Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Back on the rails, it's D-1 to the Florida Primary: Showdown in the Low-Down. The Stomp in the Swamp. The Hokey-Pokey in the Okefenokee. The...okay, I'll stop now.


Polls! We got 'em!

Current aggregate average for the state of Florida:
Mitt Romney: 40.9%
Newt Gingrich: 29.4%
Rick Santorum: 12.9%
Ron Paul: 10.3%

That's a whopping 11.5% advantage for Romney. Newt's scorched-earth policy seems to have run its course and all the momentum he took out of South Carolina has evaporated just as quickly as it formed. Romney is right back where he was before SC (just above 40%). Gingrich is 5 points higher after all is said and done, but that's come from picking up the Perry voters and a couple of points out of the Santorum camp. Dr. Paul is about 1 point higher now, but he's pretty much hit his cap around 10%. Florida isn't a particularly Libertarian state, given how many retirees and Cuban-Americans are represented.

If, as expected, Romney takes Florida then it could be the beginning of the end of the primaries. Or is it? Florida is NOT a proportional race, so whoever wins gets 50 delegates, catapulting them to a commanding lead. But, Rick Santorum's campaign has been challenging this, arguing that the race should be proportional like most of the rest of the states have gone to. Guess who else is arguing for proportional voting? Mitt Romney. Not surprisingly, he was actually in favor of winner-take-all until last week when it looked like he was going to lose the state to Gingrich. Then he started backing proportional voting. Now that he's back in front, I assume his camp has quietly dropped the push for proportional voting.  Or to put it in a form we all recognize, "He was against it before he was for it, and now he's against it again."

There's already a court challenge and internal RNC challenge to the winner-take-all status, but it won't be decided until May at the earliest. Imagine the chaos if Gingrich bounces back yet again and this turns into a tight race all the way to the convention, and then Florida pops up to once again completely fuck up the entire electoral process. xD

On the slate past Florida:

Nevada (2/4)
Maine (2/4-2/11) -- Don't ask me why it takes a small, sparsely populated state an entire week to hold a caucus. Maybe ToonyMan can shed some light on it.
Colorado (2/7)
Minnesota (2/7)
Missouri (2/7) -- Note: this primary means absolute diddlysquat and counts for no delegates. Missouri will have a caucus in March to actually determine the delegates. Why? Well, state law had set the primary date for 2/7, but the RNC had laid down the law after a bunch of states kept trying to jump earlier in the calendar, and said anybody going before March 6 other than the first four would have to forfeit half their delegates. The Governor and legislature are controlled by Democrats, and they (possibly deliberately) failed to enact any legislation to move the date. So the state GOP declared that one to be essentially null and void, and scheduled an internal caucus for mid-March, to stay in compliance with the RNC and retain their full slate of delegates. Such is American electoral politics.

[Sirus]

So, Gingrich tried to take the moral high ground with his affairs by claiming that he is more "normal" than people who don't cheat.

Here Newt, have a shovel. You need it to dig yourself deeper.

[RedKing]

So, Gingrich tried to take the moral high ground with his affairs by claiming that he is more "normal" than people who don't cheat.

Here Newt, have a shovel. You need it to dig yourself deeper.

He's doing it again. Dude actually has the giant brass cajones to try and turn a negative into a positive. "My infidelity and ethical violations make me MORE like Joe Sixpack, because he's a lying, cheating piece of shit too!" Gingrich is trying to one-up the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" populist comparison by becoming the "guy you'd like to go bang a Tijuana hooker with".

Though I found the analysis attached to that article even more interesting. There is definitely a pattern of evangelicals flocking to people who have been guilty of some serious hypocrisy and moral failings (Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker), all because they did the dog-and-pony show of public contrition and then turned that "repentance" into a selling point. But what gets me with Gingrich is that I've never actually seen contrition. He's never done the public blubbering on TV like Falwell did. He just sort of says "I have confessed my weaknesses, and that I have had to go to God for forgiveness and for reconciliation," but without ever actually admitting guilt. And of course, if you try to press this point that he's never actually said "I'm sorry" and "I was wrong", then you're a liberal elite media demon persecuting poor, poor Newt.

On the other hand, the comments on that story (on Pat Robertson's CBN, no less) make me feel a bit better than even most Christian evangelicals see through this bullshit and expect better of their political leaders.

[Strange guy]

On the other hand, the comments on that story (on Pat Robertson's CBN, no less) make me feel a bit better than even most Christian evangelicals see through this bullshit and expect better of their political leaders.

I decided to venture into the comment of a political news, despite past experience, because of this. It was only the second comment in which I learned Obama worships the moon god. Still at least all of them are seeing through his bullshit, even if they contain some of their own.

[RedKing]

On the other hand, the comments on that story (on Pat Robertson's CBN, no less) make me feel a bit better than even most Christian evangelicals see through this bullshit and expect better of their political leaders.

I decided to venture into the comment of a political news, despite past experience, because of this. It was only the second comment in which I learned Obama worships the moon god. Still at least all of them are seeing through his bullshit, even if they contain some of their own.

LOL, yeah I saw that one too. I guess I kinda shrugged it off, because I've gotten used to seeing random religious lunacy (no pun intended) and just gloss over it mentally.


Just noticed a peculiar thing. In a race where you had not one but two Mormons running, the state of Utah is the LAST one to vote (June 16th). How much do you bet Jon Huntsman would have liked them to jump towards the front of the pack?



EDIT: While noting all the various conservative pundit response lately, I got curious to know exactly how each camp shapes up in terms of its cheerleaders. So I held my nose (and my sanity) and dove into Townhall.com, HotAir.com, FOX News, and a few other sites, to dredge up the "finest" in conservative opinions and try to gauge where each pundit (and/or former candidate) fell.

Team Romney:
Charles Krauthammer
George Will
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
John McCain

Team Gingrich:
Sarah Palin
Herman Cain
Rick Perry

Team Santorum:
Michelle Malkin
Glenn Beck (formerly a Bachmann supporter)
Mark Levin (gave an "either/or" endorsement to Bachmann and Santorum)

Team Paul:
Jesse Ventura
Alex Jones

Team Roemer:
Umm...Colbert seems to like him?
Politically-minded hipsters all over the Net

Sidelines:
Bill O'Reilly (Papa Bear has never officially endorsed any candidate, because he likes to continue pretending he's a "journalist")
Mike Huckabee
Michelle Bachmann (despite the fact that there's a YouTube video out there that claims to show her endorsing Ron Paul)
Michael Savage (not much a neutral party as a completely insane one. Endorsed Cain, then Perry, and most recently Romney--all the while talking about how much he likes Ron Paul. I'm guessing next week he'll endorse Joe Arpaio's boots, and the week after that, the number 12.)

[Loud Whispers]

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

[PTTG??]

Look, I love bashing republican political candidates. I love laughing at people who think the deliberation of a choice between seven hypocritical religious fundamentalists funded by massive corporations represents a "conservative" debate.

But look, I think that we all know that Obama is going to win the election. As you'll recall, he killed Osama Ben Laden with his bare hands. He talks good and looks well. He is the president, and what kind of terrorist votes against the president of the united states? For the love of god, we gave George Bush two terms!

I don't like Obama any more than I like the republicans. I find him a hypocritical religious moderate funded by massive corporations. He claims to "compromise" in order to put the blame on republicans whenever some unpopular bill gets passed (not that I don't blame the republicans, but it's a cooperative effort).

What bugs me the most, however, is the content and intensity of this republican primary. For months now, every moment of political news has been dominated by conservative viewpoints and debate. Should we kill women who get abortions, or simply put them in jail for life? Should we make Christianity the official religion of the nation, or make the nation the official nation of Christianity?

All this seems to serve no practical purpose. Why spend billions of dollars to fight other billions of dollars for the privilege of losing to Obama?

I believe there are two reasons; first, part of the traditional long-cycle strategy. The Democrats get even-numbered presidents, the Republicans get the odd ones. Or maybe the other way around. My point is, the illusion of progress is had by both sides, and the danger of sliding back is apparent. There is never an election year where a third party (I would like to state at this time that I am not now, nor have ever been, a member of the Ronpaulist Party.) is safe- every year is a desperate struggle, lest THOSE GUYS win.

The second part of this is that the constant flow of verbal santorum gives one the impression that we live in a third-world country. That social liberals should be glad that gays aren't shot on sight and that women are allowed to leave home without a male escort. It is lowering the discourse by pure density of ignorance. And it seems impossible to find the will or momentum to fight against it. There are no popular, serious progressives. The best thinkers of my class appear to be comedians and borderline criminals.

Perhaps I am alone; perhaps I am a radical for wanting people to be able to just be people, judged solely by merit. Perhaps a social support net is an impossible extravagance. Perhaps the future history of the world will be one dominated by needless war, avoidable climate change, and the growth of a domineering, apocalyptic religion. All presided over by a man with a blue tie or a red tie... it doesn't really matter.

Or perhaps not. But one can rare enough see signs to the contrary in the news.

[Aqizzar]

I think one reason why this election cycle, the Republican nomination that is, generates as much... stridency as it does, is precisely because Obama's got a pretty good shot at winning.  There are sane Republicans to run against him.  Sane enough that they can make a rational analysis of their chances, and decided to sit it out for a different cycle.  So the only people on stage are the ones ambitious, egotistical, and well-funded enough to run.

Team Romney:
Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter would also be in the sidelines.  She's come down on Gingrich for his bashing Bain Capital (which is to say, bashing capitalism), but she's not pro-Romney (at least not until he's the nominee).  I'm surprised you didn't trip over that interview with her saying the Republican party has to draft Christ Christie before a Romney candidacy costs the Republican party the election.

Of course, she's Ann Coulter, so it's not like anything she said yesterday matters to what she'll say tomorrow, but it's still there.

[Nadaka]

I just have to say that Charles Krauthammer is a hilarious name.

PTTG?? I would point out that Perot was actually in line to challenge the presidency before he committed the tactical blunder of withdrawing from the race temporarily, without telling anyone that it was temporary or that it was his crappy idea to do so to avoid negative campaigning.

[RedKing]

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

I just have to say that Charles Krauthammer is a hilarious name.

Doubly-so for the fact that he's Jewish. Krauthammer's an odd bird. Stridently pro-Israel and neoconservative, but he's in favor of abortion rights, energy conservation, embryonic stem cell research and a critic of creationism and intelligent design. He's a thinking man's conservative (although he can get fairly shrill when he gets into the partisan character sniping). But I can see why he would go for Romney and be utterly disgusted with the Know-Nothing wing of the party.

[kaijyuu]

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

You'd trust a dirty consonant?!

[MonkeyHead]

Could be worse, you could end up with "Y"... no-one knows WTF thats supposed to be.

[Loud Whispers]

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

You'd trust a dirty consonant?!

I thought in this day and age consonants and vowels would have the same rights as numbers.

I was wrong.

[RedKing]

Hey, the number 12 would make the best president. >:|

And for Vice-President, the letter Q.

You'd trust a dirty consonant?!

There's 21 consonants and only five vowels. Stop being a tool for the 19.2%!!

[scriver]

I don't understand how Y can be anything but a vowel. Just feel that sound, man!


...Vowel power. *raises fist*