in electing another stooge. At some point, this cycle has to stop or there's no point in having a democracy: Establishment Stooge A vs. Establishment Stooge B isn't really a choice, and it's not very democratic.

edited for word choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked about this in the bringing-children-to-abortion-clinics thread, but here's a normal, middle-aged, middle-America view of someone who has been swayed by Fox News, courtesy of my dad:

"Do you facts to back that up (I way saying she was fucking insane)?"

I threw out the pray-the-gay-away bit and the fact that she never should have been elected in the first place due to her ridiculously gerrymandered district.

"Well, she's overcome a lot in her life (um... what?) and she's given a lot to charity (since when?) and she's done more good than harm (probably not)."

If she was the Republican nominee, my dad would vote for her without researching any alternatives. This is a college educated man who generally has common sense. He's been completely fooled, and unfortunately, he's not the only one. I guess I'll have to offset his vote with my own, because as much as I'm not a Democrat (I desperately hate things about both parties), this bitch can't be anywhere near the White House. Not that she will, since I'm 90% sure she has no chance at the nomination.

ETA: My wonderful father also said I, "really need to figure out my deal with religion (he hates that I'm an atheist)" because I dared to have a problem with praying the gay away. "Why is that any of your business if someone wants to do that?" Umm, if you have to ask, Dad, YOU need to figure out YOUR deal with religion. I repeat, this is a COLLEGE EDUCATED, NORMAL person, who would vote for this crazy bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't totally surprise me to see Huckabee resurface at the last minute and throw things totally out of whack, especially if Bachman and/or Palin threw their support behind him. Then you have all of the people who support the outspokenly right-wing "Christian" loons on the same page, in a package that even the patrios would vote for because now it's a man running. (Yeah, I know too many conspiracy theorists, but the last election made me thing anything can happen.)

I think that will only happen if Rick Perry crash and burns since like I said, Perry is getting a lot of support for the Huckabee/Patriarchy wing of the party who while they love Michelle Bachman, they could never vote for her over a man.

ETA: And speaking of those crazies, Rachel Maddow mentioned tonight that Tony Perkins along with a couple of others who have been begging him to run for the nomination, are now officially backing Perry's The Response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, when reading polls like that you must keep a few things in mind:

1) Most polling is done via automated systems that ask people to press 1 for Candidate A, 2 for Candidate B, and so on. The average person does not have time for that crap and in many cases even those who would be interested in participating in a poll hang up before they find out it is a poll because they hear those annoying computer voice pauses and don't wait to see who is calling. Caller ID has had a staggering effect on these kinds of polls because younger phone users seldom answer their phone without checking the name of the caller and may not answer if the name is not known to them.

2) Those polls are by their very nature skewed toward a specific type of person. For example:

--They are land-line heavy and therefore are unlikely to reach college students who are generally cell-phone-only users. My husband and I are middle-aged and most of the people we know of a similar age use only cell phones and therefore we are seldom contacted for these polls.

--Moreover, those who use cells only trend in urban areas, so landline-only folk are going to be in smaller towns, especially in the so-called Heartland, the very people most likely to find Bachmann appealing.

--Retirees who are home during the day and people who still have landlines as their main form of phone communication (a demographic that trends toward lower-middle class and a key part of the Tea Party) are most likely to take those polls, effectively cutting out a large section of the Republican base who may be less Teabaggery in their decision-calculus where political candidates are concerned.

3) News polls are notoriously crappy because they do nothing to combat the problems created in #2. For example, Rasmussen generally employs actual people to call and find people of specific demographics. They will find people of all economic, racial and age demographics by eliminating those whose information they have enough of. In phone polls, people give their preferences and then indicate their demographics. If a poll is all white men of retirement age in a specific income bracket, no one cares in news polls because the object is to get numbers, not a statistically representative poll.

So I would not worry that much. By the very nature of the sorts of polls news agencies conduct, they are more likely to get people who find a candidate like Bachmann appealing. There are always exceptions, but the lower-middle class, white retiree with a landline as his or her main means of communication are the people who generally take the polls like the one presented here, and they are Bachmann's bread and butter. This is not a value-laden statement on my end because having worked in Texas politics, I could tell you some stories about the sorts of people who support Governor Goodhair Rick Perry. It just is what it is - modern polls trend older and conservative when they are not in the hands of polling professionals.

Perry is a jerkass who is pandering too hard for the fundies. He's too creepy and has run Texas into the ground - he will merely be a spoiler amongst those who want to ban abortion, teach evolution and end all taxes forever and ever in a magical place called Libertarian in My Pocket, Police-State in My Street. Fiscal conservatives and milder social conservatives will go for Romney while Bachmann and Perry duke it out for the same people, if Perry actually enters the race. I'm calling it now, and politics changes so I will likely have egg on my face, but Romney will win the GOP nomination, and Obama will win in 2012. And the polls will likely get it wrong every step of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a lot of faith left in my country anymore, but I do have faith that Bachmann will never be president. Look at what Palin did to McCain's shot at being prez. And I'd take Palin over Bachmann any day of the week and twice on Sundays (and that is really hard to say, considering.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, that was my point. That part of the religious right that are considered "patriarchs" wouldn't vote for Bachmann. That's a significant amount of your parties votes to lose. So she could receive the nomination, but not win the election. The Republican party would have to put up a conservative man as the nominee to entice their vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'd take Palin over Bachmann any day of the week and twice on Sundays (and that is really hard to say, considering.).

THIS. As a registered Republican, I can't stand Bachmann. I'd take pretty much anyone else over her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this, and I'm starting to wonder if Bachmann is a Republican red herring. I wonder if she's being put out there as someone extreme and rather crazy so that the other (male) candidates will be more palatable when they throw their hats in the ring. She's a woman, so they know she wouldn't really get nominated anyway. I think McCain chose Palin soley because he thought it would get him votes from Conservative women, not because she was qualified.

I know, I sound a bit paranoid, but consider the material to be worked with here. Not exactly known for being up-front and honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.