Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Bachmann might run in 2016

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:07:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.

The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.

Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in 2016.

"The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it"s going to be various men that are running," she replied. "They haven"t speculated, for instance, that I"m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there"s a chance I could run."

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Some of you might remember that I usually used Elephant Watcher, a political blog site that analyzed the 2012 GOP nomination race and some of the election, to see how different candidates would do. Sadly, something happened to the blogger and the site and he never finished his calculations or polling. I would like to quickly run Bachmann's strengths and weaknesses according to the site:

Strengths:
1. Voters consider Bachmann a solid conservative across the board. She is a key representative of the Tea Party in Congress.
2. Despite her relative junior status in Congress, Bachmann has found it easy to draw attention and TV time.
Weaknesses:
1. Bachmann is considered an unconventional, unelectable candidate by most outside her base.
2. While Bachmann speaks passionately to her supporters, her rhetorical capabilities have not enabled her to reach beyond her base. She is gaffe-prone, and the liberal media delight in highlighting each one.
3. Bachmann's liberal enemies view her more as a laughingstock than a serious opponent. This attitude does not inspire confidence in Bachmann's abilities among fence-sitters.
4. Bachmann is often disparagingly referred to as a lesser version of Sarah Palin. She doesn't have as much baggage as Palin, but she doesn't have Palin's high profile either.

http://www.elephantwatcher.com...

Overall, I think if any of the GOP 2012 candidates were to run again in 2016, the weakest would be Bachmann for these reasons and I really think she is as unlikely to get the nomination as last time. Remember she fell apart as soon as Perry rolled in and never came back. Scary eyes doesn't help either.

If she were to win the nomination, she would need a huge centrist to cover a lot of ground (and VP candidates can make a difference as low as 1% or as great as 5% in elections). She is simply too far right for the election.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:16:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:07:36 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.

The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.

Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in 2016.

"The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it"s going to be various men that are running," she replied. "They haven"t speculated, for instance, that I"m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there"s a chance I could run."

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Some of you might remember that I usually used Elephant Watcher, a political blog site that analyzed the 2012 GOP nomination race and some of the election, to see how different candidates would do. Sadly, something happened to the blogger and the site and he never finished his calculations or polling. I would like to quickly run Bachmann's strengths and weaknesses according to the site:

Strengths:
1. Voters consider Bachmann a solid conservative across the board. She is a key representative of the Tea Party in Congress.
2. Despite her relative junior status in Congress, Bachmann has found it easy to draw attention and TV time.
Weaknesses:
1. Bachmann is considered an unconventional, unelectable candidate by most outside her base.
2. While Bachmann speaks passionately to her supporters, her rhetorical capabilities have not enabled her to reach beyond her base. She is gaffe-prone, and the liberal media delight in highlighting each one.
3. Bachmann's liberal enemies view her more as a laughingstock than a serious opponent. This attitude does not inspire confidence in Bachmann's abilities among fence-sitters.
4. Bachmann is often disparagingly referred to as a lesser version of Sarah Palin. She doesn't have as much baggage as Palin, but she doesn't have Palin's high profile either.

http://www.elephantwatcher.com...

Overall, I think if any of the GOP 2012 candidates were to run again in 2016, the weakest would be Bachmann for these reasons and I really think she is as unlikely to get the nomination as last time. Remember she fell apart as soon as Perry rolled in and never came back. Scary eyes doesn't help either.

If she were to win the nomination, she would need a huge centrist to cover a lot of ground (and VP candidates can make a difference as low as 1% or as great as 5% in elections). She is simply too far right for the election.

Good. If she runs and gets the nom, Hillary will obviously win, though I agree that it is extremely doubtful that will happen. Still, her running would seriously diminish the already abysmal reputation of the GOP. The only chance they have in getting in the white house is if they don't nominate a tea party sympathizer, but nominate someone who actually knows what they're doing and who is a sensible republican.

I would suggest Chris Christie as one example of this, but there is a large - practically obese - reason that he wouldn't get elected... the bridge scandal... what were you thinking? (insert laughter at cheesy joke) :p
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:23:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:16:45 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 7/22/2014 9:07:36 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.

The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.

Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in 2016.

"The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it"s going to be various men that are running," she replied. "They haven"t speculated, for instance, that I"m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there"s a chance I could run."

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Some of you might remember that I usually used Elephant Watcher, a political blog site that analyzed the 2012 GOP nomination race and some of the election, to see how different candidates would do. Sadly, something happened to the blogger and the site and he never finished his calculations or polling. I would like to quickly run Bachmann's strengths and weaknesses according to the site:

Strengths:
1. Voters consider Bachmann a solid conservative across the board. She is a key representative of the Tea Party in Congress.
2. Despite her relative junior status in Congress, Bachmann has found it easy to draw attention and TV time.
Weaknesses:
1. Bachmann is considered an unconventional, unelectable candidate by most outside her base.
2. While Bachmann speaks passionately to her supporters, her rhetorical capabilities have not enabled her to reach beyond her base. She is gaffe-prone, and the liberal media delight in highlighting each one.
3. Bachmann's liberal enemies view her more as a laughingstock than a serious opponent. This attitude does not inspire confidence in Bachmann's abilities among fence-sitters.
4. Bachmann is often disparagingly referred to as a lesser version of Sarah Palin. She doesn't have as much baggage as Palin, but she doesn't have Palin's high profile either.

http://www.elephantwatcher.com...

Overall, I think if any of the GOP 2012 candidates were to run again in 2016, the weakest would be Bachmann for these reasons and I really think she is as unlikely to get the nomination as last time. Remember she fell apart as soon as Perry rolled in and never came back. Scary eyes doesn't help either.

If she were to win the nomination, she would need a huge centrist to cover a lot of ground (and VP candidates can make a difference as low as 1% or as great as 5% in elections). She is simply too far right for the election.

Good. If she runs and gets the nom, Hillary will obviously win, though I agree that it is extremely doubtful that will happen. Still, her running would seriously diminish the already abysmal reputation of the GOP. The only chance they have in getting in the white house is if they don't nominate a tea party sympathizer, but nominate someone who actually knows what they're doing and who is a sensible republican.

I would suggest Chris Christie as one example of this, but there is a large - practically obese - reason that he wouldn't get elected... the bridge scandal... what were you thinking? (insert laughter at cheesy joke) :p

A thing about scandals. Remember when Gingrich ran and the scandals of him and his past marital affairs didn't hurt him (in fact helped if you look at that SC debate). As time goes on the surprise of a something scandalous gets less interesting to a point in an election where voters will go "Yeah, yeah we know that." Now look at Herman Cain. When the scandal hit his campaign fell apart, but because is it known he would have a chance in 2016 since it is old news.

As for Bachmann, both political parties have far right and far left people. I don't think it hurts their party but it shows what the opinion is of that side. It only hurts if that candidate gets nominated, which won't happen in a political party unless the opportunity and political situation allows it.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:54:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As for Bachmann, both political parties have far right and far left people. I don't think it hurts their party but it shows what the opinion is of that side. It only hurts if that candidate gets nominated, which won't happen in a political party unless the opportunity and political situation allows it.

Much easier to make a laughingstock out of Bachmann than a democrat that is far left.

I like everyone who is near the centre, and is reasonable on most turn issues - being things that the population is actually opinionated about (ex: gay marriage, abortion, etc).

Far right conservatives are far more blatant in their unreasonableness on these turn issues that, for whatever reason, the population is so dedicated to. Far leftists are less distinguishable. This allows comedians and the media to have a party with far right conservatives, making them a laughingstock and thus the image of the GOP further tarnished.

I think the republican party would have a harder time nominating a very far right conservative like Bachmann than the democrats would nominating a very far leftist. The ideal scenario for both parties is that they nominate a candidate that is centre-left/right and the other doesn't.

Bachmann nominated = loss for the GOP unless the democrats don't nominate Hillary and come out with some crazy extreme leftist, whom themselves are rare.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:11:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:54:01 PM, Daltonian wrote:
As for Bachmann, both political parties have far right and far left people. I don't think it hurts their party but it shows what the opinion is of that side. It only hurts if that candidate gets nominated, which won't happen in a political party unless the opportunity and political situation allows it.

Much easier to make a laughingstock out of Bachmann than a democrat that is far left.

I like everyone who is near the centre, and is reasonable on most turn issues - being things that the population is actually opinionated about (ex: gay marriage, abortion, etc).

Far right conservatives are far more blatant in their unreasonableness on these turn issues that, for whatever reason, the population is so dedicated to. Far leftists are less distinguishable. This allows comedians and the media to have a party with far right conservatives, making them a laughingstock and thus the image of the GOP further tarnished.

I think the republican party would have a harder time nominating a very far right conservative like Bachmann than the democrats would nominating a very far leftist. The ideal scenario for both parties is that they nominate a candidate that is centre-left/right and the other doesn't.

In this election cycle yes, but the population of the country could change. Franklin Roosevelt could get elected in 1932 but never in 1980. Reagan would not get elected in 1932, but he could in 1980. These two represent as far left and as far right presidents as we got. They aren't really radicals in their party and anyone who says so is foolish, but politicians strong with their ideology can get elected. Nixon would be the opposite having made himself a strong moderate and waiting in the background until the right moment in 1968

Bachmann nominated = loss for the GOP unless the democrats don't nominate Hillary and come out with some crazy extreme leftist, whom themselves are rare.

There are "extreme crazy leftists though":

Elizabeth Warren
Michael Moore
Bill Maher
Bernie Sanders

Although I disagree calling people crazy. Strong ideologues or far leftists is better, but these people are far from crazy, just offering different ideas.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:20:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are "extreme crazy leftists though":

Elizabeth Warren
Michael Moore
Bill Maher
Bernie Sanders

Although I disagree calling people crazy. Strong ideologues or far leftists is better, but these people are far from crazy, just offering different ideas.

Agree on Warren, Sanders, and Moore to different extents, but not Bill Maher, I think he just hates most republicans to such an extent that it makes him appear as if he's some sort of extreme leftist. By the few times I've watched him, he seems to be critical of Obama on some issues as well.

In other words, he's not an extreme liberal, he's extremely against people like Bachmann and Palin. Or even people like Romney and Gingrich. For a while, he had a semi-endorsement of Chris Christie going on.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:23:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bachmann didn't even get close in 2012 when the Republican field was infinitely worse than it looks to be in 2016, so her candidacy would be, at most, a laughable sideshow.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:25:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:23:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
Bachmann didn't even get close in 2012 when the Republican field was infinitely worse than it looks to be in 2016, so her candidacy would be, at most, a laughable sideshow.

^Agreed. Her mere presence amongst the field in 2016 would tarnish their image and make them comparable to the field in 2012 to outsiders or whomever may be inclining to switch and vote GOP in 2016.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:35:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:25:02 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:23:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
Bachmann didn't even get close in 2012 when the Republican field was infinitely worse than it looks to be in 2016, so her candidacy would be, at most, a laughable sideshow.

^Agreed. Her mere presence amongst the field in 2016 would tarnish their image and make them comparable to the field in 2012 to outsiders or whomever may be inclining to switch and vote GOP in 2016.

Yeah, it's hard to tell what the effect of having wackjobs being considered for candidates affects the parties image, but I imagine it's definitely there. Who wants to be associated with Michele Bachmann?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:44:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:25:02 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:23:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
Bachmann didn't even get close in 2012 when the Republican field was infinitely worse than it looks to be in 2016, so her candidacy would be, at most, a laughable sideshow.

^Agreed. Her mere presence amongst the field in 2016 would tarnish their image and make them comparable to the field in 2012 to outsiders or whomever may be inclining to switch and vote GOP in 2016.

It actually does not tarnish the party's image unless she is nominated. The whole point of having a primary is to find the candidate does represent that party's image. Bachmann did not even captured of 5% of voters in the primaries. She isn't an evil image for the GOP in the primary if she does terrible because it shows how many GOP voters reject such thoughts.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It actually does not tarnish the party's image unless she is nominated. The whole point of having a primary is to find the candidate does represent that party's image. Bachmann did not even captured of 5% of voters in the primaries. She isn't an evil image for the GOP in the primary if she does terrible because it shows how many GOP voters reject such thoughts.

It's unreasonable to purport that it doesn't tarnish the party's image at all. It makes people far more reluctant to vote for a republican unless I've thoroughly researched him, the logic being that the nominee might be a Bachmann type. Most people might not research as far as I do when I vote.

Bachmann is a shining image of what the tea party faction of the GOP stands for, and the tea party is what makes most people think that the entire GOP is an embarrassment. Bachmann standing up there at the podium in the primary and acting like an idiot in front of millions of potential voters does indeed tarnish the immediate reputation of everyone the political party which inevitably permitted her to be there. Of course, if people actually go and investigate afterwards, they may come to the conclusion you have suggested, but the vast majority of Americans are not that involved in politics to the extent to do that.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:17:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:56:01 PM, Daltonian wrote:
It actually does not tarnish the party's image unless she is nominated. The whole point of having a primary is to find the candidate does represent that party's image. Bachmann did not even captured of 5% of voters in the primaries. She isn't an evil image for the GOP in the primary if she does terrible because it shows how many GOP voters reject such thoughts.

It's unreasonable to purport that it doesn't tarnish the party's image at all. It makes people far more reluctant to vote for a republican unless I've thoroughly researched him, the logic being that the nominee might be a Bachmann type. Most people might not research as far as I do when I vote.

Bachmann is a shining image of what the tea party faction of the GOP stands for, and the tea party is what makes most people think that the entire GOP is an embarrassment. Bachmann standing up there at the podium in the primary and acting like an idiot in front of millions of potential voters does indeed tarnish the immediate reputation of everyone the political party which inevitably permitted her to be there. Of course, if people actually go and investigate afterwards, they may come to the conclusion you have suggested, but the vast majority of Americans are not that involved in politics to the extent to do that.

I disagree. Take for example the Senate race in Indiana and Missouri where Republicans lost easy elections because of gaffes, but Romney still won them on the presidential level, so they did not have that effect. As I have said, time makes things irrelevant. Do you really think any voter in November had Michelle Bachmann on their minds when they choose between Romney and Obama? No, the two presidential candidates were what mattered. The "You didn't build that" the 47% comment. Those are what mattered. The voters' reaction to the debates, the economy, foreign policy. Comments made by one Republican who is not known well except by Republicans interested in the primaries and far left news channels that made fun of her did not sink the GOP's bid for the presidency.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:26:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:17:20 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:56:01 PM, Daltonian wrote:
It actually does not tarnish the party's image unless she is nominated. The whole point of having a primary is to find the candidate does represent that party's image. Bachmann did not even captured of 5% of voters in the primaries. She isn't an evil image for the GOP in the primary if she does terrible because it shows how many GOP voters reject such thoughts.

It's unreasonable to purport that it doesn't tarnish the party's image at all. It makes people far more reluctant to vote for a republican unless I've thoroughly researched him, the logic being that the nominee might be a Bachmann type. Most people might not research as far as I do when I vote.

Bachmann is a shining image of what the tea party faction of the GOP stands for, and the tea party is what makes most people think that the entire GOP is an embarrassment. Bachmann standing up there at the podium in the primary and acting like an idiot in front of millions of potential voters does indeed tarnish the immediate reputation of everyone the political party which inevitably permitted her to be there. Of course, if people actually go and investigate afterwards, they may come to the conclusion you have suggested, but the vast majority of Americans are not that involved in politics to the extent to do that.

I disagree. Take for example the Senate race in Indiana and Missouri where Republicans lost easy elections because of gaffes, but Romney still won them on the presidential level, so they did not have that effect. As I have said, time makes things irrelevant. Do you really think any voter in November had Michelle Bachmann on their minds when they choose between Romney and Obama? No, the two presidential candidates were what mattered. The "You didn't build that" the 47% comment. Those are what mattered. The voters' reaction to the debates, the economy, foreign policy. Comments made by one Republican who is not known well except by Republicans interested in the primaries and far left news channels that made fun of her did not sink the GOP's bid for the presidency.

It won't sink their bid for the presidency if she runs, it will just tarnish the image of the GOP in general. Most people know who Bachmann is as of now, that's just the power of the media, her comments about vaccines went viral and she herself has become a "creepy eyes meme"

I actually agree with the essence of what you said. Things like Bachmann, when it comes down to it, are irrelevant in terms of the presidency.

All I meant to say is that Bachmann's existence diminishes the reputation of the party, not of the presidential candidate who actually gets nominated.

I retain the essence of my point that a wackjob on the front lines of a party diminishes their reception, but concede in exactly how much it tarnishes their image. You're right that the presidency won't be effected, but it's still unreasonable to say that she is totally irrelevant and people will just dismiss her existence. People don't do that. People like stupid people. People like to talk about stupid people, because people are stupid.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:46:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:26:33 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 7/22/2014 11:17:20 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:56:01 PM, Daltonian wrote:
It actually does not tarnish the party's image unless she is nominated. The whole point of having a primary is to find the candidate does represent that party's image. Bachmann did not even captured of 5% of voters in the primaries. She isn't an evil image for the GOP in the primary if she does terrible because it shows how many GOP voters reject such thoughts.

It's unreasonable to purport that it doesn't tarnish the party's image at all. It makes people far more reluctant to vote for a republican unless I've thoroughly researched him, the logic being that the nominee might be a Bachmann type. Most people might not research as far as I do when I vote.

Bachmann is a shining image of what the tea party faction of the GOP stands for, and the tea party is what makes most people think that the entire GOP is an embarrassment. Bachmann standing up there at the podium in the primary and acting like an idiot in front of millions of potential voters does indeed tarnish the immediate reputation of everyone the political party which inevitably permitted her to be there. Of course, if people actually go and investigate afterwards, they may come to the conclusion you have suggested, but the vast majority of Americans are not that involved in politics to the extent to do that.

I disagree. Take for example the Senate race in Indiana and Missouri where Republicans lost easy elections because of gaffes, but Romney still won them on the presidential level, so they did not have that effect. As I have said, time makes things irrelevant. Do you really think any voter in November had Michelle Bachmann on their minds when they choose between Romney and Obama? No, the two presidential candidates were what mattered. The "You didn't build that" the 47% comment. Those are what mattered. The voters' reaction to the debates, the economy, foreign policy. Comments made by one Republican who is not known well except by Republicans interested in the primaries and far left news channels that made fun of her did not sink the GOP's bid for the presidency.

It won't sink their bid for the presidency if she runs, it will just tarnish the image of the GOP in general. Most people know who Bachmann is as of now, that's just the power of the media, her comments about vaccines went viral and she herself has become a "creepy eyes meme"

I beg to differ that it tarnishes the image when the whole point of an image is to get people to vote for you and as I have said no one was thinking about Bachmann's gaffes when they were pulling the lever. Could you please show me the viral video, because I found videos of her saying it as high as the tens of thousands. Again nothing significant because I assure you she is in no one way a well known politician. I believe the O'Reilly Factor did a Watters World segment once where he showed pictures of various candidates and no one knew who Bachmann was.

I actually agree with the essence of what you said. Things like Bachmann, when it comes down to it, are irrelevant in terms of the presidency.

Ok, then it cannot damage the image of a GOP presidential campaign.

All I meant to say is that Bachmann's existence diminishes the reputation of the party, not of the presidential candidate who actually gets nominated.

The party has had crazy people for many years and there image has not been killed. Also, by what extent? Because if you can find scientific evidence at least 5% of people are not Republican because of Bachmann's comments then I will agree with you.

I retain the essence of my point that a wackjob on the front lines of a party diminishes their reception, but concede in exactly how much it tarnishes their image. You're right that the presidency won't be effected, but it's still unreasonable to say that she is totally irrelevant and people will just dismiss her existence. People don't do that. People like stupid people. People like to talk about stupid people, because people are stupid.

Except she wasn't on the front lines ever. Maybe Obamacare, but a grand majority of Americans side with the GOP on that. I only believe she is relevant to Republican votes in the primaries and would be relevant to anyone else if she was the nominee, but she never came close. If you don't know how much it has tarnished the GOP who is to say she tarnished it at all.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:07:36 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.

The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.

Wouldn't any evaluation of Bachmann's potential candidacy depend heavily on the results of the FBI and Grand Jury investigations against her? It is hard to know how well protected she is against actual culpability, but it's pretty clear that Ron Paul's campaign paid her campaign manager, Kent Sorenson $100,000 to join Paul's campaign and then Bachmann paid even more to get him back. Since Sorenson was a State Senator at the time, some fairly significant felony bribery charges are possible. Sorenson failed to hide the money, so it looks like his goose is cooked. The question remains whether he'll flip on Bachmann and/or Paul. While unlikely, jail time for Bachmann is a potential if she did not cover her tracks sufficiently. Even so, were she to run for President again, she would need to avoid Iowa altogether since it seems she created significant ill-will with GOP operatives in that state and has probably made all kinds of usual under-the-table payoffs much harder to pull off in the 2016 run-up. I doubt her candidacy could get up much steam without Iowa and if she did pull it off she'd remain open to a lot of criticism from the media and her fellow candidates.

Consider also the big swing in the last few years on the issue of gay rights. The Bachmanns made a fair amount of money trying to "fix" people with ex-gay therapy: a practice now tracked by the SPLC as a hate crime and against the law in an increasing number of states. Bachmann would have to run a complete 180 on such practices or go nowhere in the polls.

Besides, remaining a spokesperson for Fox News is likely to be a lot more lucrative.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:44:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 11:56:55 PM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/22/2014 9:07:36 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.

The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House run.

Wouldn't any evaluation of Bachmann's potential candidacy depend heavily on the results of the FBI and Grand Jury investigations against her? It is hard to know how well protected she is against actual culpability, but it's pretty clear that Ron Paul's campaign paid her campaign manager, Kent Sorenson $100,000 to join Paul's campaign and then Bachmann paid even more to get him back. Since Sorenson was a State Senator at the time, some fairly significant felony bribery charges are possible. Sorenson failed to hide the money, so it looks like his goose is cooked. The question remains whether he'll flip on Bachmann and/or Paul. While unlikely, jail time for Bachmann is a potential if she did not cover her tracks sufficiently. Even so, were she to run for President again, she would need to avoid Iowa altogether since it seems she created significant ill-will with GOP operatives in that state and has probably made all kinds of usual under-the-table payoffs much harder to pull off in the 2016 run-up. I doubt her candidacy could get up much steam without Iowa and if she did pull it off she'd remain open to a lot of criticism from the media and her fellow candidates.

That makes it no doubt difficult for her. According to Elephant Watcher:

"Bachmann must win early primaries in South Carolina and (especially) Iowa, where her base is perceived to reside. If she can't win her base, she can't win anywhere. She must also transform her image in order to be taken more seriously. Her best opportunity is to use her position in Congress: She may gain gravitas by producing and leading the charge on some important, original, intelligent piece of legislation. Were she to become an absolute expert on it, those with open minds could view her as a knowledgeable candidate.

Bachmann must avoid gaffes at all costs. She cannot do anything that might create an impression in voters' minds of her being a "weird" or extreme candidate."

Basically Bachmann;'s biggest asset could have been proposing new kinds of unique legislation to enhance her image and get voters thinking. She obviously didn't do that, but that isn't to say she can't play her cards right this time and I think this is her last chance. When she leaves Congress she will probably just be an activist in the Tea Party.

Consider also the big swing in the last few years on the issue of gay rights. The Bachmanns made a fair amount of money trying to "fix" people with ex-gay therapy: a practice now tracked by the SPLC as a hate crime and against the law in an increasing number of states. Bachmann would have to run a complete 180 on such practices or go nowhere in the polls.

Besides, remaining a spokesperson for Fox News is likely to be a lot more lucrative.

If Bachmann runs like she did in 2012 she will lose, however there is a way she can win, and its not 180, maybe just 30 or 40. She would have to reinvent herself in the time given between now and January 2015 as a conservative, but no longer on the far right in order to please more people. As a congressman and senator in the 1940s, Richard Nixon was clearly a strong conservative, but during the VP years he reinvented himself as centrist. In 1960, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on some issues (tax cuts most notably). However, Nixon was able to try again with a better strategy in 1968 and won.

People can make comebacks and Bachmann could, but she is not the political genius Richard Nixon was. He had a good eight years to reinvent himself and she has eight months. Such a quick change on issues could be damaging for her. However if I was her I'd take the Fox News bid.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:07:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:44:34 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:

180, maybe just 30 or 40.

I agree. In fact, 180 would hurt her more than help. A little moderation goes a long a way.

People can make comebacks and Bachmann could, but she is not the political genius Richard Nixon was.

She's no Nixon, that's for sure . But we're not really in an era that needs or wants a Machiavelli.

I was not much of Steve Jobs fan in life, but his legacy and value became apparent after his death. Jobs started with the end product and found out what was needed to make it happen. We have plenty of experts in politics, plenty of people who know how things are (Clinton may perhaps be the best of these now). I wonder if there's a politician out there who understands what America could and should be the way Jobs knew what a computer could be? Someone who is less interested in counting coupe for red team/blue team and more interested in redefining America as a product, a brand, a movement? They'd have to be a hell of a lot more likable than Jobs, of course, but are there any really savvy politicians who might bring Job's kind of leadership to a National vision? If one exists would we let that sort of person lead?
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:25:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:07:14 AM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/23/2014 12:44:34 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:

180, maybe just 30 or 40.

I agree. In fact, 180 would hurt her more than help. A little moderation goes a long a way.

People can make comebacks and Bachmann could, but she is not the political genius Richard Nixon was.

She's no Nixon, that's for sure . But we're not really in an era that needs or wants a Machiavelli.

I was not much of Steve Jobs fan in life, but his legacy and value became apparent after his death. Jobs started with the end product and found out what was needed to make it happen. We have plenty of experts in politics, plenty of people who know how things are (Clinton may perhaps be the best of these now). I wonder if there's a politician out there who understands what America could and should be the way Jobs knew what a computer could be? Someone who is less interested in counting coupe for red team/blue team and more interested in redefining America as a product, a brand, a movement? They'd have to be a hell of a lot more likable than Jobs, of course, but are there any really savvy politicians who might bring Job's kind of leadership to a National vision? If one exists would we let that sort of person lead?

Well I think Rand Paul is as anti-Machiavellian as you get. His father built up the libertarian movement for him and now it seems the younger Paul is more accepted in media. I think his ideology gives him a good opportunity to get to the White House and I think the GOP establishment would prefer a foreign interventionist, but might think it would be okay for Paul to win to please a new wave of libertarians and constitutional conservatives.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:42:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 1:25:14 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:

Well I think Rand Paul is as anti-Machiavellian as you get.

I don't know him well enough yet to agree but there's no doubt his father had that requisite clarity of vision beyond political gain or vanity. Ron may have been too uncompromising to gain the executive but Rand has certainly demonstrated a greater degree of savvy, moderation, & compromise, so I'll acknowledge he has some potential as the type of visionary of which I spoke. I don't share that libertarian vision myself and I'm not convinced that small govt. can realistically compete in the Age of Asian Giants but I don't find fault with the theory and that theory has an undeniable American appeal.

Paul's problem is probably the opposite of Bachmann's. He has the chops for the general, but can he make friends with Fox and friends long enough to get through the primary? Most political analysts say no, but most political analysts are usually wrong.
YYW
Posts: 36,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 7:44:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bachmann might run, indeed. I do not expect that she will fare any better in this election than she has in the past, and for many of the same reasons.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:10:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When I first saw your post I read it as "Batman might run in 2016", and wondering why on earth should I be interested in politic of Gottham city...