I think a brokered convention is unlikely, as that scenario plays out poorly for the party on the national stage. It's also an incredible gift to the Obama campaign, as they can make the compelling case that Romney can't even convince his own party that he's the right guy for the job. You can already start to see the establishment beginning to endorse Romney. It's a trickle now, but it will become a flood if a brokered convention becomes a real possibility. The party isn't that stupid.
Romney getting the nod primarily from the establishment carries it's own risks. If it's too obvious many of the voters who backed both Santorum and Gingrich could opt to stay home during the fall, which would be a huge blow to Romney's bid. Once you factor that in, that leaves the possibility of super delegates backing one of the other two over Romney because there would be little to gain in sacrificing one's principles if only resulted in Romney being slightly stronger during the general election.
At this point, I'm wondering if the solution for the GOP to avoid a brokered convention is to make Santorum the VP because that ensures they don't alienate too many of the rank and file. The only problem is that this is Sarah Palin 2.0, only they'll have picked a male VP for an even crappier candidate.
Santorum's also poisoning the well like nobody's business. He's not running the campaign of "I think I'm a better choice, but I could work with that dude", he's burning the fucker down to the point where if you put him and Romney on a ticket, I don't think either man's supporters would show up in force for the general. A cabinet seat sure, but really I think the most he'd get would be a lot of cultural warfare planks from the party that they really don't want to be bringing up in the general.
That's really Santorum's problem for the party right now. They want to run "hey look, the economy isn't awesome!", and he's basically dragging out every culture war corpse he can find and wedging his own general election chances.
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
I don't think helping Paul win a state counts as strategic voting by liberals.
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
I don't think helping Paul win a state counts as strategic voting by liberals.
Well that depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to try and extend the Republican primary in the hopes that they will hurt themselves the longer the process goes on, then sure anything that reduces Mitt Romney's delegate count furthers that goal. It is questionable how much the primary process is actually hurting the Republicans, though from my point of view it looks damaging to them. I'm admittedly biased, and it's certainly possible that a protracted primary will give the candidates more time/incentive to build a proper ground game and energize the base.
So Santorum wins Mississippi and Alabama. But apparently Newt isn't quitting, pointing out that he got *some* delegates out of the states, so now he will have more delegates for the convention.
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
So Santorum wins Mississippi and Alabama. But apparently Newt isn't quitting, pointing out that he got *some* delegates out of the states, so now he will have more delegates for the convention.
Newt is completely off his nut if he thinks he still has a shot.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
I don't think helping Paul win a state counts as strategic voting by liberals.
Well that depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to try and extend the Republican primary in the hopes that they will hurt themselves the longer the process goes on, then sure anything that reduces Mitt Romney's delegate count furthers that goal. It is questionable how much the primary process is actually hurting the Republicans, though from my point of view it looks damaging to them. I'm admittedly biased, and it's certainly possible that a protracted primary will give the candidates more time/incentive to build a proper ground game and energize the base.
It mostly seems to lead to them wasting money and jacking up all their unfavorables.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
If and when it gets to Wisconsin- currently polling as a comfortable Santorum win- I'll have to see what the Democratic half of the ticket is downballot- you have to pick one party or the other and follow it the whole ballot. If there's anything of note I feel I need to weigh in on, that's what I'll do. But if it's just a bunch of unopposed races and names I don't know, I'll join in the Santorum crazy train.
As for Gingrich... he is totally just in this to fuck over Romney. I think he knows he's screwed as far as winning it himself. He just wants to make Romney's life as much of a living hell as humanly possible.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
If and when it gets to Wisconsin- currently polling as a comfortable Santorum win- I'll have to see what the Democratic half of the ticket is downballot- you have to pick one party or the other and follow it the whole ballot. If there's anything of note I feel I need to weigh in on, that's what I'll do. But if it's just a bunch of unopposed races and names I don't know, I'll join in the Santorum crazy train.
As for Gingrich... he is totally just in this to fuck over Romney. I think he knows he's screwed as far as winning it himself. He just wants to make Romney's life as much of a living hell as humanly possible.
Without him Romney loses.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Revised: he wants to fuck over Romney himself.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I'm starting to think the big money is convincing Gingrinch to stay in to fuck with Santorum. Newt has no shot after losing tonight, so unless he wraps this tomorrow...
Well, that seems to be the next BIG question of this delicious primary: does Newt's anger/crazy/spite: a) run so deep as to get him to quit so as to put Santorum in a position where he can really drive a truck over Romney's campaign or b) run so deep as to keep in the race himself, because he personally wants to be the one to piss in the Romney cereal?
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Well, that seems to be the next BIG question of this delicious primary: does Newt's anger/crazy/spite: a) run so deep as to get him to quit so as to put Santorum in a position where he can really drive a truck over Romney's campaign or b) run so deep as to keep in the race himself, because he personally wants to be the one to piss in the Romney cereal?
The question is: Does Newt hate Romney more than he loves himself?
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Don't be silly. Newt's one redeeming feature is that even he realizes that he's unlovable. He can't lvoe himself, so he must replace it with hating others.
I think the bigger question is what are those who are paying for his beauty contest run want him to do? If Newt had dropped out a month ago Romney is in much worse shape than he is now. If Newt doesn't drop Mitt will take this by simple attrition since the "Not completely insane" vote seems to be slightly larger than either of the three flavors of crazy individually.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
I think Newt is basically done, money wise. Whether he stays in or not doesnt matter, he's not going to be able to put up much of a fight from here on out.
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
I don't think helping Paul win a state counts as strategic voting by liberals.
Well that depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to try and extend the Republican primary in the hopes that they will hurt themselves the longer the process goes on, then sure anything that reduces Mitt Romney's delegate count furthers that goal. It is questionable how much the primary process is actually hurting the Republicans, though from my point of view it looks damaging to them. I'm admittedly biased, and it's certainly possible that a protracted primary will give the candidates more time/incentive to build a proper ground game and energize the base.
Thing is, Paul isn't in this to win the nomination. He is in this to get his ideas accepted. Letting him win even one state would give him the leverage he needs to claim his ideas area "acceptable to the general public". That is a solid loss any way you count it. It would be like the Evolution is a theory or Global Warming is a myth ideas. They used to be to far too the right for the GOP. Then Candidates believing in that crap started winning.
Imagine four years from now, with every GOP candidate sporting "end the fed" policies.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
I don't think helping Paul win a state counts as strategic voting by liberals.
Well that depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to try and extend the Republican primary in the hopes that they will hurt themselves the longer the process goes on, then sure anything that reduces Mitt Romney's delegate count furthers that goal. It is questionable how much the primary process is actually hurting the Republicans, though from my point of view it looks damaging to them. I'm admittedly biased, and it's certainly possible that a protracted primary will give the candidates more time/incentive to build a proper ground game and energize the base.
Thing is, Paul isn't in this to win the nomination. He is in this to get his ideas accepted. Letting him win even one state would give him the leverage he needs to claim his ideas area "acceptable to the general public". That is a solid loss any way you count it. It would be like the Evolution is a myth or Global Warming isn't real stances. They used to be to far too the right for the GOP. Then Candidates believing in that crap started winning.
Imagine four years from now, with every GOP candidate sporting "end the fed" policies.
And imagine if in at the DNC primary there was a draft David Duke movement.
Paul's crap isn't selling. We're on the dying end of Tea Party insanity, not some gloriously insane future. Paul is either deluding himself into actually believing he has a shot or making moves to shore up a swan song position as Romney's VP or set up something for his son.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm starting to get a little beleaguered of all the talk of momentum in this campaign. Delegates are what matters.
For all of "Santorum's Winning Big!," Ol' Frothy netted (depending on the Hawaii count) somewhere between 3 and 6 whole delegates in the 200+ gap between he and Romney.
I'm starting to wonder if Romney is backing Gingrich. If Gingrich stays in long enough to dilute Santorum's count and then throws his delegates to Romney, Santorum doesn't have a chance.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
He probably is. Romney wins by having the Not Romney vote spilt. The time for momentum to knock Romney out of the game was Florida. Maybe Ohio. It's too late now.
Though I did some playing around with the numbers on CNN Delegate Calculator and there's a slight chance of Romeny not having 1440 or whatever it is by the time the primaries are over. I doubt that will happen, but it is a possibility. All that means is super delegates start getting bought of by the Romney campaign.
What this means though is taht he is an incredibly damaged candidate. Voter excitement is already way lower than it was in 2008, this isn't good for the Republicans come general time, assuming Obama can play his cards right (and I've seen no indication that he can't. This is campaign season, where the President shines best, imo).
My prediction: Romney cinches this on the first big day in April, where it's only New England states voting. Unless there actually is a vast conspiracy to keep Gingrich floating around like the turd in the pool, I think he's gone before the month is out. The next states on the block are Missouri and Louisiana, both Santorum strongholds. But Romney will be a weak candidate and need to start bending over for the far right come convention/platform/VP time. I'm still keeping my long shot prediction of Romney/Paul though.
What this means come November, is, barring some Game Changer, Obama squeaks by with a narrow victory (thanks to gas prices and probably Israel keeping the vote more red than it should be).
Aaaaaaand Red Senate, Blue House. But neither by wide margins.
Anyway, since it seems all of you think RP isn't the man for the job please give me a specific reason why, and please include how your candidate of choice would handle that matter better.
My guy doesn't have policy positions that are not achievable under any Congress that has been elected since World War II. His policies would also would not be economically, diplomatically and politically disastrous if actually enacted. My guy has also never published a series of incredibly bigoted political newsletters under his own byline and given a series of internally contradictory answers on who wrote these horrible, evil things. My guy is also not older than any President in history and actually manages to get some votes.
On the other hand, your guy was caught on video hugging a black man.
Seriously, why was that reported as a controversy? I can't find anything wrong with that guy.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Anyway, since it seems all of you think RP isn't the man for the job please give me a specific reason why, and please include how your candidate of choice would handle that matter better.
My guy doesn't have policy positions that are not achievable under any Congress that has been elected since World War II. His policies would also would not be economically, diplomatically and politically disastrous if actually enacted. My guy has also never published a series of incredibly bigoted political newsletters under his own byline and given a series of internally contradictory answers on who wrote these horrible, evil things. My guy is also not older than any President in history and actually manages to get some votes.
On the other hand, your guy was caught on video hugging a black man.
Seriously, why was that reported as a controversy? I can't find anything wrong with that guy.
Yeah, that was indeed weird. Hannity played that up like he had found Al Capone's Tomb and the Zapruder Tape all in one, and when it was released I was very much puzzled as to what I was supposed to be seeing.
"That's it? He gave a speech in defense of a teacher who himself made a defense of equal pay for women?"
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
I ended up voting in the Republican Primary (for Santorum) because the Democratic Primary in my Polling Place (Alabama) only had Obama on the ballot and no down ballot candidates. So, I could vote in the Democratic Primary and just choose the person who was guaranteed to win the primary, or vote in the Republican for the lesser of two evils on the down ballot elections and also vote for Santorum to keep the crazy train on track.
Question - not knowing the GOP rules of procedure - but if Gingrich goes "Fuck it, i'm out. Romney gets my peeps." are they actually now pledged to Romney, or are the pledged delegates still "required" to vote for Gingrich in the first round at the convention?
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
The most Gingrich can do is release his delegates and endorse someone. The delegates are then free to vote for whoever they want.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Anyway, since it seems all of you think RP isn't the man for the job please give me a specific reason why, and please include how your candidate of choice would handle that matter better.
My guy doesn't have policy positions that are not achievable under any Congress that has been elected since World War II. His policies would also would not be economically, diplomatically and politically disastrous if actually enacted. My guy has also never published a series of incredibly bigoted political newsletters under his own byline and given a series of internally contradictory answers on who wrote these horrible, evil things. My guy is also not older than any President in history and actually manages to get some votes.
First of all, who is your guy? Which of his policies aren't achievable? Why do you think it would be disastrous to enact his policies? Why do you use the newsletters as a judge of character rather than his actual political and social viewpoints? Why does age matter? Seems ageist to me. There has been proven election fraud in Maine and Alaska, and that doesn't make me crazy for stating the facts of the matter. Even with the popular votes going the way they are, why vote based on what the masses do rather than what the planks in each candidates platforms are?
Ron Paul has the only viable foreign, economic, and social policy.
Foreign policy: The CIA is right about blowback, we are inciting more people to take up arms against us than we can kill. We aren't any safer for any of our military occupations.
Economic policy: RP is the only one that saw our current financial crisis coming. The fed prints money when it wants, and when there are more dollars they are worth less (aka inflation). The fed also ships trillions to it's central bankster buddies overseas under the guise of foreign aid. It just boils down to whether you'd have our currency attached to a predictable commodity or driven by shadowy unelected chairmen like Mr. Bernanke.
Social policy: The war on drugs serves only to help pharmaceutical companies, alcohol companies, and privatized prisons. I don't see how a person can be the victim and the perpetrator of the same crime. People locked up for non-violent drug offenses are likely to come out of prison as hardened criminals. Also, the only reason there is violence involved in the drug trade is because the drugs are illegal. Local restaurants don't shoot it out when they start stealing customers from each other. Finally, how can anyone support a candidate that is okay with the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA for fiscal year 2012? I guess habeus corpus doesn't mean anything.
Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy.
Destroying the world economy is not a viable economic policy.
Drugs are not the only thing important in a social policy (and also? ending the war on drugs is not a viable social policy), Obama has stated in his signing statement that he will not use the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.
In conclusion; I don't think you know what viable means.
Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy.
Destroying the world economy is not a viable economic policy.
Drugs are not the only thing important in a social policy (and also? ending the war on drugs is not a viable social policy), Obama has stated in his signing statement that he will not use the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.
In conclusion; I don't think you know what viable means.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. We would be safer if our military spending was diverted to defense spending. Our foreign policy is currently decided at round tables with seats held by our politicians and private citizens in the arms manufacturing sector. If you see no conflict of interest here I applaud your ignorance. I suppose you are fine with being the world police and going off to undeclared wars.
Even if Obama said he wouldn't use it, what stops the next POTUS from doing so? Why did Obama sign this when he previously said he'd veto it?
How would making the fed transparent or even destroying it be economically destructive?
Which of his social policies are you in opposition to? He want's equal rights for all people including minorities and homosexuals. How is ending the war on drugs not viable?
I offered specifics for why I support his platform, and then you disagree without offering any specifics as to why.
In order for Santorum to win, he actually has to pickup a large disproportion of delegates in the remaining races. It really isn't even enough to "win" he has to win by large margins. I haven't redone the math with Mississippi and Alabama factored in, but I think it's in the realm of 67% or more.
*edit* of the remaining delegates
Well that's assuming we're talking about him getting a majority before the convention right? It seems like its becoming plausible that he won't get 50% but neither will Romney. And then unless the super delegates swing one way or another in vote 1, you have the brokered convention. And suddenly the random guys who signed up to be delegates on a lark have a pretty big job.
He probably is. Romney wins by having the Not Romney vote spilt. The time for momentum to knock Romney out of the game was Florida. Maybe Ohio. It's too late now.
Though I did some playing around with the numbers on CNN Delegate Calculator and there's a slight chance of Romeny not having 1440 or whatever it is by the time the primaries are over. I doubt that will happen, but it is a possibility. All that means is super delegates start getting bought of by the Romney campaign.
What this means though is taht he is an incredibly damaged candidate. Voter excitement is already way lower than it was in 2008, this isn't good for the Republicans come general time, assuming Obama can play his cards right (and I've seen no indication that he can't. This is campaign season, where the President shines best, imo).
My prediction: Romney cinches this on the first big day in April, where it's only New England states voting. Unless there actually is a vast conspiracy to keep Gingrich floating around like the turd in the pool, I think he's gone before the month is out. The next states on the block are Missouri and Louisiana, both Santorum strongholds. But Romney will be a weak candidate and need to start bending over for the far right come convention/platform/VP time. I'm still keeping my long shot prediction of Romney/Paul though.
What this means come November, is, barring some Game Changer, Obama squeaks by with a narrow victory (thanks to gas prices and probably Israel keeping the vote more red than it should be).
Aaaaaaand Red Senate, Blue House. But neither by wide margins.
Solid analysis. This is pretty close to how I saw the delegate count as well. I think the super delegates will rally to Mitt to push him over the finish line as soon as it is realisticly feasible (and doesn't alienate the conservative vote). So, I think you're spot on with the early-to-mid April timeframe. I think the house will remain red, and the senate will remain blue (50-50 with a VP tie break vote). The Senate races will be very interesting to watch; I'm not sure if they'll rally around Obama and go for the down-ballot, or if they'll attempt to maintain an outside the beltway disassociation narrative. That will give us a sense of Obama's political standing within his own party.
One other thing, that I am sure is readily apparent to this forum, but I find somewhat comical: this has been a disastorous primary for the republican party. The candidate's negatives are soaring, turnout is lower than expected, enthusiam is non-existent, and the front-runner is completely hobbled going into the convention. The potential leader of the party can't put away a guy spending a quarter of the money, with barely any organization and ground troops. Not to mention that all the infighting has revealed that the party has a serious message problem this cycle, which the primaries haven't helped with either.
The rebulicans had one of the best chances to unseat an incumbent President in modern politics, and as far as I can tell, they threw it away over petty "who's a true Scottsman" bullshit.
Isolationism is not a viable foreign policy.
Destroying the world economy is not a viable economic policy.
Drugs are not the only thing important in a social policy (and also? ending the war on drugs is not a viable social policy), Obama has stated in his signing statement that he will not use the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.
In conclusion; I don't think you know what viable means.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. We would be safer if our military spending was diverted to defense spending. Our foreign policy is currently decided at round tables with seats held by our politicians and private citizens in the arms manufacturing sector. If you see no conflict of interest here I applaud your ignorance. I suppose you are fine with being the world police and going off to undeclared wars.
Even if Obama said he wouldn't use it, what stops the next POTUS from doing so? Why did Obama sign this when he previously said he'd veto it?
How would making the fed transparent or even destroying it be economically destructive?
Which of his social policies are you in opposition to? He want's equal rights for all people including minorities and homosexuals. How is ending the war on drugs not viable?
I offered specifics for why I support his platform, and then you disagree without offering any specifics as to why.
Veto proof majority
Fed already is transparent
Ending the fed would crash everything, doubly so if it was replaced with Gold Standard (since you know, there isn't enough gold on earth to replicate the american economic engine, and since gold and currency are both globally traded goods, valueing our gold at a different value than everywhere else in the world values it would be physically impossible)
He wants states to decide if those people get equal rights, he doesn't support them inheriently.
Ending the war on drugs is non-vuiable because the vast majority of the voting population things the war on drugs is a great thing, and any senator/representative who voted on it would lose re-election.
My favorite part of Ron Paul's plan is getting rid of the Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education departments. What does the Interior Dept. even do?
Posts
Yeah, pretty much.
For the record, I voted for Santorum to help keep this crazy primary train rolling as long as it can. This stuff is good television.
Santorum's also poisoning the well like nobody's business. He's not running the campaign of "I think I'm a better choice, but I could work with that dude", he's burning the fucker down to the point where if you put him and Romney on a ticket, I don't think either man's supporters would show up in force for the general. A cabinet seat sure, but really I think the most he'd get would be a lot of cultural warfare planks from the party that they really don't want to be bringing up in the general.
That's really Santorum's problem for the party right now. They want to run "hey look, the economy isn't awesome!", and he's basically dragging out every culture war corpse he can find and wedging his own general election chances.
I totally would have voted for Santorum just to troll the Republican party, if the idiot had been on the ballot in Virginia. As it was, I seriously considered going to the polls to vote for Paul, but I figured he was going to clock in at like 20% of the vote so why bother? Now I kind of wish I had, since he lost by what, 50k votes or something? Turnout was certainly ridiculously low, and the primary was ripe for strategic voting by liberals.
-edit- I just checked and Ron Paul won my county 993 to 979.
I don't think helping Paul win a state counts as strategic voting by liberals.
Well that depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to try and extend the Republican primary in the hopes that they will hurt themselves the longer the process goes on, then sure anything that reduces Mitt Romney's delegate count furthers that goal. It is questionable how much the primary process is actually hurting the Republicans, though from my point of view it looks damaging to them. I'm admittedly biased, and it's certainly possible that a protracted primary will give the candidates more time/incentive to build a proper ground game and energize the base.
Newt is completely off his nut if he thinks he still has a shot.
It mostly seems to lead to them wasting money and jacking up all their unfavorables.
As for Gingrich... he is totally just in this to fuck over Romney. I think he knows he's screwed as far as winning it himself. He just wants to make Romney's life as much of a living hell as humanly possible.
Without him Romney loses.
Well, that seems to be the next BIG question of this delicious primary: does Newt's anger/crazy/spite: a) run so deep as to get him to quit so as to put Santorum in a position where he can really drive a truck over Romney's campaign or b) run so deep as to keep in the race himself, because he personally wants to be the one to piss in the Romney cereal?
The big crux.
But... he's handing Romney the nomination. That is not any definition of fucking him I'm aware of. Given that he is, indeed, Newt Gingrich.
Which is the stronger force: His Mitt!Hate or his Ego?
Thing is, Paul isn't in this to win the nomination. He is in this to get his ideas accepted. Letting him win even one state would give him the leverage he needs to claim his ideas area "acceptable to the general public". That is a solid loss any way you count it. It would be like the Evolution is a theory or Global Warming is a myth ideas. They used to be to far too the right for the GOP. Then Candidates believing in that crap started winning.
Imagine four years from now, with every GOP candidate sporting "end the fed" policies.
And imagine if in at the DNC primary there was a draft David Duke movement.
Paul's crap isn't selling. We're on the dying end of Tea Party insanity, not some gloriously insane future. Paul is either deluding himself into actually believing he has a shot or making moves to shore up a swan song position as Romney's VP or set up something for his son.
For all of "Santorum's Winning Big!," Ol' Frothy netted (depending on the Hawaii count) somewhere between 3 and 6 whole delegates in the 200+ gap between he and Romney.
I'm starting to wonder if Romney is backing Gingrich. If Gingrich stays in long enough to dilute Santorum's count and then throws his delegates to Romney, Santorum doesn't have a chance.
Though I did some playing around with the numbers on CNN Delegate Calculator and there's a slight chance of Romeny not having 1440 or whatever it is by the time the primaries are over. I doubt that will happen, but it is a possibility. All that means is super delegates start getting bought of by the Romney campaign.
What this means though is taht he is an incredibly damaged candidate. Voter excitement is already way lower than it was in 2008, this isn't good for the Republicans come general time, assuming Obama can play his cards right (and I've seen no indication that he can't. This is campaign season, where the President shines best, imo).
My prediction: Romney cinches this on the first big day in April, where it's only New England states voting. Unless there actually is a vast conspiracy to keep Gingrich floating around like the turd in the pool, I think he's gone before the month is out. The next states on the block are Missouri and Louisiana, both Santorum strongholds. But Romney will be a weak candidate and need to start bending over for the far right come convention/platform/VP time. I'm still keeping my long shot prediction of Romney/Paul though.
What this means come November, is, barring some Game Changer, Obama squeaks by with a narrow victory (thanks to gas prices and probably Israel keeping the vote more red than it should be).
Aaaaaaand Red Senate, Blue House. But neither by wide margins.
On the other hand, your guy was caught on video hugging a black man.
Seriously, why was that reported as a controversy? I can't find anything wrong with that guy.
Yeah, that was indeed weird. Hannity played that up like he had found Al Capone's Tomb and the Zapruder Tape all in one, and when it was released I was very much puzzled as to what I was supposed to be seeing.
"That's it? He gave a speech in defense of a teacher who himself made a defense of equal pay for women?"
What a Radical.
I ended up voting in the Republican Primary (for Santorum) because the Democratic Primary in my Polling Place (Alabama) only had Obama on the ballot and no down ballot candidates. So, I could vote in the Democratic Primary and just choose the person who was guaranteed to win the primary, or vote in the Republican for the lesser of two evils on the down ballot elections and also vote for Santorum to keep the crazy train on track.
First of all, who is your guy? Which of his policies aren't achievable? Why do you think it would be disastrous to enact his policies? Why do you use the newsletters as a judge of character rather than his actual political and social viewpoints? Why does age matter? Seems ageist to me. There has been proven election fraud in Maine and Alaska, and that doesn't make me crazy for stating the facts of the matter. Even with the popular votes going the way they are, why vote based on what the masses do rather than what the planks in each candidates platforms are?
Ron Paul has the only viable foreign, economic, and social policy.
Foreign policy: The CIA is right about blowback, we are inciting more people to take up arms against us than we can kill. We aren't any safer for any of our military occupations.
Economic policy: RP is the only one that saw our current financial crisis coming. The fed prints money when it wants, and when there are more dollars they are worth less (aka inflation). The fed also ships trillions to it's central bankster buddies overseas under the guise of foreign aid. It just boils down to whether you'd have our currency attached to a predictable commodity or driven by shadowy unelected chairmen like Mr. Bernanke.
Social policy: The war on drugs serves only to help pharmaceutical companies, alcohol companies, and privatized prisons. I don't see how a person can be the victim and the perpetrator of the same crime. People locked up for non-violent drug offenses are likely to come out of prison as hardened criminals. Also, the only reason there is violence involved in the drug trade is because the drugs are illegal. Local restaurants don't shoot it out when they start stealing customers from each other. Finally, how can anyone support a candidate that is okay with the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA for fiscal year 2012? I guess habeus corpus doesn't mean anything.
Destroying the world economy is not a viable economic policy.
Drugs are not the only thing important in a social policy (and also? ending the war on drugs is not a viable social policy), Obama has stated in his signing statement that he will not use the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.
In conclusion; I don't think you know what viable means.
Even if Obama said he wouldn't use it, what stops the next POTUS from doing so? Why did Obama sign this when he previously said he'd veto it?
How would making the fed transparent or even destroying it be economically destructive?
Which of his social policies are you in opposition to? He want's equal rights for all people including minorities and homosexuals. How is ending the war on drugs not viable?
I offered specifics for why I support his platform, and then you disagree without offering any specifics as to why.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Solid analysis. This is pretty close to how I saw the delegate count as well. I think the super delegates will rally to Mitt to push him over the finish line as soon as it is realisticly feasible (and doesn't alienate the conservative vote). So, I think you're spot on with the early-to-mid April timeframe. I think the house will remain red, and the senate will remain blue (50-50 with a VP tie break vote). The Senate races will be very interesting to watch; I'm not sure if they'll rally around Obama and go for the down-ballot, or if they'll attempt to maintain an outside the beltway disassociation narrative. That will give us a sense of Obama's political standing within his own party.
One other thing, that I am sure is readily apparent to this forum, but I find somewhat comical: this has been a disastorous primary for the republican party. The candidate's negatives are soaring, turnout is lower than expected, enthusiam is non-existent, and the front-runner is completely hobbled going into the convention. The potential leader of the party can't put away a guy spending a quarter of the money, with barely any organization and ground troops. Not to mention that all the infighting has revealed that the party has a serious message problem this cycle, which the primaries haven't helped with either.
The rebulicans had one of the best chances to unseat an incumbent President in modern politics, and as far as I can tell, they threw it away over petty "who's a true Scottsman" bullshit.
Veto proof majority
Fed already is transparent
Ending the fed would crash everything, doubly so if it was replaced with Gold Standard (since you know, there isn't enough gold on earth to replicate the american economic engine, and since gold and currency are both globally traded goods, valueing our gold at a different value than everywhere else in the world values it would be physically impossible)
He wants states to decide if those people get equal rights, he doesn't support them inheriently.
Ending the war on drugs is non-vuiable because the vast majority of the voting population things the war on drugs is a great thing, and any senator/representative who voted on it would lose re-election.