Support NeoGAF

[AlteredBeast]

I fail to see the issue. The South was never in play.

Some states definitely are in play in the South. Especially with the vaunted demographics switch that everyone always brings up here.

Voter enthusiasm in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida could turn those states red again and possibly prevent others from turning blue.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Some states definitely are in play in the South. Especially with the vaunted demographics switch that everyone always brings up here.

Voter enthusiasm in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida could turn those states red again and possibly prevent others from turning blue.

I think the voter enthusiasm post was sarcasm. At least I hope.

Republican turn out has been at or below 2008 levels.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I think the voter enthusiasm post was sarcasm

It definitely was, but I was responding to Tamanon's non sarcastic comment about the South.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Romney just busted 20% thanks to populous county reporting. LOL! Proportional delegates

 

[TestOfTide]

I think the voter enthusiasm post was sarcasm. At least I hope.

Republican turn out has been at or below 2008 levels.

Yeah, I must have misread it as saying turnout was high based on states like kansas.

One of the key things in obama winning is making sure that there is just as much voter enthusiasm among democrats as republicans, because otherwise you will end up with something similar (although likely not as severe as) 2010 all over again when people under 30 made up only around 11% of the voters in swing states like ohio.

 

[jamesinclair]

That's not good. If voter enthusiasm is highest the south then that means the conservatives are still going to vote in high numbers even if Romney gets nominated.

Read again

"Romney won nine delegates Saturday when 207 Republicans in Guam endorsed his presidential candidacy."

Romney could only convince 207 people to waddle their way into a booth and vote for him.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Romney just busted 20% thanks to populous county reporting. LOL! Proportional delegates

Heh, just saw that. This is actually great news for Rick Santorum.

If he were the only one to get over 20%, the delegates are split proportionally, so his share would be 52%, with everyone else taking their share. But if Romney gets over 20%, then he and Romney split all of the delegates based on their share of votes between them, so Santorum would get 71% to Romney's 29%.

So Romney picking up a few more delegates is actually detrimental to his campaign. Caucus rules, good grief.

Edit: Nate Silver tweet:

If current results from Kansas hold, delegate count there will be Santorum 33, Romney 7.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Read again

"Romney won nine delegates Saturday when 207 Republicans in Guam endorsed his presidential candidacy."

Romney could only convince 207 people to waddle their way into a booth and vote for him.

I think they mentioned that 207 people for one candidate is actually a record in Guam.

Heh, just saw that. This is actually great news for Rick Santorum.

If he were the only one to get over 20%, the delegates are split proportionally, so his share would be 52%, with everyone else taking their share. But if Romney gets over 20%, then he and Romney split all of the delegates based on their share of votes between them, so Santorum would get 71% to Romney's 29%.

So Romney picking up a few more delegates is actually detrimental to his campaign. Caucus rules, good grief.

Edit: Nate Silver tweet:

Caucus rules are absolutely ridiculous.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I wish the GE would start already. This primary has more than worn out its welcome.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Romney convinced .001% to go out and vote for him. woo

 

[Mike M]

In Newt's Georgia victory rant he essentially said that he needed Alabama and Mississippi if he was going to stay relevant to the race. So if Santorum wins MS and AL, what are the odds that Newt drops out and endorses him?

Actually I believe it was a member of his staff that characterized them as must wins. Gingrich himself today said he's not quitting even if he loses.

 

[Tamanon]

Some states definitely are in play in the South. Especially with the vaunted demographics switch that everyone always brings up here.

Voter enthusiasm in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida could turn those states red again and possibly prevent others from turning blue.

I really don't consider Florida or Virginia as part of the South. And North Carolina is slipping away from it.

 

[ezekial45]

Just a reminder, Game Change premieres tonight on HBO.

 

[markatisu]

I really don't consider Florida or Virginia as part of the South. And North Carolina is slipping away from it.

Yeah as a 20+ resident of MD and VA I agree

 

[RDreamer]

A billionaire that donated to Romney thinks that the ultra wealthy have "insufficient influence" on the political process

 

[Cloudy]

http://draft.fantasypolitics.co/

We should set up a GAF league for this

 

[Suikoguy]

If he were the only one to get over 20%, the delegates are split proportionally, so his share would be 52%, with everyone else taking their share. But if Romney gets over 20%, then he and Romney split all of the delegates based on their share of votes between them, so Santorum would get 71% to Romney's 29%.

Wait what?
Math has never been my strong suit, I'm assuming this is not supposed to make logical sense?

 

[Puddles]

A billionaire that donated to Romney thinks that the ultra wealthy have "insufficient influence" on the political process

Very interesting interview. He's clearly a highly intelligent man, and it's always interesting to read the opinions of intelligent conservatives. He does seem to be coming from a bit of a bubble existence though. Obviously, working in the financial sector, he'll be opposed to anything that makes his job more difficult. It seems that he's deliberately ignoring the contributions of his industry towards our present economic woes and choosing to shift the blame entirely to Fannie and Freddie, which is something I don't think you can do if you want to be intellectually honest.

He does seem to have the right idea on a number of issues, like education.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Wait what?

Math has never been my strong suit, I'm assuming this is not supposed to make logical sense?

This is from the spreadsheet I did that in. The results as of ~90% in:

Rick Santorum	14,352	52%
Mitt Romney	5,770	21%
Newt Gingrich	3,991	14%
Ron Paul	3,489	13%
Other	        227	 1%
Total	        27,829

That's how the delegates would be allocated, were it not for the clause in the rules that if two or more candidates clear 20%, only those candidates votes are considered for the purpose of delegate allocation.

Rick Santorum	14,352	71%
Mitt Romney	5,770	29%
Total	        20,122

You can see this in the caucus rules here, scroll to near the bottom, "Section VI: Binding of Delegates and Alternate Delegates". They provide an example very similar to the actual result.

Thus Santorum wins 33 of 40 delegates, with Romney getting just 7 (25 awarded for taking the state, and 15 are awarded for winning districts). Had Romney finished with 19%, Santorum's share would have been much lower.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Very interesting interview. He's clearly a highly intelligent man, and it's always interesting to read the opinions of intelligent conservatives. He does seem to be coming from a bit of a bubble existence though. Obviously, working in the financial sector, he'll be opposed to anything that makes his job more difficult. It seems that he's deliberately ignoring the contributions of his industry towards our present economic woes and choosing to shift the blame entirely to Fannie and Freddie, which is something I don't think you can do if you want to be intellectually honest.

He does seem to have the right idea on a number of issues, like education.

He's delusional on class warfare. It isn't "class warfare" to say the wealthiest americans were given a tax break that wasn't paid for, hasn't created jobs, and helped bankrupt the country, so we're going to undo it.

Class warfare should be defined as a series of tactics & strategies used to convince the IRS that you deserve to be taxed at a rate equal to or lower than classes of people who fall far below your income level.

 

[RDreamer]

Very interesting interview. He's clearly a highly intelligent man, and it's always interesting to read the opinions of intelligent conservatives. He does seem to be coming from a bit of a bubble existence though. Obviously, working in the financial sector, he'll be opposed to anything that makes his job more difficult. It seems that he's deliberately ignoring the contributions of his industry towards our present economic woes and choosing to shift the blame entirely to Fannie and Freddie, which is something I don't think you can do if you want to be intellectually honest.

He does seem to have the right idea on a number of issues, like education.

I too am always pretty fascinated to hear more intelligent conservatives and really get their viewpoints and how they came around to them. He does seem like a smart man, from the interview, but I think there's a bit of blinding bias to what he says. Of course someone so high at the top of the rung is going to espouse the virtues of the system that got him there. Freedom and free market do have some good points to them, and encouraging entrepreneurs and rewarding them are some of the better points. The problem comes when people like him don't really seem to see the downfalls of the same system. I think they're a bit intellectually dishonest, since they likely don't have to see some of the bad sides of the same system.

I also find it curious that even the intelligent conservatives seem to only point to places like the Soviet Union and China when trying to say that going in a direction of more government is bad. Why do they always seem to gloss over some of the countries in Europe, which aren't doing so bad, or are even doing pretty well overall? And for the comment about corruption, too, I find it kind of interesting that they believe with government comes corruption, when people like the Koch brothers are pretty much the poster boys for corruption in politics for those lower on the rung. And I've heard things about some of those European countries, which have much bigger governments, being far better with corruption than us. Those countries will likely continue to be better than us in that regard until we get some sort of campaign finance reform.

He's delusional on class warfare. It isn't "class warfare" to say the wealthiest americans were given a tax break that wasn't paid for, hasn't created jobs, and helped bankrupt the country, so we're going to undo it.

Class warfare should be defined as a series of tactics & strategies used to convince the IRS that you deserve to be taxed at a rate equal to or lower than classes of people who fall far below your income level.

I also have a big problem with his view on this, too, since I kind of see it as completely ignoring our history to call these criticisms class warfare. We've had higher tax rates on the top earners in plenty of times throughout our history, and I doubt anyone would call us less "free" during those times. I doubt the classes were at war during those times, and somehow the lower class was just winning. That was just better policy, since this policy doesn't seem to be working at all.

 

[Jackson50]

I think you have that backwards. If Romney wins Kansas, the media will just say, "yeah, but he spent X or only won in X counties", but if/when he loses, it will continue to be "Romney can't seal the deal/appeal to true conservatives/rural nutters/midwesterners/etc." Rinse and repeat. Kansas really doesn't matter, but Santorum is going to trumpet it like crazy tonight.

Whoa, Santorum took Wichita. hmmm, maybe he will end up with the cities/two-horse towns of Kansas.

Perhaps, although it's immaterial as he lost. And the results in KS have been overshadowed by Romney's momentous victory in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

A billionaire that donated to Romney thinks that the ultra wealthy have "insufficient influence" on the political process

His arguments are candidly banal and insubstantial. He could have put at least a modicum of effort into developing new material.

At this moment in time, these values are under attack. This belief that a larger government is what creates prosperity, that a larger government is what creates good (is wrong). We've seen that experiment. The Soviet Union collapsed. China has run away from its state-controlled system over the last 20 years and has pulled more people up from poverty by doing so than we've ever seen in the history of humanity. Why the U.S. is drifting toward a direction that has been the failed of experiment of the last century, I don't understand. I don't understand.

Q. How much do you think your influence comes from the size of your donations? Do you think you should be able to make unlimited donations? Should you be able to donate $500,000 to a super PAC?

A. In my opinion, absolutely. Absolutely. The rules that encourage transparency around that are really important. And I say that with a bit of trepidation.

Q. Why with trepidation?

A. Target made a political donation and there was a huge boycott organized.

Q. So do you or don't you think the public should know if you're giving this money?

A. My public policy hat says transparency is valuable. On the flip side, this is a very sad moment in my lifetime. This is the first time class warfare has really been embraced as a political tool. Because we are looking at an administration that has embraced class warfare as being politically expedient, I do worry about the publicity that comes with being willing to both with my dollars and, more importantly, with my voice to stand for what I believe in.

 

[suaveric]

A billionaire that donated to Romney thinks that the ultra wealthy have "insufficient influence" on the political process

Believe it or not, I flipped a Xbox 360 to this guy in the fall of 05 when they were really hard to get. He was worth about 750 million or so at the time and he haggled with me over $100! I didn't figure out who he was until the deal had been made.

I probably should have offered the Xbox for free in return for investing the $800 for me. Oh well.

 

[JaskoX1]

Just a reminder, Game Change premieres tonight on HBO.

DVR, but saw that on twitter.

How is it?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

I enjoyed it. It was interesting.

Woody Harrelson knocked it out of the park. Though Ed Harris' McCain seemed a little out of character for me, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

 

[Tim-E]

I think it was just Ed Harris doing his own voice and not McCain's that threw it off. Harrelson and Moore nailed it, I think. It was an entertaining movie and a fun look back at that bizarre campaign.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So Obama isn't in the movie?

 

[Tim-E]

So Obama isn't in the movie?

Only through stock footage

 

[Officerrob]

Moore was very good, but Harrelson was downright fantastic in "Game Change". Ed Harris was extremely hit and miss.

 

[empty vessel]

A billionaire that donated to Romney thinks that the ultra wealthy have "insufficient influence" on the political process

More proof that America is virtually an anti-meritocracy. We make stupid people rich like nobody's business.

 

[leroidys]

Very interesting interview. He's clearly a highly intelligent man, and it's always interesting to read the opinions of intelligent conservatives. He does seem to be coming from a bit of a bubble existence though. Obviously, working in the financial sector, he'll be opposed to anything that makes his job more difficult. It seems that he's deliberately ignoring the contributions of his industry towards our present economic woes and choosing to shift the blame entirely to Fannie and Freddie, which is something I don't think you can do if you want to be intellectually honest.

He does seem to have the right idea on a number of issues, like education.

He comes off as a whiny, disconnected bitch TBH. He thinks its the financial industries god given right to wreck the economy, and that the poors just have to deal with it and not "withdraw into their shell" if their lives are ruined by the very risky and often flat out illegal behavior of giant financial institutions. It's like he completely doesn't understand that most people don't have a several hundred million dollar buffer to weather a downturn.

This part in particular...

And so I hope that other individuals who have really enjoyed growing up in a country that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and economic freedom is part of the pursuit of happiness – (I hope they realize) they have a duty now to step up and protect that. Not for themselves, but for their kids and for their grandchildren and for the person down the street that they don't even know ...

At this moment in time, these values are under attack. This belief that a larger government is what creates prosperity, that a larger government is what creates good (is wrong). We've seen that experiment. The Soviet Union collapsed. China has run away from its state-controlled system over the last 20 years and has pulled more people up from poverty by doing so than we've ever seen in the history of humanity. Why the U.S. is drifting toward a direction that has been the failed of experiment of the last century, I don't understand. I don't understand.

... is incoherent swill. Not only is it pathetically detached, but it is completely counterfactual. The US is now more the most liberal economically that it's been in decades. Government payrolls have been slashed again and again. New free trade agreements have been signed, and more and more regulatory agencies and attorneys general just flat out refuse to go after blatant criminal activity in the private sector for fear of rocking the boat. We pass a completely toothless piece of financial regulation, and all of a sudden we are trending towards Stalinism? What a piece of shit. I would have a much more positive opinion of the very wealthy if they would just learn to keep their mouths shut.

 

[Diablos]

This is from the spreadsheet I did that in. The results as of ~90% in:

Rick Santorum	14,352	52%
Mitt Romney	5,770	21%
Newt Gingrich	3,991	14%
Ron Paul	3,489	13%
Other	        227	 1%
Total	        27,829

That's how the delegates would be allocated, were it not for the clause in the rules that if two or more candidates clear 20%, only those candidates votes are considered for the purpose of delegate allocation.

Rick Santorum	14,352	71%
Mitt Romney	5,770	29%
Total	        20,122

You can see this in the caucus rules here, scroll to near the bottom, "Section VI: Binding of Delegates and Alternate Delegates". They provide an example very similar to the actual result.

Thus Santorum wins 33 of 40 delegates, with Romney getting just 7 (25 awarded for taking the state, and 15 are awarded for winning districts). Had Romney finished with 19%, Santorum's share would have been much lower.

My brain hurts. This makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone favor this kind of system?

Not like I care this time around, especially if it helps Rick.


Regarding voter enthusiasm... sarcasm or not, it's a no-brainer to me that the God-Fearin' south is going to come out en masse to try and defeat what they truly believe is either godless socialism or Muslim extremism (or some completely non sensible blending of the two) on US soil. I could have called this the minute after Obama got elected. He has a lot of work cut out for him. Hope he can come up with a plan.

 

[Mortrialus]

More proof that America is virtually an anti-meritocracy. We make stupid people rich like nobody's business.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.

I seriously didn't respond to the interview because the interview in and of itself seemed so self defeating.

 

[RustyNails]

I enjoyed it. It was interesting.

Woody Harrelson knocked it out of the park. Though Ed Harris' McCain seemed a little out of character for me, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

I figured this would be little problematic. Ed Harris is a good actor, but it didn't seem like he got McCain's mannerisms down pat. I presume it's probably out of "respect" for a war veteran, etc.

 

[markatisu]

Regarding voter enthusiasm... sarcasm or not, it's a no-brainer to me that the God-Fearin' south is going to come out en masse to try and defeat what they truly believe is either godless socialism or Muslim extremism (or some completely non sensible blending of the two) on US soil. I could have called this the minute after Obama got elected. He has a lot of work cut out for him. Hope he can come up with a plan.

What plan? A lot of the places that are "god fearing" are also never in play for a Democrat (unless you are Bill Clinton)

In the GE you don't get proportional votes so how would losing AL,TN,AK,GA or OK for example would be any different then 2008?

You also are not taking into account the demographics of other areas that are contested, VA and NC for example have very large Latino populations and have grown since 2008. I could see them go red but there is a very legitimate argument for them going blue in 2012 if voter turnout is high or mobilization of certain groups is done correctly.

But a wave of white god fearing racists is not going to be any worse then it was the first time a black man ran for President, they already failed that contest to block him.

 

[TestOfTide]

I figured this would be little problematic. Ed Harris is a good actor, but it didn't seem like he got McCain's mannerisms down pat. I presume it's probably out of "respect" for a war veteran, etc.

For me the bigger disconnect was the voice. Harris simply has too deep of a voice compared to McCain.

BTW, did the old lady mccain interrupted actually get to the point where people heard her say the phrase "he's not an amer..."?

What plan? A lot of the places that are "god fearing" are also never in play for a Democrat (unless you are Bill Clinton)

In the GE you don't get proportional votes so how would losing AL,TN,AK,GA or OK for example would be any different then 2008?

You also are not taking into account the demographics of other areas that are contested, VA and NC for example have very large Latino populations and have grown since 2008. I could see them go red but there is a very legitimate argument for them going blue in 2012 if voter turnout is high or mobilization of certain groups is done correctly.

But a wave of white god fearing racists is not going to be any worse then it was the first time a black man ran for President, they already failed that contest to block him.

First off, is there reaosn to believe that the Latino voting base is going to be as likely to vote as the religious zealots.

Second, while they are at their highest numbers in states that are already going red, the fanatical right still has notable fanbases in many of the battleground states.

I will say one positive thing though: Considering how close the 2010 senate race got in Pennsylvania I am certain that Obama will win that state.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Regarding voter enthusiasm... sarcasm or not, it's a no-brainer to me that the God-Fearin' south is going to come out en masse to try and defeat what they truly believe is either godless socialism or Muslim extremism (or some completely non sensible blending of the two) on US soil. I could have called this the minute after Obama got elected. He has a lot of work cut out for him. Hope he can come up with a plan.

I think it's called his "re-election campaign strategy".

As markatisu said, the resistance to the demographic you are describing was sky-high the first time a black man had a real shot at becoming president. The challenge for Obama is to re-assemble the coalition that elected him the first time around. There are signs that is happening. Demographic shifts are helping - the west in particular is locking up blue - and Romney will have a rough go at the electoral map.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Just started watching Game Change

Mark Salter nails it to McCain,

You might not just lose the Presidency, you might even lose your reputation

And Nicolle Wallace:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.c...llace-game-change-film-true-enough-to?ref=fpb

lol, another one from Mark Salter

Rick Davis: These Charges are bogus. Trig is not her baby? Speaking in Tongues?
Fred: She does!

 

[GhaleonEB]

After the January jobs report, I was watching the movement in Gallup's economic confidence poll closely, because it tracks other such polls closely, as well as consumer confidence. It bumped up around ~10 points after that release, returning the tracker to about where it was a year ago. (Consumer confidence has tracked back to the same level.) It held pretty close to that level all month. Obama's approval rating and approval of his handling on the economy all improved over the past couple months fed by the good jobs reports.

It's a three day rolling average, so it swings gradually when events take place. With two days passed since the February jobs report came out, it's now swing up a net seven points (two yesterday, and five today), to the highest point in the data series, which goes back to the start of 2008. Something to watch this month.

 

[Aaron Strife]

My brain hurts. This makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone favor this kind of system?

I think Obama's coalition will largely come together. His base still loves him - it's why even at rock bottom his approvals were still around 40% instead of cratering completely.

However, even in 2010 there was (relatively) strong minority turnout that got swept by white voters and independents. So obviously the economy still needs to be humming along for him to win, but Romney being as atrocious as he is certainly makes it easier.

 

[speculawyer]

So if Gingrich and Santorum stay in . . . will McCain get enough delegates to clinch?

 

[AlteredBeast]

So if Gingrich and Santorum stay in . . . will McCain get enough delegates to clinch?

Slip? Even if they both stay in, Romney can still clinch if he wins the big winner take all states. He gets delegates in each state and will win most of the really populous states.

 

[eBay Huckster]

So if Gingrich and Santorum stay in . . . will McCain get enough delegates to clinch?

Romney probably won't clinch until mid-May (or even June) at this point but I can't see him being prevented outright from hitting 1,144.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Just finished watching Game Change

Good way to get in the mood for the upcoming fight

My highlights:

1. Mark Slater realizing very quickly what a bad choice Palin will be
2. Steve Schmidt realizing very quickly that they have the greatest actress in American Politics, all they need to do is have her memorize things
3. Nicole Wallace being blamed for Couric disaster
4. McCain refusing to run with Ayers citing the SC attacks on his adopted daughter. Palin pushing McCain's campaign to do the opposite
5. McCain and his campaign realizing they have lost the plot after Palin's "palling around with terrorists line" and the results of it

Also, any sympathy Moore generated for Palin is gone on Election night when she wants to give her own concession speech. And if Steve Schmidt said half the things they have Woody say in the movie to her that day, props to him.

 

[Averon]

I wonder if Afghanistan will become an important issue in this campaign due to recent events. With the Koran burning and the recent, sordid affair of US troops killing Afghan civilians (many were children), Afghanistan is quickly becoming a powder keg.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Slip? Even if they both stay in, Romney can still clinch if he wins the big winner take all states. He gets delegates in each state and will win most of the really populous states.

On the grand scheme of things, it is pretty meaningless if Romney wins the states with the biggest populations since they all swing blue anyways.

The smartest thing he can do is not try to compete to be as conservative of a candidate as Santorum. He just needs to go 6 months without a huge flip-flop that either loses him independents or republicans or both. He also needs to get down to an issue that matters, and that he can actually provide a solution to (not the economy or social values). I don't see him doing any of that though.

 

[markatisu]

However, even in 2010 there was (relatively) strong minority turnout that got swept by white voters and independents. So obviously the economy still needs to be humming along for him to win, but Romney being as atrocious as he is certainly makes it easier.

Never ever use a midterm to gauge anything for a general, the two are often so ridiculously off in terms of trend that is just like grasping at straws. The fact there was a strong minority turnout during a midterm speaks ill for the GOP however.

Midterms almost unanimously bring out the old and the white, the youth and the minorities for some reason just do not feel like they need to vote. Not sure why it just has always been that way

 

[speculawyer]

Slip? Even if they both stay in, Romney can still clinch if he wins the big winner take all states. He gets delegates in each state and will win most of the really populous states.

LOL, yeah. I guess Game Change was on the mind.

But on the other stuff . . I heard someone saying even if he wont all the winner-take all states he could end up short. But then again that may be before his wins in Guam, Wyoming, and Mariana Islands.

 

[thefit]

2010 might as well be 2000 b.c in voters minds, the GOP was counting on left/center complacency over things like DADT (roll eyes) and the them running on "JOBS!"....lol.

2 years latter and several hard right legislation pushes,non of them having to do with improving the economy or creating jobs, along with a huge backlash over the right wings true agenda and you have yourself a setting that does not bode well for the GOP.

 

[speculawyer]

I wonder if Afghanistan will become an important issue in this campaign due to recent events. With the Koran burning and the recent, sordid affair of US troops killing Afghan civilians (many were children), Afghanistan is quickly becoming a powder keg.

But how can it be played? If the GOP goes anti-war, Obama can neutralize it by just saying "That's it, we are pulling out immediately."