Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

You are going to take a 1 week ban. No way in hell does Obama win Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia again. I will take a 1 week ban if he wins Indiana.

Indiana I agree he's all but certain lose. North Carolina, maybe, but that state and Virginia are genuine toss-ups.

 

[outunderthestars]

I still believe that the Republican primaries (which have been more volatile than any in recent history, from the studying I've now done) are indicative of a large group of traditionally conservative voters who are confident that something is wrong, but don't know who to turn to fix it.

I think the country as a whole feels this way, in fact (another example being the OWS movement), but they aren't all necessarily ideologically tied to conservatism -- I think a large portion of America has some vague sense that something is broken, but aren't quite sure what it is exactly. Many just have a sense that something is wrong, but can't pinpoint the cause. I freely admit much of this conjecture loosely created from a few data points.

I'd agree with this. I am shocked at the number of people who were Obama supporters last election but are not Ron Paul supporters. It's like they are searching for an answer to a question they have not been able to formulate.

 

[Brinbe]

He's not winning Indiana, but you can easily counter-act that with an Arizona (in fact, they're worth the exact same amount of electoral votes)... anyway, it's still way too early to tell.

 

[KingK]

Indiana I agree he's all but certain lose. North Carolina, maybe, but that state and Virginia are genuine toss-ups.

If the Republican is not Mittens, then Obama has a pretty decent shot at NC and VA. If it is Mitt, then I suppose it would still be possible for him to win there, but very unlikely. I will agree that those two states are getting more and more purple though.

He's not winning Indiana, but you can easily counter-act that with an Arizona (in fact, they're worth the exact same amount of electoral votes)... anyway, it's still way too early to tell.

Hmm, I just realized that AZ and IN have the same amount of electorals, so I guess that's true. I still think Arizona is going red this election though. Haven't they had some of the most far-right Tea Party politicians recently? Demographics will make it blue eventually, but I don't think it's there yet. I could be wrong though.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Josh Marshall with an observation:

I was just asking our team of reporters what they’d heard today from on the ground in South Carolina. Turnout? Indicators? Whatever. The upshot was, not much. Average or maybe below average turnout. And in truth, these anecdotal indicators from the day of an election are more often wrong than not. But it reminded me of one of the big differences between the 2012 Republican cycle and the 2008 Democratic cycle — one of things people forget when they imagine that a drawn out primary battle automatically energizes a party.

The big fact about the 2008 primary battle was that supporters of Hillary and Obama were genuinely stoked about their candidate. Historically stoked on two important levels: both in the scale of their enthusiasm and that both candidates’ supporters felt — accurately — that they were on the verge of making history, a heady expectation. By the end of the battle there was a lot of anger and acrimony. But it was mainly because both sides were going to take being denied so hard. And that’s why the divisions were relatively easy to overcome.

You just can’t say anything like that about this primary cycle. The hunger to beat Obama is overwhelming. But the polls — especially by their inconstancy — have shown little strong affection for any of the folks on offer. And that suggests an outcome like the old saw about academic politics where the politics are so bitter precisely because the stakes are so small. That portends growing damage rather than mounting enthusiasm in a drawn out battle.​

I've been thinking along these lines for a while now. The drawn out primary was helpful to Obama and the Dems in general, as they were genuinely enthusiastic about their candidates. That enthusiasm helped them to build out a national campaign ahead of the general election. While I'm certain Republicans will fall in line behind their candidate (they always do), I just don't see a drawn out battle helping anyone all that much. Either of the front runners will result in most of the GOP base falling in line with resignation, and I don't see that translating to much general election enthusiasm.

 

[Gotchaye]

Be honest. Economics is no more a science than astrology. Unless economists are creating hypotheses and then TESTING these hypotheses, either in experiment or using observed data - it is not science. To call it a science is a great diservice to humanities pursuit of knowledge.

Putting your hands up in the air claiming that humans are unpredictable, so any theory has just as much validity as any other theory is not helpful. It's really no wonder many people think they can reduce taxes on the wealthy and it will cause the wealthy to make more jobs.

This is pretty ridiculous hyperbole. We have very good reasons to think that the phenomena economics attempts to explain are real and that almost all of the causal mechanisms it examines are real and really do influence the phenomena, and further that there are regularities in the phenomena such that they could be accurately modeled and predicted by some possible theory.

There are gradations of testability. It /is/ possible to look at a theory of economics and say to what extent it fits the data we have or to take an economic theory and make a prediction about future data. Now, this is a lot fuzzier than for physics - given the constraints of practicality and the immense complexity of economic systems, you're almost never going to be able to falsify a theory of economics on the basis of only a handful of data points, and unfortunately the rate at which we collect data is necessarily slow.

It's a young science, but it's a science. Current economic theories are not very reliable or predictive, and we ought not be very confident of their conclusions, but many economists are on the right track, and you've got to go through a stage like this before you get to more useful models. There's an analogy to be made to climate science, which is another field where researchers are attempting to create practical theories mostly by modeling historical data because future data comes in very slowly, and where single predictions aren't terribly important because of the noise inherent in the system at the degree of abstraction which is necessary to make a model feasible. There are some big picture things that we can be reasonably confident of (such as that dumping lots and lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will tend to trap radiation and heat the planet, which is maybe a rough equivalent to the economic claim that markets are a very efficient means of allocating many goods), but there's an awful lot of uncertainty in that field too.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Looks like Gingrich is gonna win in S.C. so can we expect 2-4 moon bases by 2016?

 

[TestOfTide]

So how do you suggest we accomplish this, when a huge section of the country feel this way? And not just most men, but many women, who have tied it to their religious beliefs, given the belief moral significance? Do we go to them, give them a stern finger pointing and say, "stop believing what you believe, or else?"

Or else what? We'll slaughter 2/3 of the country (or more) which holds these sexist views of human rights? Surely then they will see our enlightened ways. Force them against their will to behave like we behave? This has historically caused violent social upheaval in virtually all similar cases, not the least of which was the American Civil War.

I'm fairly certain that right after the the civil war, the federal government declared martial law on the confederate states. The "Radical Republicans" even went as far as to force those states to elect black politicians. Unfortunately the federal government didn't keep that martial law there long enough, and so as soon as the south was left alone again, you had the widespread redeemer movement.

But lets face it, historically, the most effective way of improving equality in our nation has been forcefulness against bigotry. LBJ didn't get the civil rights act passed by being nice, he got it passed by bullying people in the opposition until they agreed to vote for it.

 

[Chichikov]

I'm fairly certain that right after the the civil war, the federal government declared martial law on the confederate states. The "Radical Republicans" even went as far as to force those states to elect black politicians. Unfortunately the federal government didn't keep that martial law there long enough, and so as soon as the south was left alone again, you had the widespread redeemer movement.

But lets face it, historically, the most effective way of improving equality in our nation has been forcefulness against bigotry. LBJ didn't get the civil rights act passed by being nice, he got it passed by bullying people in the opposition until they agreed to vote for it.

Wait, we're talking about Egypt here, right?
You really think the US can strong-arm Egyptians into being more tolerant?
Is that what you're suggesting?

I get the feeling that "something must be done", but I think this is a classic case where anything you'd do will make things worse.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm fairly certain that right after the the civil war, the federal government declared martial law on the confederate states. The "Radical Republicans" even went as far as to force those states to elect black politicians. Unfortunately the federal government didn't keep that martial law there long enough, and so as soon as the south was left alone again, you had the widespread redeemer movement.

But lets face it, historically, the most effective way of improving equality in our nation has been forcefulness against bigotry. LBJ didn't get the civil rights act passed by being nice, he got it passed by bullying people in the opposition until they agreed to vote for it.

That's great. Who are you suggesting take that step for Egypt?

 

[Tim-E]

Josh Marshall with an observation:

I've been thinking along these lines for a while now. The drawn out primary was helpful to Obama and the Dems in general, as they were genuinely enthusiastic about their candidates. That enthusiasm helped them to build out a national campaign ahead of the general election. While I'm certain Republicans will fall in line behind their candidate (they always do), I just don't see a drawn out battle helping anyone all that much. Either of the front runners will result in most of the GOP base falling in line with resignation, and I don't see that translating to much general election enthusiasm.

Yep. The democrats had two strong campaigns organized nationwide that translated into a very strong machine for the general. The republicans campaigning now are basically doing it because they feel like they have to. They will strengthen up by the time a nominee is settled, but I dont think the organization will be nearly as cohesive.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Yep. The democrats had two strong campaigns organized nationwide that translated into a very strong machine for the general. The republicans campaigning now are basically doing it because they feel like they have to. They will strengthen up by the time a nominee is settled, but I dont think the organization will be nearly as cohesive.

all too true. The base is splintered and won't rally around a wealthy, detached white guy from Massachusetts.

 

[speculawyer]

Looks like Egypt's a lost cause



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16665748?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Muslim Brotherhood is not nearly as bad as you probably think. They are like Muslim Republicans.

The Salafist party is nuts though.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The Muslim Brotherhood is not nearly as bad as you probably think. They are like Muslim Republicans.

It's worse than I thought!!!

 

[ReBurn]

Polls close in one hour. Who's bringing the popcorn?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

The Muslim Brotherhood is not nearly as bad as you probably think. They are like Muslim Republicans.

The Salafist party is nuts though.

Ils n'existent pas!

 

[Sealda]

So basically everyone were bullshitting when they proclaimed Mitt Romney as the winner of the nomination after New Hampshire.

In your face...

 

[Chichikov]

Being wrong doesn't make you a bullshiter.

 

[Brinbe]

Looks like it's shaping up to be Gingrich's night... That Newtmentum, can ya feel it!?

 

[AlteredBeast]

So basically everyone were bullshitting when they proclaimed Mitt Romney as the winner of the nomination after New Hampshire.

In your face...

he is still basically a shoe-in, barring any more really, really stupid gaffes.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So when do the results roll in?

 

[Chichikov]

So when do the results roll in?

Polls close at the top of the hour (7pm EST) and we should start seeing results then.

 

[The Librarian]

Looks like it's shaping up to be Gingrich's night... That Newtmentum, can ya feel it!?

No -- but I will.

I think -- I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of this "Newtmentum" makes it harder to post, harder to attract decent posters for PoliGAF to run for Co-Champions. And I am appalled that you would begin the night that will show the votes of a primary on a topic like that.

Let me finish.

Every person in here knows personal pain.

Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take a surge for Newt Gingrich and make it the hour before the results start coming in a significant question in a PoliGAF thread is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

 

[Plinko]

Gingrich has to have this in the bag. They ate up his garbage at the debates.

 

[Sealda]

Why did not Santorum work in SC? Feels like it would be the perfect state for him, it cant be the debates. Whats the typical prejudice view of Santorum? In the same way people think "Romney is a flip flopping wallstreeter"

 

[rohlfinator]

I still believe that the Republican primaries (which have been more volatile than any in recent history, from the studying I've now done) are indicative of a large group of traditionally conservative voters who are confident that something is wrong, but don't know who to turn to fix it.

I think the country as a whole feels this way, in fact (another example being the OWS movement), but they aren't all necessarily ideologically tied to conservatism -- I think a large portion of America has some vague sense that something is broken, but aren't quite sure what it is exactly. Many just have a sense that something is wrong, but can't pinpoint the cause. I freely admit much of this conjecture loosely created from a few data points.

Yep. The 2010 elections were another huge symptom of this in my opinion -- people think something is wrong with the country/government and basically just blindly try to replace the incumbents and the incumbent party regardless of the consequences (not saying every Republican voter thinks this way, but the overall movement to the right seems to be a result of that kind of sentiment). We as an electorate are shockingly bad at identifying the real problems, much less having any idea how to fix them.

My fear is that the nation will just keep flip-flopping between increasingly erratic ideas (without giving any of them a chance to actually take effect) until everything somehow fixes itself or there is some other major shock to the system.

 

[Plinko]

I think my favorite part of Gingrich winning tonight would be if Romney went on to win and then South Carolina could stop saying that they pick the nominee every time.

 

[watershed]

Let's go Newt! Keep this show rolling along.

 

[Jackson50]

I've been thinking along these lines for a while now. The drawn out primary was helpful to Obama and the Dems in general, as they were genuinely enthusiastic about their candidates. That enthusiasm helped them to build out a national campaign ahead of the general election. While I'm certain Republicans will fall in line behind their candidate (they always do), I just don't see a drawn out battle helping anyone all that much. Either of the front runners will result in most of the GOP base falling in line with resignation, and I don't see that translating to much general election enthusiasm.

Typically, the length of the primary season is inconsequential. But that is probably a result of a small sample size with few competitive primaries. Nevertheless, there is evidence a protracted, competitive primary campaign is moderately beneficial to the eventual nominee in certain instances. If competition erupts along ideological or geographical fissures, then a protracted primary would be deleterious. Conversely, if the party is not fractured, then the competition is probably beneficial. For example, the highly competitive Democratic field in 2008 did not exacerbate party fissures. Rather, it was the result of numerous qualified, quality candidates. Moreover, none had secured party support. It was a genuinely competitive election that stimulated excitement amongst the base and spurred a massive network of activists across the nation. Once the nominee had been selected, the party reunited and reaped the benefits of the extensive infrastructure constructed by both candidates. Now, I have iterated that Obama won because of favorable fundamentals. And that remains true. But the campaigns are not irrelevant. Obama enjoyed a substantial organizational advantage over McCain, and the competitive primary contributed to that advantage.

How does this apply to the GOP primary? I doubt it will have an appreciable effect. The party is largely unified. Thus, I doubt this exacerbates any potential fissures. Additionally, aside from Romney, none of the candidates possess a robust national organization. So, the party will not benefit from competition. Ultimately, I don't think it will matter.

 

[The Librarian]

Thought this tweet was funny.
https://twitter.com/#!/pourmecoffee/status/160856324907876352

Team Obama has no official position on Newt as front-runner. If you should happen to see conga line at White House tonight, it is unrelated.

 

[Black Republican]

I think my favorite part of Gingrich winning tonight would be if Romney went on to win and then South Carolina could stop saying that they pick the nominee every time.

oh you know they'll have some excuse

 

[Tamanon]

I thought South Carolina didn't always pick the nominee, but they did always pick a GOP winner?

 

[Plinko]

I thought South Carolina didn't always pick the nominee, but they did always pick a GOP winner?

That's what I meant--the GOP nominee.

 

[KingK]

Yep. The 2010 elections were another huge symptom of this in my opinion -- people think something is wrong with the country/government and basically just blindly try to replace the incumbents and the incumbent party regardless of the consequences (not saying every Republican voter thinks this way, but the overall movement to the right seems to be a result of that kind of sentiment). We as an electorate are shockingly bad at identifying the real problems, much less having any idea how to fix them.

My fear is that the nation will just keep flip-flopping between increasingly erratic ideas (without giving any of them a chance to actually take effect) until everything somehow fixes itself or there is some other major shock to the system.

Yeah, this is the impression I get as well. I think a big problem is the way the media reports. Rather than doing any investigative journalism, or looking up facts about the problems and such, they just report whatever a politician's PR division says verbatim (facts be damned) and "leaves it up to the viewers to decide what's true."

Rather than report facts and inform viewers, the media just pushes controversy and treats the news as a sporting event because that's what gets more viewers.

 

[TestOfTide]

Wait, we're talking about Egypt here, right?
You really think the US can strong-arm Egyptians into being more tolerant?
Is that what you're suggesting?

I get the feeling that "something must be done", but I think this is a classic case where anything you'd do will make things worse.

sorry, misread that conversation. I thought it was about something it wasn't.

 

[Volimar]

Yeah, this is the impression I get as well. I think a big problem is the way the media reports. Rather than doing any investigative journalism, or looking up facts about the problems and such, they just report whatever a politician's PR division says verbatim (facts be damned) and "leaves it up to the viewers to decide what's true."

Rather than report facts and inform viewers, the media just pushes controversy and treats the news as a sporting event because that's what gets more viewers.

There's a great interview on Larry King with Jon Stewart in which he basically takes them to task for exactly this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_qJiReI8hU

 

[ezekial45]

Thought this tweet was funny.
https://twitter.com/#!/pourmecoffee/status/160856324907876352

I don't know, I get this weird feeling that Newt might put up a bigger fight than most people would think.

I'm probably wrong, but theres this strange aura about him.

 

[Black Republican]

there gonna be any live cnn/msnbc video streams?

 

[Brinbe]

omg @ this promo intro video on CNN... it's like a SNL parody. Ridiculous.

 

[Amir0x]

Not that I needed to be re-informed of this, but man Steve Jobs is was a dick:

The New York Times reports on a terse exchange that President Obama had with the late Steve Jobs last February over why Apple couldn't produce its products in America:

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

It's not the first run-in between the blunt Apple cofounder and the president — Jobs' biography reported that he told Obama that he's "headed for a one-term presidency," partially because of his administration's business policies. According to Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs, he expressed admiration for Chinese business practices and decried U.S. regulations and labor rules.

link

yeah China is awesome with all their horrible labor practices. At least be up front about why you're doing these things, business men of America. Don't act like it should be some noble standard for which America should aim to match.

 

[The Librarian]

GINGRICH 2012 HERE WE GO

 

[Ecotic]

I hope they can call the race at 7 p.m. (i.e. Gingrich won going away).

 

[Brinbe]

No call yet.

 

[Amir0x]

NEWT WON according to MSNBC

 

[Atramental]

 

[Kud Dukan]

CNN exit polls:

Gingrich - 38%
Romney - 29%
Santorum - 17%
Paul - 15%

 

[StopMakingSense]

NBC, Fox, ABC calling it for Gingrich

 

[ezekial45]

Not surprised that Paul is last.

 

[Officerrob]

Damn, that was fast

 

[Ecotic]

CNN Exit Poll:

Gingrich - 38%
Romney - 29%