Print

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

[Sirus]

@ GreatJustice and Aqizzar:

(face removed)

[Aqizzar]

Yeah, if only to keep that from showing up again, I'm certainly not continuing the argument here.  I figured that'd be my last chance to make a point about the Supreme Court I felt had to be made (my thread and all) so I did.  At this point, I couldn't care less about anything having to do with Ron Paul.

[GreatJustice]

Nevada primer.

The Republican nominating train is in new terrain: the West. Saturday’s caucus in Nevada will unfold against mountains and deserts, a far different backdrop from the first four states.

But do not be fooled by the scenery. Where elections are concerned, Nevada is an urbanized state. Most Nevadans live in cities, and that holds true for Republicans and for Republican caucusgoers. In the state’s 2008 Republican caucus, exit polls found just over half of voters were from urban communities, and another quarter was from the suburbs.

The dire economy may help explain the fractured support of Nevada’s Tea Party, which has been one of the more active Tea Party groups in the country, but cannot seem to agree on a standard-bearer in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum won the endorsement of Sharron Angle, a senatorial candidate backed by the Tea Party, but it might be too little too late. A poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found Tea Party support was split, with 37 percent going to Newt Gingrich, 27 percent to Mr. Romney and 20 to Mr. Santorum.

Another important voting bloc, as has been widely noted, are Mormons. Twenty-six percent of 2008 Republican caucusgoers were Mormon, and Mr. Romney won 95 percent of their votes. Mr. Paul, however, has been trying to make inroads into that support. His focus on the Constitution is a natural fit for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers the document to be divinely inspired. And Mormonism has a history of conflict with the federal government.

In 2008, there was also a substantial share of caucusgoers — 8 percent — who were Hispanic. While a majority of Florida’s Hispanics are of Cuban descent, Nevada’s Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Paul have reportedly courted this group’s support more than Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum.

Should make for some interesting reading. And viewing if anyone lets Sharron Angle near a TV camera.

538 vote projections.

On the less factual side of things there have been some polls and rumours that make for fun speculation. One poll shows Santorum beating Obama in the general (lol). Now this is a Rasmussen poll and they have had horrible problems in the past, and this seems to mostly be people remaining mostly ignorant about Santorum given his (very) brief time in the spotlight, but for a few days it makes him the most electable candidate. He might be able to ride that out of a bad beat in Nevada.

Meanwhile Newt is holding a press conference immediately after the results come in. Not a speech, a press conference. Some have take this to mean he might drop out.

Combine these two and you have a fantasy situation where Newt throws his weight behind Santorum and the two run hard against Romney. At least one punter got some money down on a Santorum presidency today. I'd have taken the 140/1 as a value bet, but 66/1 sounds a bit generous to Santorums general electability. That said, today I'd take those as the odds for him getting the Republican nod.

Doubtful. Romney is going to win the nomination easily barring something incredible.

The upcoming caucuses are all very much states that Santorum will get crushed in, barring Missouri and maybe Minnesota. His strongest states are rust belt states, and those are basically sealed in favour of Romney.

He isn't even on the ballot in a lot of states.

[Darvi]

That picture makes Gingrich look a bit like Derek Jacobi's Master.

Only more fodder for my "Republicans are aliens out to destroy the world"-theory.

[PTTG??]

A Santorum presidency would be the best thing for humor and satire since George W(hat do you mean there's no such word as misunderestimating?) Bush.

[palsch]

The Santorum scenario (soggiest spy thriller ever...) is extremely doubtful but entertaining to speculate about. My play scenario for causing the most damage to the Republican field;

All four candidates stay in but Santorum manages a minor bump thanks to recent polls and disgust with the top two pushing them towards him, putting him securely ahead of Paul but still behind Gingrich. Gingrich and Romney continue to beat each other down, suppressing their support and pushing their combined share down somewhat compared to the two trailers. Gingrich drops out shortly before Super Tuesday and endorses Santorum, giving him enough of a bump for the combined pair to be fairly successful before anyone takes a second look or thinks and they slump again. Come the convention the combined pair have enough delegates to deny Romney an outright win and can turn a contested convention into a slugging match.

Of course, this news suggests it's not happening.

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino executive keeping Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes alive, has relayed assurances to Mitt Romney that he will provide even more generous support to his candidacy if he becomes the Republican nominee, several associates said in interviews here.

Adelson is the money man behind Newt's savaging of Romney. This makes me think he sees the end of the line for Newt and is laying the ground work to try to pull the party together. I'm really hoping Newt doesn't see things the same way.

[G-Flex]

A Santorum presidency would be the best thing for humor and satire since George W(hat do you mean there's no such word as misunderestimating?) Bush.

Herman Cain would have been much better. For humor, I mean.

Show me a state constitution that doesn't prevent a state government from instituting an official religion.

There are state constitutions that have establishment of religion in them. See: Texas. It's incredibly foolish to assume that state laws/constitution would protect all of everyone's (federal) constitutional rights, because they do not and it is trivially provable that many do the exact opposite. Texas' state constitution, for example, bars people who don't believe in God from even holding public office.

That's hardly a realistic fear, and furthermore the SC, by definition, only has jurisdiction in federal matters, of which marriage, religion, and abortion are not. Were the states to actually violate the BoRs, then they would be prosecuted based on their actual violations, not on their perceived violations

This doesn't make any sense. Establishment of Religion is a federal matter. It's in the fucking first amendment. A state law that violates the establishment clause would very much be an "actual violation" and under Ron Paul's law, the SCOTUS wouldn't be able to rule on it. I don't know why you use the term "prosecute" because it doesn't really apply, but there you go.

This bill is mostly for the purpose of preventing the SC from creating "rights" out of thin air on issues that the Federal government has little ground on.

Right, like that pesky "establishment clause" those activist judges are talking about. How is that not a right that actually exists?

It doesn't prevent the courts from prosecuting 1st amendment violations, it prevents them from prosecuting states for perceived violations of SC-created rights (be it life or abortion).

Do you really, really, really think that the first fucking amendment right to freedom of religion, and the establishment clause, is an "SC-created right"? Seriously? That isn't something the Supreme Court made up. I'm sorry.


You've obviously shown yourself to be incapable of doing basic research or even arguing in good faith. It's not worth arguing with you if you can't be remotely rational, so I won't be replying to you anymore.

[Toady One]

I know you've established a kind of "show large face instead of posting" culture in here, but it's getting reporty, so please try to keep it under control.  I removed/edited a few posts.

[Sirus]

Sorry about that 

[RedKing]

Nevada primer.

The Republican nominating train is in new terrain: the West. Saturday’s caucus in Nevada will unfold against mountains and deserts, a far different backdrop from the first four states.

But do not be fooled by the scenery. Where elections are concerned, Nevada is an urbanized state. Most Nevadans live in cities, and that holds true for Republicans and for Republican caucusgoers. In the state’s 2008 Republican caucus, exit polls found just over half of voters were from urban communities, and another quarter was from the suburbs.

The dire economy may help explain the fractured support of Nevada’s Tea Party, which has been one of the more active Tea Party groups in the country, but cannot seem to agree on a standard-bearer in the presidential campaign. Rick Santorum won the endorsement of Sharron Angle, a senatorial candidate backed by the Tea Party, but it might be too little too late. A poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found Tea Party support was split, with 37 percent going to Newt Gingrich, 27 percent to Mr. Romney and 20 to Mr. Santorum.

Another important voting bloc, as has been widely noted, are Mormons. Twenty-six percent of 2008 Republican caucusgoers were Mormon, and Mr. Romney won 95 percent of their votes. Mr. Paul, however, has been trying to make inroads into that support. His focus on the Constitution is a natural fit for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which considers the document to be divinely inspired. And Mormonism has a history of conflict with the federal government.

In 2008, there was also a substantial share of caucusgoers — 8 percent — who were Hispanic. While a majority of Florida’s Hispanics are of Cuban descent, Nevada’s Hispanics are mostly of Mexican origin. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Paul have reportedly courted this group’s support more than Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum.

Should make for some interesting reading. And viewing if anyone lets Sharron Angle near a TV camera.

538 vote projections.

On the less factual side of things there have been some polls and rumours that make for fun speculation. One poll shows Santorum beating Obama in the general (lol). Now this is a Rasmussen poll and they have had horrible problems in the past, and this seems to mostly be people remaining mostly ignorant about Santorum given his (very) brief time in the spotlight, but for a few days it makes him the most electable candidate. He might be able to ride that out of a bad beat in Nevada.

Meanwhile Newt is holding a press conference immediately after the results come in. Not a speech, a press conference. Some have take this to mean he might drop out.

Combine these two and you have a fantasy situation where Newt throws his weight behind Santorum and the two run hard against Romney. At least one punter got some money down on a Santorum presidency today. I'd have taken the 140/1 as a value bet, but 66/1 sounds a bit generous to Santorums general electability. That said, today I'd take those as the odds for him getting the Republican nod.

Doubtful. Romney is going to win the nomination easily barring something incredible.

The upcoming caucuses are all very much states that Santorum will get crushed in, barring Missouri and maybe Minnesota. His strongest states are rust belt states, and those are basically sealed in favour of Romney.

He isn't even on the ballot in a lot of states.

Wha? He's a Republican candidate. At last check, he was on the ballot in every state (at least so far). Also, I think Santorum would have a natural constituency in the South, especially if Gingrich dips out. I agree that Romney probably has this in the bag, but the rest of your post is just flat what.


Also, palsch is the man. Gots mad love for anybody else who follows all this primarily for the game itself rather than the outcome. I worry about what it'd all mean AFTER it's over. During the race, I'm just into the race.


EDIT: Oh yeah, the results. Romney 0wnzors in Nevada. Looking like 50%+ at this point, Gingrich in the low 20s, Paul in the mid-high teens, and Santorum picking up the trash.

[palsch]

Also, palsch is the man. Gots mad love for anybody else who follows all this primarily for the game itself rather than the outcome. I worry about what it'd all mean AFTER it's over. During the race, I'm just into the race.

Usually I care about the outcome. 2008 I wanted McCain in the GOP primaries (I honestly respected the guy) and Obama in the Dems because I thought the outcome mattered.

This year the primaries don't matter to me one jot. I don't like any of the Republican candidates. The one I think would make the least disastrous president is pretty much guaranteed the win. I'd rather Obama retains the presidency no matter what happens in the primary (and if I vote it will be for him) so my only real concern is seeing Romney (or whoever) win ugly and come out of this damaged goods. So I call for bloodsport and the GOP obliges.

Being able to watch it all from the other side of the pond probably helps.

[RedKing]

Yeah, I was for McCain in the 2008 primary too. I felt bad for the guy after what happened in 2000. I don't feel so bad after 2008. Which brings up a point we haven't considered yet: who would Romney draft for VP? It's tough to get a real boost out of a good VP pick, but I think Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle showed us that a bad one can kill a candidate.

[Capntastic]

I don't think Sarah Palin killed McCain's chances, if anything it hypercharged the based.  For all the wrong reasons, obviously.  Of course, if there's some stats out there I'm not aware of, feel free to show 'em.

[Capntastic]

Instead of focusing on castigating people, let's try to find some 3rd party candidates that seem cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Alexander  A friend told me about this guy, and he seems pretty solid.  While I haven't had time to activate my mind palace and determine much about him, he doesn't seem to have any overt failings.  People might also see his visual similarity to Lando Carlissian as a major plus.

[Montague]

I don't think Sarah Palin killed McCain's chances, if anything it hypercharged the based.  For all the wrong reasons, obviously.  Of course, if there's some stats out there I'm not aware of, feel free to show 'em.

Palin repulsed and alienated independants and moderates, who would have probably otherwise voted for McCain, who is a centrist republican and oddly enough ran his campaign to that effect. Palin being the borderline retarded Arch-Conservative that she is compelled independants to vote Democrat or not vote at all.

It is afterall, the independants and moderates that determine the outcomes of elections, it's never about the base for republicans or democrats.

That said, I still voted for McCain in 2008, with the hopes that he'd have her sent away in exile to Site-R or otherwise marginalized once elected. Although I pretty much voted for him because I liked McCain since 2000 though and I wish he'd won the 2000 Primaries and possibly could have avoided Dubbya's reign of incompetance. After Bush and looking at this latest batch of Republicans, I think I'm just not going to vote ever again if it keeps up like this. Just going to boycott democracy untill somebody competant has a chance of winning.