Report: Cain "Reassessing" Whether To Stay In Race

The Viking wrote:

chickaree wrote: Maybe this will open up the field for a credible candidate that can actually give Obama a run.

Who though?

Johnson? Huntsman? Even Paul. Any of these would be an improvement over the current media darlings.

lionshead2010 wrote:

chickaree wrote: Maybe this will open up the field for a credible candidate that can actually give Obama a run.

You would hope but the reality is that all it will really do is ensure that the GOP machine will produce a candidate who IS NOT viable or electable.....and ultimately this will result in the re-election of President Obama. It's too late for anyone else to play on this field. The nominee will be Romney and the press, assisted by the ultraconservatives, will rip him apart. Obama will be reelected. Perfect eh?

With Cain out that would leave about 65% (25% Romney and 10% Paul nutjobs) anti Romney votes to choose someone else. Bachmann doesn't have to money to last if she comes in 3rd or 4th in Iowa. She said last week she really needs to win. So it will be between Newt and Perry. Newt will win if he can withstand his past. But he has less than $3 million. Perry will have between $25-$30 million and so does Romney. it will be interesting to see how Michelle does in Iowa. Huntsman is only running in one state. Haven't figured that one out. How does he expect to win a nationwide race putting all his eggs in one state and no organization anywehre else?

chickaree wrote:

The Viking wrote:

chickaree wrote: Maybe this will open up the field for a credible candidate that can actually give Obama a run.

Who though?

Johnson? Huntsman? Even Paul. Any of these would be an improvement over the current media darlings.

Johnson is a whiner and I lost all respect for him. He didn't get in quick and didn't qualify for the ballots and he wants them to change the rules for him to get in the debates or he said this weekend he hust may show them and run as a third party. If he does, he will be an Obama supporter. Paul will never get the votes of anyone who wants to protect this nation. He would never break 20% in a one on one race. And Hutsman like I said is only running in NH right now. No where else.

The Viking wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote:

chickaree wrote: Maybe this will open up the field for a credible candidate that can actually give Obama a run.

You would hope but the reality is that all it will really do is ensure that the GOP machine will produce a candidate who IS NOT viable or electable.....and ultimately this will result in the re-election of President Obama. It's too late for anyone else to play on this field. The nominee will be Romney and the press, assisted by the ultraconservatives, will rip him apart. Obama will be reelected. Perfect eh?

With Cain out that would leave about 65% (25% Romney and 10% Paul nutjobs) anti Romney votes to choose someone else. Bachmann doesn't have to money to last if she comes in 3rd or 4th in Iowa. She said last week she really needs to win. So it will be between Newt and Perry. Newt will win if he can withstand his past. But he has less than $3 million. Perry will have between $25-$30 million and so does Romney. it will be interesting to see how Michelle does in Iowa. Huntsman is only running in one state. Haven't figured that one out. How does he expect to win a nationwide race putting all his eggs in one state and no organization anywehre else?

Perry reminds too many people of Bush II. To use Herman Cain's words..."it ain't gonna happen." The nation will not elect a George Bush look alike. We have 50 states...let's find a candidate from any other state than Texas. Take your pick.

lionshead2010 wrote:

The Viking wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote:

chickaree wrote: Maybe this will open up the field for a credible candidate that can actually give Obama a run.

You would hope but the reality is that all it will really do is ensure that the GOP machine will produce a candidate who IS NOT viable or electable.....and ultimately this will result in the re-election of President Obama. It's too late for anyone else to play on this field. The nominee will be Romney and the press, assisted by the ultraconservatives, will rip him apart. Obama will be reelected. Perfect eh?

With Cain out that would leave about 65% (25% Romney and 10% Paul nutjobs) anti Romney votes to choose someone else. Bachmann doesn't have to money to last if she comes in 3rd or 4th in Iowa. She said last week she really needs to win. So it will be between Newt and Perry. Newt will win if he can withstand his past. But he has less than $3 million. Perry will have between $25-$30 million and so does Romney. it will be interesting to see how Michelle does in Iowa. Huntsman is only running in one state. Haven't figured that one out. How does he expect to win a nationwide race putting all his eggs in one state and no organization anywehre else?

Perry reminds too many people of Bush II. To use Herman Cain's words..."it ain't gonna happen." The nation will not elect a George Bush look alike. We have 50 states...let's find a candidate from any other state than Texas. Take your pick.

But that is what I don't understand. So if there were an inside trader from your town who cost people millions, would you think it fair to be judged by that persons actions as you move forward if you were a trader? And why aren't people looking at the records? If you put the records side by side and took out the names, it would not even be a close race. And why dis Texas when they have produced most of the jobs over the last decade and during this recession? Why do you want to pick someone from a state that didn't even come close to that or even lost jobs? None of that makes sense. Perry is NOT George Bush. I love how the media influences people to think that though. There are tens of millions of people in Texas. They are not all George Bush. Everyone is different. In fact Perry took on Bush and they have a beef because Perry did not like the spending Bush did. Why won't people look at the facts instead of just listening to the media?

Viking. I totally understand your logic. The problem is you are giving the American electorate waaaaay too much credit. Remember...these are the same people who put President Obama in office. The next President of the US will be either elected or reelected on some superficial BS. We will install, or reinstall that person in office and then spend the next four years scratching our collective head on "how the hell this guy/gal got in office."

This reminds me of watching the movie Titanic. You already know how it ends but it's fun to hope we are going to miss the iceberg. We won't. rofllol

I was under the thought, that most of the jobs created in Texas were government jobs?

I don't get why you think Texas is some kind of economic paradise, Viking. The only state with a higher poverty rate is Mississippi. And it only got worse with Perry in office.

AspenValley wrote: I don't get why you think Texas is some kind of economic paradise, Viking. The only state with a higher poverty rate is Mississippi. And it only got worse with Perry in office.

Because he has a man-crush on Perry. He can't help it.

AspenValley wrote: I don't get why you think Texas is some kind of economic paradise, Viking. The only state with a higher poverty rate is Mississippi. And it only got worse with Perry in office.

OK, why can't people get this. Perry and the Texas Congress passed such great tax laws and anti regulation laws that it worked TOO well. 750,000 people moved there and they have the most illegals going there because Obama and Bush would not close the border. So when you add a couple million to a states population of course poverty is going to rise. Add that ammount of people to ANY state and they would be twice as bad if not worse. And they said if you didn't have all those people coming to Texas and it stayed the same or lost population like most states, that their unemployment would be around 4.2%. That is what this whole country could look like if these great policies weren't just in one state.