Election 2012

[kirksnosehair]

Haha, gotta give it to Santorum on that one. That guy was a classic Ron Paul drone.

rumborak

True, but Santorum is a raging hypocrite any time he opens his mouth about "spending" - something he himself voted in favor of time and time again during the Bush years.  Something he now cites as "being a team player."

[kirksnosehair]

I noticed this today, and I've been noticing this kind of thing more and more.

From this CNN piece.

Mitt Romney did not mention either of his GOP rivals on the day of a hard-fought pair of Republican contests, but instead kept his focus on President Obama and rising fuel prices at a Missouri rally.

So, basically, the media now considers Ron Paul to no longer be a candidate.

[rumborak]

That's what I meant earlier. RP is no longer mentioned at all, or if, then only at the very end of the article with "oh, there's this other guy too". I mean, it's of course true that RP is simply no longer in any way a credible candidate, but it's also a bit harsh

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Well, reality is what it is.  When I hear him talking about how they have a "solid delegate strategy" it really just makes me 

[rumborak]

Here's a different thought actually: I just saw some news snippet about the campaigning today, and they noted that the live music is distinctly different from the other states. It's all fiddle and steel guitar.
Here's the question: Don't Southerners feel "token" when this stuff happens? I mean, it's like as if I went to a rally here in Massachusetts, and the main speaker would sound like the mayor from The Simpsons.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Here's a different thought actually: I just saw some news snippet about the campaigning today, and they noted that the live music is distinctly different from the other states. It's all fiddle and steel guitar.
Here's the question: Don't Southerners feel "token" when this stuff happens? I mean, it's like as if I went to a rally here in Massachusetts, and the main speaker would sound like the mayor from The Simpsons.

rumborak

Nah, I don't think so.  It's just politicians pandering to the locals.  They do the same thing in Maine when they take pictures down at the lobster boat docks, and in New Jersey when they have Bon Jovi or Bruce Springsteen music playing or in Iowa when they gobble corn dogs at the State Fair.

[rumborak]

Well, it seems people have a different sensitivity for this
I always hate it when people come to Boston and say stuff like "Beantown" or whatever. It's the surefire way of telling an out-of-towner.

rumborak

[rumborak]

Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?

rumborak

[TL]

Paul was never actually in this to win. I think even he knows that he never had a shot (though many of his supporters still haven't realized that). He's in this to shape the debate. He'll probably stay in until the end.

If anyone else were in Gingrich's position, they would probably have already dropped out, and if not, they would after tonight. That said, Gingrich is an ego-based lifeform, and seems to be the last person around who hasn't realized that he doesn't have a shot at the nomination.

Santorum definitely won't drop as long as he stays in 2nd place in the delegate count, unless Romney starts winning every remaining contest overwhelmingly. He doesn't have to pass Romney in the count, he just needs to keep Romney from hitting 1144 delegates.

[rumborak]

Re RP, isn't this slowly working against him now? There's the point after which you become "the guy who just doesn't get the memo" and I think RP is past it now. If he really cares about his cause he should drop out now and try to become an outside commentator.

rumborak

[TL]

Santorum is projected to win both Alabama and Mississippi, and Romney will probably come in 3rd in both.

[kirksnosehair]

Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?

rumborak

Here's the thing.  As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant.  I really don't see him dropping out at all.  Santorum shouldn't drop out.  I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144.  Ron Paul is basically a meaningless senile old man and is pretty much irrelevant at this point.  The GOP have formed a circular firing squad that is leading to a messy brokered convention.  Their candidate is going to limp into the general election, and even under those circumstances, I still put Obama's chances at reelection at 50/50 at best.

[Super Dude]

Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?

rumborak

Here's the thing.  As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant.  I really don't see him dropping out at all.  Santorum shouldn't drop out.  I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144.  Ron Paul is basically a meaningless senile old man and is pretty much irrelevant at this point.  The GOP have formed a circular firing squad that is leading to a messy brokered convention.  Their candidate is going to limp into the general election, and even under those circumstances, I still put Obama's chances at reelection at 50/50 at best.

Why is that? Personally I think the short decline in approval rating is a non-issue.

[kirksnosehair]

Any predictions about who will throw in the towel? RP should have done so a long time ago, but clearly his perception is different from the rest of the country.
Do you think there's something to Gingrich and Santorum teaming up?

rumborak

Here's the thing.  As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant.  I really don't see him dropping out at all.  Santorum shouldn't drop out.  I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144.  Ron Paul is basically a meaningless senile old man and is pretty much irrelevant at this point.  The GOP have formed a circular firing squad that is leading to a messy brokered convention.  Their candidate is going to limp into the general election, and even under those circumstances, I still put Obama's chances at reelection at 50/50 at best.

Why is that? Personally I think the short decline in approval rating is a non-issue.

Watch this video, then remember that in order to win again, Obama must carry at least a few states in the south.  The only reason he won in 2008 is because of how terrible of a president George W. Bush was combined with the fact that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running mate.  Had McCain chose someone with an actual brain, I believe he would have won.

Edit: fixed a typo

[Super Dude]

He'll have to carry the South sure, but he's still got the Democratic North, and I know what people say about Democrats being turned off by Obama but I hardly think even a disappointed Democrat would vote against his/her self-interest.

[rumborak]

Also don't underestimate that all people have been hearing in the last few months is Republican thought. I think once the actual campaigning kicks in we will see some shifts going on.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Here's the thing.  As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant.  I really don't see him dropping out at all.  Santorum shouldn't drop out.  I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144. 

But here's something that makes it even more interesting:  If Gingrich isn't in the race and you are basically looking at a head-to-head race between Romney and Santorum, Santorum would likely be leading right now instead of Romney. 

Also don't underestimate that all people have been hearing in the last few months is Republican thought. I think once the actual campaigning kicks in we will see some shifts going on.

rumborak

Honestly, I don't think most people have been paying attention at all.

[kirksnosehair]

He'll have to carry the South sure, but he's still got the Democratic North, and I know what people say about Democrats being turned off by Obama but I hardly think even a disappointed Democrat would vote against his/her self-interest.

No, but what I think you have now with Democrats that you didn't have in 2008 is apathy.  In 2008, everyone was so sick of Bush and so excited about the possibility of actually electing a black president, that I think a TON of people who might otherwise have just stayed home on election day actually went out and voted.  And that pushed Obama over the top.

Now you've got a relatively weak economy, rising gas prices, an incumbent Democrat president with only moderate approval ratings who did NOT deliver on quite a few of his campaign promises.

The only incumbent president with an approval rating below 50% to ever win re-election (ironically) was George W. Bush (48% approval at the time of his reelection). 

Also, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7%  I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.

Look, I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy, but I'm also a pragmatist.  This election will be no cakewalk for Obama. 

[Super Dude]

He'll have to carry the South sure, but he's still got the Democratic North, and I know what people say about Democrats being turned off by Obama but I hardly think even a disappointed Democrat would vote against his/her self-interest.

No, but what I think you have now with Democrats that you didn't have in 2008 is apathy.  In 2008, everyone was so sick of Bush and so excited about the possibility of actually electing a black president, that I think a TON of people who might otherwise have just stayed home on election day actually went out and voted.  And that pushed Obama over the top.

Now you've got a relatively weak economy, rising gas prices, an incumbent Democrat president with only moderate approval ratings who did NOT deliver on quite a few of his campaign promises.

The only incumbent president with an approval rating below 50% to ever win re-election (ironically) was George W. Bush (48% approval at the time of his reelection). 

Also, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7%  I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.

Look, I'm generally a pretty optimistic guy, but I'm also a pragmatist.  This election will be no cakewalk for Obama.

Yes, but the political and national climate we're looking at these days does look a whole lot like the late 60's through 70's, so I wouldn't call it too farfetched.

[kirksnosehair]

But I didn't do that.  I said he's got a 50/50 shot at getting reelected 

[kirksnosehair]

Here's the thing.  As TL mentioned above, Newt Gingrich has a massive ego and he's incredibly arrogant.  I really don't see him dropping out at all.  Santorum shouldn't drop out.  I really don't think he can actually catch Romney, but he *can* prevent Romney from getting to 1144. 

But here's something that makes it even more interesting:  If Gingrich isn't in the race and you are basically looking at a head-to-head race between Romney and Santorum, Santorum would likely be leading right now instead of Romney. 

Current Delegate Counts:

Romney: 498

Santorum: 239

Gingrich: 139

If you gave all of Gingrich's delegates to Santorum, he'd have 378.  Much closer to Romney, but nowhere near being in the lead.

[bosk1]

I know, but I don't think it's that simple.  I think a lot of delegates that Romney actually won because votes against him were split between Romney and Santorum, Romney would have actually lost to Santorum if not for those splits. 

[kirksnosehair]

I'm not sure I follow that

[Super Dude]

Actually NYT gives 495 to Romney, 252 to Santorum.

[bosk1]

I'm not sure I follow that

Hypothetical:  In a given district, Romney wins the delegate with the following popular vote:
Romney:  40%
Santorum:  35%
Gingrich:  20%
Paul:  5%

Of the 20% of votes that went to Gingrich, let's say 3/4 of those would have gone to Santorum if Gingrich had not been running, and the other 1/4 would have gone to Romney.  So if Gingrich had not taken away some of the anti-Romney votes, the percentage would have played out this way if Gingrich had not been in the race:
Romney:  45%
Santorum:  50%
Paul:  5%

So Santorum would have taken that district's delegate rather than Romney if Gingrich had been out of the race.  That's what I'm saying.  I get the sense that Romney would not carry his current 498 if Gingrich had been out of the race earlier.

[TL]

There's definitely a lot to that theory. There are a number of fairly significant states where Romney won, which could have been taken by Santorum had Gingrich not been splitting the vote. There's even talk that the wealthy donor who is more or less single handedly funding Gingrich's campaign at this point is doing so to stop Santorum.

Also, since 1976, no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is at or over 7%  I don't know if there is enough time to get the rate back under 7% between now and November.

Statistics like this are meaningless bullshit that news networks use to fill airtime. Including the 1976 election, that's a sample size of 9 elections, each with very different circumstances. If we just look at races with an incumbent seeking re-election, it's down to 6.

Did you know that since 1960, no incumbent that has faced a third party candidate in a general election debate has won re-election?
It's like saying how 4 of the last 7 elections went to the candidate who won Texas. It doesn't actually mean anything.

[Riceball]

Speaking of economics and US politics:

https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-obama-energy-spr-idUSBRE82E00P20120315

Very interesting development on this front. Barrak and Camo (UK PM), the newest bestest buds in the whole world, apparently discusses releasing some of their oil reserves in order to take pressure of global oil prices.

I'll reserve (he...he.....) my thoughts for now.

Oh and the differences between the 60s/70s and now is that inflation then was ridiculously high (like...10% high), while now its ridiculously low (1%). So you can't compare the two as similar circumstances, because inflation changes everything.

[Riceball]

It doesn't actually mean anything.

It does if Fox says it does.

Also, statistics.

[PraXis]

[rumborak]

Obama is "War"?

I guess the point was to make RP look good, so "artistic license" is allowed.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

lol

If Ron Paul and the libertarians are so concerned with minimizing our involvement on the world stage, why is it so important/great that Ron Paul is a war veteran supported by military institutions? And for that matter, how does that at all correlate with being interested in peace?

[rumborak]

What RP would achieve is less US involvement, but at the price of creating an international "Wild West". It's a question he has evaded time and time again, how he feels about watching genocide happening in other countries. His almost juvenile answer of "we'll just trade more with them" is one of the big reasons why he's been relegated to non-running.

rumborak

[PraXis]

We have no Constitutional authority to invade countries with murderous dictators anyway. RP is not against war, but he's against pointless, undeclared wars. This is why veterans support him overwhelmingly. Who funds the other candidates? The biggest lobbyists around, big energy and big banks. If we're going to have more wars, they must be declared as the law mandates. Then again, we're broke.

The "we'll just trade with them" is actually how our foreign policy must become. We do not meddle in other countries' affairs. We can't afford to be the world's police any more. I like how the other GOP candidates are so excited for potential war with Iran even though they have no nukes, whereas countries such as India, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have had nukes for a while.

If you (generally speaking) are pissed about genocide in [insert third world garbage hole here], then travel there and buy some guns. We have zero obligation to anyone but ourselves. Ron Paul has said countless times that he is for defense, not offense, and that we'd probably have more military bases on our soil than in other areas around the world.

And yea, we're broke!

It all comes down to the Israel influence. They have plenty of nukes and can defend themselves (even Netanyahu said this himself in many speeches). I'm sick of Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney treating them like our 51st state.

[antigoon]

I agree with you guys that his foreign policy ought to be more nuanced. I just wish he wasn't the only anti-war candidate. I'd rather our country not be responsible for cluster bombing and drone killing children across the world.

[PraXis]

I agree with you guys that his foreign policy ought to be more nuanced. I just wish he wasn't the only anti-war candidate. I'd rather our country not be responsible for cluster bombing and drone killing children across the world.

Agree 1000000000000%