empty vessel
Member
Welcome back, besada. You've been missed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
The beard alone gets my vote.
The state conference was today and he was selected to run on the ticket. hilariousumiliating.
The pattern is discernible. Aside from Colorado, he only performs well in a narrow band around the Mississippi. It exemplifies the limited appeal of his candidacy. But where his schtick plays, he exceeds expectations. Thus, he might exceed expectations in Wisconsin, although I think Romney's lead is now insuperable. Also, Santorum's performance mostly mirrors Gingrich's poor performance. Romney is largely a push in the aggregate, but Gingrich consistently fails to meet expectations.
That's par for the course for Libertarians.
makingmusic476
Member
I think this is an example of Gingrich voters starting to jump ship for Santorum. Romney didn't fair much worse in Louisiana than he did in MS/AL. 26% vs 29/30%. It's just that Gingrich got half the votes here he did in those two states, dropping from 29//21% to 16%, with the rest going to Santorum.
I think that's fairly accurate in this instance. The South was Gingrich's base, and it has not been especially felicitous for Romney. But I don't think it will translate this substantially in other regions.
Mortrialus
Banned
Quality.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Romney still managed to get above 25% so he'll win some delegates despite the blowout.
Also, another state with low turnout. Whoever designed this primary season was a complete fool
edit: eh perhaps that's a bit harsh. If republicans had decent candidates, this primary layout could have proven to be impressive. Unfortunately the Christies, Thunes, Daniels, Huckabees, Palins, etc didn't join in, leaving the worst possible candidate list imaginable.
makingmusic476
Member
Is it really that low? From what figures I could find, the 2008 Republican primary only had 156k or so voters, and 2000 only had a turn out of 102k. 186k may be the best turnout they've ever had.
For some reason the Democratic primaries show a much stronger performance here, despite Democrats generally losing any elections.
speculawyer
Member
Besada! Glad to hear from you again. I hope things are going well for you.
jamesinclair
Banned
WTF happened to the missouri caucus?
Invisible_Insane
Member
Glad to have you back.
You too, I guess.
Michael Motherfucking Steele.
Black Republican
Member
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/03/paul-ryan-would-consider-vp-slot-118566.html
the only thing is, hasnt Romney pretty much avoided mentioning Ryan's plan?
I'd love it. Bring the issues brought about by that budget right into the open. Team Bama are licking their lips in anticipation.
And, oh, that didn't take long...
Invisible_Insane
Member
Not really, he's said that he endorses the basic structure of the plan. I can't say that I'd see adding Ryan to the ticket as a particularly advantageous move; it'd be playing right into the Democrats' hands.
Honestly, I can't think of a single VP pick that doesn't load the the ticket with liabilities.
Martinez? That Virginia governor?
Invisible_Insane
Member
Martinez is the Game Change pick. I really doubt the Republicans are ready to re-visit that just now, though she'll have been better vetted. She also was a Democrat as of 5 or 6 years ago, so it's not clear that she'd allay concerns about Romney's inadequate conservatism.
All the national attention McDonnell has garnered in the past month is because of the transvaginal ultrasound bill. Consider his history at Regent University and the thesis he wrote there, plus the 30-some bills he sponsored while in the Virginia legislature on various anti-abortion measures. Plays right into the "War on Women" line of attack.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
So, seriously, no coverage whatsoever or results posted about delegates in Missouri? I could have sworn it was due yesterday...
Romney is going to have a great next week, He is going to kill it in all three primaries, probably.
Romney is going to have a great next week, He is going to kill it in all three primaries, probably.
yeah, no, there is no 2016 for Santorum. He's a shit candidate in a pool of shit candidates. If there was anyone worthwhile in the GOP primary he would have been laughed out of the race months ago.
you'd think there could be a reason for this?
I read that if Romney didn't get above 25%, the delegates he won would not have gone to Santorum, they would have gone to the convention unpledged. Dem primary rules.
Which means Romney would have gotten them anyways, naturally.
Santorum has no organization anywhere and the caucus rules are overwrought and prone to exploitation by those that manage to understand them.
That's why I think Romney will eventually pick a vanilla candidate who, though they don't exhilarate, doesn't necessarily detract from the ticket. Essentially, Tim Pawlenty. Although, I think Huntsman epitomizes those particular traits and would be a quality running mate were he not a Mormon. Anthony Downs be damned, I'm not sure I'd force the GOP to support two Mormons. I'd not tempt that fate.
I hope you are seated as this may come as a terrible surprise, but the GOP made a mess of the process in one of Missouri's larger counties.
The most damning condemnation of Santorum is that he already had a network after two terms in the Senate which he could tap for support, yet he was uniformly rejected; incidentally, this also plagued Gingrich's candidacy. If he could not rely on those who worked with him in the Senate, he'll not be able to engender support by stumping in Congressional elections.
TacticalFox88
Banned
So will the crazy in the GOP intesify if (when) Obama wins? Or mellow out?
Oh, it'll intensify. Should be a hoot.
I'm optimistic. I may temper that optimism as the hearing proceeds this week and we get a sense of the justices' lines of questioning.
Oh, we ain't seen nothing yet, especially if Romney's the nom and loses... I mean, a 2nd "RINO" nominated in a row and another defeat!?!? The base won't stand for that and will veer even further into crazyville. Yikes, for the hopes of moderates still in that party.
SteveWinwood
Member
I used to live in st charles county! Was the heart of white flight, then those darned blacks started moving in, so all the white people were trying to move back into saint louis. Believed they called it some sort of doughnut effect. It was crazy.
I think that if Romney wins, the emerging narrative will be that he wasn't conservative enough.
But it's hard to predict, and it really depends on how the general election plays out, if he keep getting hammered on the ultra-conservative statements he made during the primaries, there might be an opposite backlash (though historically, candidates were reasonably successful walking toward the center once they get the nomination).
However long term, I have little doubt that the GOP will have to tone it down, the demographics are just not there, and in the grand scheme of things, electability is the strongest driving force for politicians.
Dude, we're talking about the Republican Puerto Rican primary here.
I'm cautiously optimistic.
The conservative wing can't be happy with how Citizen United played out, I don't think he's too eager to have proponents of the law march cancer patients who will be unable to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
And yes, I absolutely think that those things factor in.
Well, as a single data point in the increasing economic recovery, I am once again employed, so I can be a good statistic rather than a bad one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/the-full-employment-congress.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Well, alright.
The Full-Employment Congress
Published: March 24, 2012
Representative Ron Pauls signature libertarianism takes on a whole new meaning with the disclosure that he has paid more than $300,000 in salaries and fees to his daughter, brother, grandson, daughters mother-in-law, granddaughter and grandson-in-law. There is no Congressional ethics rule against employing family members in the pursuit of public service, as the office of Mr. Paul, Texas Republican and presidential candidate, points out.
But a new report detailing how the families of more than half of all House members similarly benefited financially from their ties with a lawmaker makes for particularly interesting reading when politicians all over are promising voters: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Eighty-two lawmakers paid family members through their office payrolls, campaign committees and political-action funds, according to the 346-page report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, an independent watchdog group in Washington. Forty-four had relatives who lobbied or worked in government affairs. Twenty members dipped into their campaign coffers to help a relative who ran for office, and 14 made sure they charged interest when they were reimbursed for personal loans that they advanced to their own campaign committees.
A little-noticed House hearing recently admitted that Congress, wallowing in 10 percent approval ratings, was broken and needed to be fixed. No one said anything about ending the rampant bipartisan nepotism cushioning Capitol Hill careers.
If nothing else, the report is a measure of the creativity quietly at work in Congress when it comes to hearth and home. If only this could be applied to something other than achieving full employment in the halls of the Capitol.
Published: March 24, 2012
Representative Ron Pauls signature libertarianism takes on a whole new meaning with the disclosure that he has paid more than $300,000 in salaries and fees to his daughter, brother, grandson, daughters mother-in-law, granddaughter and grandson-in-law. There is no Congressional ethics rule against employing family members in the pursuit of public service, as the office of Mr. Paul, Texas Republican and presidential candidate, points out.
But a new report detailing how the families of more than half of all House members similarly benefited financially from their ties with a lawmaker makes for particularly interesting reading when politicians all over are promising voters: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Eighty-two lawmakers paid family members through their office payrolls, campaign committees and political-action funds, according to the 346-page report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, an independent watchdog group in Washington. Forty-four had relatives who lobbied or worked in government affairs. Twenty members dipped into their campaign coffers to help a relative who ran for office, and 14 made sure they charged interest when they were reimbursed for personal loans that they advanced to their own campaign committees.
A little-noticed House hearing recently admitted that Congress, wallowing in 10 percent approval ratings, was broken and needed to be fixed. No one said anything about ending the rampant bipartisan nepotism cushioning Capitol Hill careers.
If nothing else, the report is a measure of the creativity quietly at work in Congress when it comes to hearth and home. If only this could be applied to something other than achieving full employment in the halls of the Capitol.
Well, alright.
Invisible_Insane
Member
My money's on severable and unconstitutional. If we get a Democratic congress (ha!), we'll give it another go in 2013.
I can see it from a pure constitutional perspective, but I don't know, there's no money backing that outcome, no special interest that would benefit from it.
And man, the insurance industry will go ape-shit.
And the thing is, on a personal level, it's hard to even blame them.
Which is exactly why you need clear ethics rules around that crap; congress integrity should not hinge on our elected officials' ability to say no to their mothers.
Invisible_Insane
Member
People have been known to confuse pissing off all interested parties with doing the right thing. Few games interest me less than What Would Kennedy Do?, so I'm mostly throwing darts.
I was trying to think about it, and I honestly don't know how it will played out in that case.
I mean, it's obvious that you can't prevent pre-existing conditions and wait periods without a mandate (or a similar mechanism), but the law will remain in the books.
So now what?
Do congress pass a law, through both houses, saying that it's okay to bring it back?
On an election year?
It will be messy, and I'm guessing that if insurance lobbyists sniff an overturn, they will push HARD against severability, which at this point, will have no one pushing against it.
But who fucking knows.
The problem is that without the mandate it becomes insolvent.
Thus giving, for the first time, the GOP a legitimate talking point as to why this is potentially disastrous policy.
Yeah, but it's destructive to the insurance industry.
And man, that will be fun to campaign on wouldn't it?
Think of the poor insurance companies!
And the funny thing that they would actually be right.
Invisible_Insane
Member
As it happens, the Supreme Court's job is not to make good policy, which is one reason I see this as a possibility.
It would actually be a pretty brilliant move if you look at the Supreme Court as part of the Republican apparatus-rule the mandate severable and unconstitutional, and then the repeal of the rest of the law would likely be cost-saving in terms of scoring, which puts the Senate and Obama in a pretty uncomfortable position.
Like Chichikov said, that ruling would be a messy one that the insurance lobby would staunchly oppose, but it also seems like one that the conservative justices might embrace to soften the charges of partisan hackery.
We're getting a democratic congress and senate, bookmark it.
Shame that Obama is locked in, so we'll have a Republican white house. =/
How would this work?
I've gotta look into the possibility of my program doing something like this.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Czech you're Prime Ministers.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
It will go insane. Then they will eventually move onto the next thing. If Obama wins reelection and he goes in harder with his second term and passes some or any sort of significant legislation, expect the GOP to be riled up over anything that gets passed.
How many presidential elections will the GOP have to lose before they get it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked