• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.

This kind of stupidity is the only reason they still have her on TV. It would have been safer for her to poke a bear with a stick for 3 minutes because Christie is gonna go King Hippo on her.

The thing that really cracks me up is the total lack of self awareness.
BOLLING: Ooh, an embarrassment to the party. Governor, care to take Mr. Christie to task for that comment?

PALIN: I do care to take him to task -- poor Chris. This was a rookie mistake. He played right into the media’s hands. Here’s a host that asked Chris does Newt embarrass the party. I think he asked him twice, and there Chris played right into it and, you know, spewed that about, yeah, Newt embarrassing the party.
 
I called it for Gingrich a month ago and was wavering but I think he really does have it in the bag in the south.

fixed. the question still remains if newt can appeal to people outside of the confederate states and if Iowa and NH are any indication the answer is no.

Can anyone concieve of a metric by which we could measure Republican division? That is, one where we can tell if the party is more or less divided now than it was 10 years ago, or 20, or 30?

The first and most obvious metric would be how consistently the party votes as a bloc in Congress; if there are more dissenting votes now than there were in 1990, or less, on every Republican-backed bill.

But that doesn't measure or give credence to the popular sentiment; some major Republican figures who are very popular with people but who are not necessarily in Congress. Of the Republicans who have led the polls for the nomination this year, for example (Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Perry), only two of those are actual members of Congress (And only three are in government right now at all). Surely there must be a way to gauge if consensus among Republican voters is more or less divided than it was 30 years ago? Because a driving force of the Republican part since Reagan has been a consolidated but very active and very unified base.

Do you mean the voters, the pundits, or the people they elect? Because the answer varies depending on which one you mean.

The elected officials are still very much in line, with the only exceptions being the payroll tax and the debt ceiling. The voters, however, are very divided. They only can agree on the fact that they don't like obama, but they can't even agree on why. The pundits are definitely somewhere in-between, but closer to the politicians, which is why most of them support Romney.
 
I said "WOW"

PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls Mitt never actually lost support in our SC polling. He just stayed in place. He's losing support in our FL polling

PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls Florida GOP voters think Mitt has stronger principles and stronger values...and support Newt over him anyway
 
I agree, this seems logical.

As an aside on Republican demographics; do we know if they have gotten more or less white in the last 20 years? More or less male?

I don't have access to Jstor currently (wah), but some quick Google-Fu pulled up this article, which confirms what I've read before - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/12/into_the_blue.html

Essentially, the apex of self-identified Republicans has either just passed or has. The shifting demographics combined with the GOP's particular aversion to coalition politics means that they're going to be increasingly marginalized unless some dramatic concession back towards the center occurs.
 
If Obama wins again, the GOP won't be moving to the center. The base hates Obama hard, in part because of racism (particularly in the South and Midwest), and Obama is what caused the GOP to polarize so hard to the right.
 
If Obama wins again, the GOP won't be moving to the center. The base hates Obama hard, in part because of racism (particularly in the South and Midwest), and Obama is what caused the GOP to polarize so hard to the right.

Obama wasn't around when Clinton was being villified non-stop. It is hard to pick a starting point but I'd say it was when Johnson signed that civil rights act. Heck, we are still talking about it today.
 
If Obama wins again, the GOP won't be moving to the center. The base hates Obama hard, in part because of racism (particularly in the South and Midwest), and Obama is what caused the GOP to polarize so hard to the right.

If Obama wins the GE it will be a message to the GOP that the Southern Strategy is no longer as reliable and they can't appeal to both the center and crazies. They will have no choice but to try and abandon the crazies in an attempt to take as many independents as possible.

The more interesting thing to see would be what the crazies would do if they got marginalized by both the Republicans and Democrats.
 
Johnson is arguably the most important politician of the 20th century. Without him either no Civil Rights legislation would've passed, or a dramatically watered down version that would've completely broken the party.

Well, the party fractured regardless, but it could've been worse. Truly the last 'leader' we've seen in either the Senate or Presidency.
 
If Obama wins again, the GOP won't be moving to the center. The base hates Obama hard, in part because of racism (particularly in the South and Midwest), and Obama is what caused the GOP to polarize so hard to the right.

Tell me are you from the south? I hate when people like you say that, there's more people that say that than are in the south. rage.
 
If Obama wins the GE it will be a message to the GOP that the Southern Strategy is no longer as reliable and they can't appeal to both the center and crazies. They will have no choice but to try and abandon the crazies in an attempt to take as many independents as possible.

The more interesting thing to see would be what the crazies would do if they got marginalized by both the Republicans and Democrats.

Nah, that's what SHOULD have happened after Obama won in 08 and took VA, NC, and Indiana.

Of course, that just made them run farther to the right. This is what will continue to happen until they inevitably lose texas to the rapidly increasing minority presence, and render themselves irrelevant
 
Newt is howard dean 2.0. Angry loud fire breathing "badass" that excites a small core of primary voters until people realize "oh shit, it might be good to get someone electable up in this, instead of the guy we are excited about seeing "zing" the guy (who we hate) in office"
 
If Obama wins again, the GOP won't be moving to the center. The base hates Obama hard, in part because of racism (particularly in the South and Midwest), and Obama is what caused the GOP to polarize so hard to the right.

Did people like you start following politics in 2011? Seeing as how you've apparently never heard of bill clinton, I'm guessing this is the case.
 
Tell me are you from the south? I hate when people like you say that, there's more people that say that than are in the south. rage.

When you see large groups of white people parade around shouting that they "Want their country back" and you somehow tell yourself that it has nothing to do with race, you're deluding yourself.
 
Tell me are you from the south? I hate when people like you say that, there's more people that say that than are in the south. rage.

in other news . . .

Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History

A little more than a year after the conservative-led state board of education in Texas approved massive changes to its school textbooks to put slavery in a more positive light, a group of Tea Party activists in Tennessee has renewed its push to whitewash school textbooks. The group is seeking to remove references to slavery and mentions of the country's founders being slave owners.

According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been "an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."

"The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly -- and it was their progress that we need to look at," Rounds said, according to The Commercial Appeal.

During the news conference more than two dozen Tea Party activists handed out material that said, "Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government."

Tennessee is still considered the south, am right?
 
Newt is howard dean 2.0. Angry loud fire breathing "badass" that excites a small core of primary voters until people realize "oh shit, it might be good to get someone electable up in this, instead of the guy we are excited about seeing "zing" the guy (who we hate) in office"

Howard Dean wasn't as polarizing as Newt. Dean had a 100% rating from the NRA and balanced his state's budget.
 
Edit: Ah, screw you JCreasy!

martinlawrence.gif
 
The modern vitriolic right can be traced directly back to Newt Gingrich, somewhat poetically. As mentioned the modern Republican party as a whole pretty much goes back to the Civil Rights Movement, but you can really draw a direct line from Gingrich's Speakership to neoconservatism to the Tea Party to, well, Newt Gingrich again.

Lee Atwater kinda pioneered the "dirty tricks" negative campaign against Dukakis in 1988 but the government itself wasn't quite so acrimonious during Bush The Elder's term.
 
It's south carolina. I wouldn't be surprised if half the people there think Birth of a Nation is a true story.

Is this the movie that chronicles how liberal democrats founded the KKK?

You have no idea how angry I get when I read shit like that.

I really hate people going nuts over "czars." That name has been applied to Cabinet officials for decades. And what's worse is they think it has something to do with Communism!
 
Let's get one thing straight here. Just because two sides are saying two different things doesn't mean one side isn't true. That the Republican party has moved farther to the right over the past forty-odd years than the Democratic party over the same time period is fact. From taxes, health care, climate change, immigration, etc. The list goes on and on.

That this didn't happen was not the point I was making.
 
I think Will Wilkinson just tried to write a takedown of Newt, but after his conclusion I think it's more damning of Romney:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/newt-gingrich-2

Mitt Romney can prattle on all he likes about his picture-perfect marriage, about double-Guantanamo, about America, the best doggone shining city on a hill in the history of forever, but this stale stuff has never hit conservatives where they live, in the victim-bone.
 
Is this the movie that chronicles how liberal democrats founded the KKK?

Forgive me if I'm failing to detect your sarcasm, but Birth of a Nation is a film made by racist that portrayed the KKK as group of heroes, and is not to be confused with that recently discovered youtube video.
 
Tell me are you from the south? I hate when people like you say that, there's more people that say that than are in the south. rage.

Anecdotal, I know, but I'm from southeast Texas and here a lot of the Obama hate - and I do mean hate - is straight up racism. My coworkers couldn't even tell you the philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats but they're all convinced a resurrected Hitler zombie would have made a better president than Obama. They honestly believe he was elected by the majority of the electorate out of some wacky obligation to prove that they're not racist. Think about that: if you didn't vote for John McCain, you were pandering to nonexistent accusations from invisible evil uberliberal overlords that you're a racist. That's a prevailing narrative in these parts.
 
That chick on Morning Joe is pointless. She just agrees with everything Joe has to say, does this stupid head/yawn nod thing, looks into the opposing persons' eyes with such rage but almost as if she's trying to seduce him. It's bizarre.
 
Tea Party wants to make your founding fathers into gods/jesus characters lol
Yeah . . . after reading that I immediately thought "This is how religions are started." You drop out some inconvenient stuff. Some stuff gets fudged. And pretty soon the legendary figure is born of a virgin and bringing a message directly from god.
 
Yeah . . . after reading that I immediately thought "This is how religions are started." You drop out some inconvenient stuff. Some stuff gets fudged. And pretty soon the legendary figure is born of a virgin and bringing a message directly from god.



And then Jesus is from the US........Mormons!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom