Election 2012

[rumborak]

Holy. Crapola. In Tennessee Santorum has a 20 point lead over Romney:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/tn/tennessee_republican_presidential_primary-2043.html

rumborak

[Super Dude]

If I knew more about Tennessee, I might chalk it up to religion.

[rumborak]

Tennessee is a weird place. Been to Nashville, it's one of the few places where I arrived and said to myself "not in a million years would I want to live here".

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I don't have much good to say about Tennessee.

[pogoowner]

I don't have much good to say about Tennessee.

I went on a mission trip and worked on houses there for a week, and I don't have anything good to say either. Obviously I was in an extremely run-down area, though. Contrary to rumborak's feelings, however, a lot of people say Nashville is great.

[kirksnosehair]

Tennessee is pretty much right in the heart of the bible belt so this doesn't come as much of a surprise, since most Christians consider Romney to be a cultist

[Scheavo]

Honestly, I don't think the primaries are mattering at all. Every new one is supposed to be the "end," so let's not kid ourselves, we have no idea who will actually be the nominee. One thing is clear, the partly is fractured. There's always been a rift between the social and fiscal conservatives, they just sorta agreed to terms... but that really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I just can't imagine a strong candidate after all of this. Obama and Hillary fought it out, but there really wasn't a whole lot different about them ideologically; there's a huge one between Santorum and Romney.

I have to say, in the long run I'm happier that Romney is the nominee. Despite the fact that of course Romney has a decent chance of becoming president as opposed to Santorum (who would have been a dud) and I would rather like to see Obama reelected, it's better for the national discourse to not have lunatics like Santorum get a public platform. Having him even just run against Obama would have given Santorum and his views legitimacy.
Romney is a pretty smart guy, so I would hope the debates benefit from that fact.

rumborak

That is precisely how I feel.   I may have strong disagreements with Romney, and he's pretty socially and politically tone deaf because of his wealth, but......I have to admit that I begrudgingly respect the guy.  I have less than no respect for Santorum.

I'm with SD, I'm really not sure what leads you to respect Romney. I'll grant him ability, but respect is far too approving for such a weasel.

[rumborak]

Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Honestly, I don't think the primaries are mattering at all. Every new one is supposed to be the "end," so let's not kid ourselves, we have no idea who will actually be the nominee. One thing is clear, the partly is fractured. There's always been a rift between the social and fiscal conservatives, they just sorta agreed to terms... but that really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I just can't imagine a strong candidate after all of this. Obama and Hillary fought it out, but there really wasn't a whole lot different about them ideologically; there's a huge one between Santorum and Romney.

This more than anything interests me about this particular primary/election (aside from the obvious concerning the Obama factor). Back in the 60s, we see an ideological split turn into a new party when Dixiecrats simply up and became Republicans. I wonder if this fracture might end up having similarly huge consequences in the future.

Whether or not something of that magnitude happens will certainly answer the question once and for all about whether the two-party system has indeed constricted all political progress and flexibility in this country by neatly lumping everything into two clean categories.

[snapple]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/andrew-breitbart-death-of-a-douche-20120301

Everything that is wrong with politics. Both ends of the spectrum in one article. Can't we all just get along?

[antigoon]

Nope.

That was a good piece though. I'm a fan of Taibbi.

[jsem]

He was a douche. No question. It's really sad that he leaves 4 kids behind.

[kirksnosehair]

Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.

rumborak

He's a politician.  They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically.  I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them. 

[Super Dude]

Nope.

That was a good piece though. I'm a fan of Taibbi.

I'm really surprised at some of the comments down below. Did people actually like this guy? 'Cause he sounds like a complete douchenozzle, irrespective of your political views.

[antigoon]

Nope.

That was a good piece though. I'm a fan of Taibbi.

I'm really surprised at some of the comments down below. Did people actually like this guy? 'Cause he sounds like a complete douchenozzle, irrespective of your political views.

He was wildly popular. I'm surprised you'd never heard of him before.

[Super Dude]

Yeah, same here. I mean I don't normally pay attention to who I'm reading as much as what I'm reading, so that may be part of it.

[Scheavo]

Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.

rumborak

He's a politician.  They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically.  I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them.

And how long has it been called "Romneycare"? He also had a democratic legislature.

Also, saying that there is a difference of degree, not of kind, still doesn't meant hat there isn't, ya know, a large difference between Romney constantly taking opposing position, and downright lying about the state of things, and more honest politicians. C'mon, it's easy enough to tell who's playing the game, to play the game, and who's playing the game because, well, they have to in order to affect government.

One of the things necessary for me to "respect" someone, is to actually know where they stand on matters. With Romney, that's simply impossible. If he get's negative backlash, he immediately basically takes the opposing position, and tries to deny what he said.

[Super Dude]

Case in point: didn't he recently do a 180* on some policy while being interviewed on the radio?

[kirksnosehair]

Case in point: didn't he recently do a 180* on some policy while being interviewed on the radio?

Nah, I think he really did just goof the answer to that one.  If you read the entire transcript of the exchange the question was phrased in a pretty confusing way.

However, he HAS flip-flopped on abortion in quite spectacular fashion.

[rumborak]

Wow, had never seen that one. That's just ridiculous.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.

rumborak

He's a politician.  They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically.  I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them.

And how long has it been called "Romneycare"? He also had a democratic legislature.

Also, saying that there is a difference of degree, not of kind, still doesn't meant hat there isn't, ya know, a large difference between Romney constantly taking opposing position, and downright lying about the state of things, and more honest politicians. C'mon, it's easy enough to tell who's playing the game, to play the game, and who's playing the game because, well, they have to in order to affect government.

One of the things necessary for me to "respect" someone, is to actually know where they stand on matters. With Romney, that's simply impossible. If he get's negative backlash, he immediately basically takes the opposing position, and tries to deny what he said.

Scheavo, you do know the stronghold dems have had in Mass except the Governor for some strange reason.  Very weird indeeed.

[TL]

Honestly, I don't think the primaries are mattering at all. Every new one is supposed to be the "end," so let's not kid ourselves, we have no idea who will actually be the nominee.

The way I see it, there are basically three possible scenarios right now;

1) By far the most likely - After a much longer than expected primary season, a battered and bruised Romney finally gets the nomination. Some Republicans sigh, shrug, and then try to salvage their party's presidential campaign, while a few are just too uninspired with him and stay home.

2) Less likely, but stranger things have happened - Somehow, through a combination of unlikely factors, Santorum gets the nomination. Many of the GOP higherups are a bit horrified. He wins a few states in the general by a large margin, but overall gets absolutely trounced, as even many current Republicans just can't bring themselves to support him.

3) Unlikely, but with a non-zero chance of happening - No one gets a delegate majority, and the party nominates someone other than the current 4 candidates at the convention. Having to basically start a presidential campaign from scratch with only about two months to the general, this scenario would be an absolute disaster.

My guess; Romney will get the nomination. Somehow, in spite of not being a particularly good choice overall, he has become their safe option.

[rumborak]

At this point I'm not sure Romney can ever close the deal. I was earlier looking at polls for the Super Tuesday states, and it looks bad for him. Georgia looks like it's going to Gingrich, Santorum is leading in Ohio and North Carolina. Even in Washington (today) Romney has only a small lead that might not even materialize.
The only person who's completely out of the picture is Paul. Other than in WA he can't even break the 10% mark anymore.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Well, I live in MA, and I have to say that RomneyCare is quite nice.
Of course he's phony and lives on some bizarre echelon, but at least he's not a Bible-thumping lunatic such as Santorum.

rumborak

He's a politician.  They ALL say what they need to say in any given moment, and that includes Obama and others that I agree with ideologically.  I don't have to like or agree with someone to respect them.

And how long has it been called "Romneycare"? He also had a democratic legislature.

Also, saying that there is a difference of degree, not of kind, still doesn't meant hat there isn't, ya know, a large difference between Romney constantly taking opposing position, and downright lying about the state of things, and more honest politicians. C'mon, it's easy enough to tell who's playing the game, to play the game, and who's playing the game because, well, they have to in order to affect government.

One of the things necessary for me to "respect" someone, is to actually know where they stand on matters. With Romney, that's simply impossible. If he get's negative backlash, he immediately basically takes the opposing position, and tries to deny what he said.

Scheavo, you do know the stronghold dems have had in Mass except the Governor for some strange reason.  Very weird indeeed.

Well, I know it's a liberal state, don't know anything about it's recent governmental history. But I'm afraid I don't get your point?

[TL]

While I don't think the results in Washington today will have much of an effect on Super Tuesday, I think it will provide a good barometer for how well Romney will do. He needs at least a 4 point lead today to be at all comfortable. Less than that, and honestly, some of the less likely scenarios may be in play. A significant margin in WA on the other hand could signal that Republicans have finally gotten to stage 5 of the Romney candidacy; acceptance.

[King Postwhore]

No point at all.  It's just weird that a liberal state has had so many Republican governors in it's recent past history.


Rumbo, it's a bit shocking to see how undecided the republican voters are.  They don't like any of the candidates for various reasons all said here.

[Scheavo]

Honestly, I see convention troubles ahead. Paul claims to have a good chance at delegates, which could be the final thing which breaks a majority bid. Super Tuesday will have to be decisive, as in a vast majority to one person. or I'd say nothing's gonna change from what it has been. I mean remember, Santorum started out by winning Iowa, and he's still doing well now. THere's been fluctuation in between, but Romeny still hasn't gotten huge victories.

[rumborak]

Rumbo, it's a bit shocking to see how undecided the republican voters are.  They don't like any of the candidates for various reasons all said here.

Looking at today's results in WA, amazing that Santorum pulled on par with Paul despite barely campaigning in it. What might be happening is that there's voter fatigue setting in, with people having settled on whoever they want to vote for.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I can't believe Paul nearly made 25% of the WA vote. Unless WA is a particularly libertarian state and I just don't know any better.

[rumborak]

I think he had focussed his efforts there, yeah. Probably with the hope he could eek out a win, which would have generated momentum for him. And because it's a caucus state, he avoid primary states because he can't win them.

rumborak

[jsem]

Even though the campaign is working the delegates game very well, Paul isn't going anywhere anymore. He has no momentum and thus no campaign contributions coming in.

[rumborak]

I don't believe that the delegate game was ever the true game. I personally think it was somewhat of a ruse to the grassroots movement, to keep them going. The real game will have been the same as Gingrich and Santorum, the hope that Paul would at some point become the "non-Romney du jour" and from there generate momentum.
(At least to me) foreseeably that never happened, and now the diehard supporters are dry and can no longer donate money.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I don't believe that the delegate game was ever the true game. I personally think it was somewhat of a ruse to the grassroots movement, to keep them going. The real game will have been the same as Gingrich and Santorum, the hope that Paul would at some point become the "non-Romney du jour" and from there generate momentum.
(At least to me) foreseeably that never happened, and now the diehard supporters are dry and can no longer donate money.

rumborak

Well, there's numerous polls that show him doing the best against Obama. So I think the problem is that Paul isn't a Republican, and his supporters aren't really Republican, which makes it obvious that Pauls performance in a Republican process, isn't going to be all that great. This really does help explain why Paul feels he has more support than he gets in the Repubilcan process, and why his supporters feel he has more support than he's getting in the process.

[rumborak]

I have seen those polls, but frankly I'm not sure what to make of them. My best "explanation" is that those polls not so much reflect how much trust people put into RP for being able to defeat Obama, but rather that they have the last violent opinion of his inability thereof. That is, people are painfully aware that someone like Gingrich or Santorum would lose against Obama in a landslide and thus vote accordingly in such a poll, but with RP they kinda shrug their shoulders because they have little opinion either way.

rumborak

[TL]

I can't believe Paul nearly made 25% of the WA vote. Unless WA is a particularly libertarian state and I just don't know any better.

He got 21% in the WA caucus back in 2008, so it wasn't really unexpected.
In 2008, they held both a primary, where Paul got about 7.5%, and a caucus, whereas this time around they cancelled the primary for budget reasons. For some reason, most polling going in this time was geared more toward the primary system.

As for Paul's caucus delegate strategy;
Even if he somehow manages to get the majority of delegates in every single caucus, there just aren't enough caucus delegates for such a strategy to yield anything beyond a possible bargaining chip.