Page 30 of 55 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 1098
  1. #581
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Colbert has re-taken control of his SuperPac. He also filed with the FEC and says the SuperPac has raised more than a million dollars for him to do with as he pleases. Ahh, the mayhem! I hope he actually gets on the ballot somewhere, someday.

    -Jason "politics can be such fun!" Evans
    -Jason "
    I guess I've officially become a stick in the mud, but I fail to see much fun in a comedian performing a stunt actually getting on a ballot or influencing elections. It's one thing to describe our political system as a farce. It's another thing to see someone actually prove it.

  2. #582
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    I guess I've officially become a stick in the mud, but I fail to see much fun in a comedian performing a stunt actually getting on a ballot or influencing elections. It's one thing to describe our political system as a farce. It's another thing to see someone actually prove it.
    I was pulling for Pat Paulsen, who ran as a joke but did not really expose the flaws in the system like Colbert does.

    Too young to remember his '68 Campaign but remember him running in '72 sorta.

    Meanwhile, Newt gives his best line yet:

    “I’m not going to lose big here,” Gingrich told reporters about the election today. He added this campaign has a long road ahead: “I would say probably six months -- probably June or July -- unless Mitt Romney drops out earlier.”
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 01-31-2012 at 01:24 PM. Reason: q

  3. #583
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Pat Paulsen

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I was pulling for Pat Paulsen, who ran as a joke but did not really expose the flaws in the system like Colbert does.

    Too young to remember his '68 Campaign but remember him running in '72 sorta.

    Meanwhile, Newt gives his best line yet:
    IIRC, in 1968 Paulsen was not an actual candidate, but ran a joke campaign, which gave him a lot of material for his comedy routines. It was successful in that he got booked on a lot of shows and was able to do some concerts afterwards.

    In 1972, I believe he decided to run as a real candidate and got no notice whatsoever. Sic transit gloria.

    sage

  4. #584

    3.5% of total delegates awarded thus far

    One thing I find a bit humorous is that only 3.5% of the total delegates have been awarded thus far, yet it (almost) always seems to be the case that we anoint a winner around this time. Romney has 31 projected delegates right now, Gingrich 28, Paul 10, Santorum 8, and Hunstman 2. That is out of a total of 2,286 and 1,144 delegates needed to win (Romney is already more than 2.5% the way there!). According to CNN, the number of delegates actually won is as follows: Gingrich 25, Romney 16, Paul 10, Santorum 8.

    In the popular vote arena, thus far Romney has received 30.4% of the popular vote while Gingrich is barely behind at 29.1%. Paul at 16.6% and Santorum has received 16%. For the major front runner status that Romney has acquired, you'd think he'd be a lot more ahead than those numbers suggest. And the national polls still have Gingrich as slightly ahead. Obviously, there are other factors that pundits take into account like individual state polls, organization, and money.

  5. #585
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Losing a million isn't a concern. Losing the hordes of motivated young volunteers/voters *is* a concern, and I think this is could be an indication that Obama has.
    I really don't see how anyone could conclude that Colbert's "campaign" has caused Obama to lose ANY volunteers or voters, much less "hordes" of them. But even assuming that all of Colbert's donors are erst-while Obama supporters, chipping in $10 or $20 to Colbert for amusement's sake now (during the GOP primary season) does not mean they will vote for anyone other than Obama in November. And since Colbert doesn't have any volunteer organization in place, it does not interfere with Obama's volunteer base at all. If the Colbert SuperPAC continues expanding and raising money during the general election, then it might start to cut into Obama's base, but at worst, it has merely a neutral effect on Obama's base at this stage.

    But even if it continues to grow, I am not sure that the Colbert SuperPAC is really a problem for Obama. In fact, it might help. First, since Colbert is a big TV personality with his own media delivery vehicle, a dollar spent by the Colbert SuperPAC probably goes a lot further than a dollar spent by the Obama campaign. Just think about it for a second: Colbert makes a commercial, sends it to a small media market, then shows it on his show for free, it gets posted everywhere for free, and is circulated and watched all over the place for free. Obama's official campaign commercials won't get the same bang for the buck. So as long as Colbert keeps emphasizing how ridiculous the GOP personalities and their stances are, then it is probably the most efficient way to get those underlying messages across. Second, Colbert can ridicule a person or that person's views without it coming across as a "negative attack ad." Third, Colbert's anti-Romney ads won't bring any blowback to Obama himself. The same cannot be said for all the anti-X ads that every other candidate's SuperPACs are running. They can say they're not coordinating, but the superficial barriers between campaigns and SuperPACs are starting to get recognized for how flimsy they truly are (thanks in part to Colbert's antics thus far).

    Overall, I feel it's very likely that Colbert is drawing in a lot people who do not otherwise donate to or involve themselves with campaigns at all. Moreover, besides bringing in those independents, his daily coverage of the Republican candidates (and to a lesser extent the ads themselves) is probably helping to unify Obama's base by emphasizing the flaws in the opposition.

    In short, I don't really see any cause for concern for Obama here.

  6. #586
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    I really don't see how anyone could conclude that Colbert's "campaign" has caused Obama to lose ANY volunteers or voters, much less "hordes" of them. But even assuming that all of Colbert's donors are erst-while Obama supporters, chipping in $10 or $20 to Colbert for amusement's sake now (during the GOP primary season) does not mean they will vote for anyone other than Obama in November. And since Colbert doesn't have any volunteer organization in place, it does not interfere with Obama's volunteer base at all.
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying Colbert's PAC will cause problems for Obama. I'm saying the level of interest in his PAC is a sign of problems among the demographic that played a crucial role in his 2008 machine.

    In otherwords, it's not causation, it's correlation. But I'm just conjecturing.

  7. #587
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying Colbert's PAC will cause problems for Obama. I'm saying the level of interest in his PAC is a sign of problems among the demographic that played a crucial role in his 2008 machine.

    In otherwords, it's not causation, it's correlation. But I'm just conjecturing.
    In other words, it's not that the people showing interest in Colbert's PAC will vote for someone other than Obama, it's that people in their demographic will stay home and watch Colbert, instead of campaigning for, and ultimately voting for, Obama.

  8. #588
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    In other words, it's not that the people showing interest in Colbert's PAC will vote for someone other than Obama, it's that people in their demographic will stay home and watch Colbert, instead of campaigning for, and ultimately voting for, Obama.
    Meh. Close enough.

  9. #589
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    According to Drudge, the 6:00pm exit polls had Romney at 49% with Gingrich at 33%. Hitting 50% would obviously be a huge story for the Romney campaign, but getting within a couple of points of a majority and beating Gingrich by 15% or more will be enough for the media to report this as a drubbing.

    Drudge is also reporting that the networks are planning on calling it for Romney as soon as the polls close at 8:00pm ET.

  10. #590
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    I'm saying the level of interest in his PAC is a sign of problems among the demographic that played a crucial role in his 2008 machine.
    Well, Obama's support is lower in every demographic than it was in 2008; I don't think anyone could argue otherwise or present credible evidence to the contrary. But I just don't see how Colbert's ability to garner some financial donations during the early part of the Republican primary season (when Obama is running unopposed) is itself a bad sign for Obama. He's still crushing Romney in the 18-29 demographic...he just needs more of them to get engaged. But lack of engagement is a notorious issue in this demographic, and Colbert actually helps address it. Consider: How many people are aware of the silly things that are being said on the campaign trail solely because they heard Colbert's (or Jon Stewart's) take on them that evening? How many young people know about the Citizens United case that otherwise never would have heard of it or considered its implications?

    IMO, the fact that Colbert and Stewart can get people to attend a rally in DC or donate money to their SuperPAC is a worse sign for the targets of their comedy than for Obama. After all, given the general thrust of Colbert's on-air personality, the Colbert SuperPAC is basically an anti-conservative SuperPAC, only its "attack ads" use humor and satire rather than brooding fear and negativity. I know I'm generalizing a little here, but people who donate to the Colbert SuperPAC don't do it because they're frustrated with Obama...they do it because they know Colbert is going to use the opportunity to relentlessly go after the conservative ethos and its standard-bearers.

    If Larry the Cable Guy (or some other comedian) decided to start a SuperPAC with the goal of making fun of Obama and liberalism, would you see it as a bad sign for Republicans if he was able to raise some money? I certainly wouldn't. He might divert some money that would otherwise go to a Republican campaign directly, or to another SuperPAC, but he'd also be reaching people who otherwise wouldn't donate at all, and he'd be reinforcing his views with people who otherwise wouldn't be listening.

    Regardless, as someone else said, $1 million over several months is really just a drop in the bucket compared to what the real campaigns and SuperPACs (on both sides) are pulling in. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Obama's support is not as high as it was in 2008, but this is not one of them IMO. Reasonable minds can disagree though.

  11. #591
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    [good points redacted]
    I concede!

    I still think a million is a lot for a joke PAC to raise.

  12. #592
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Map is interesting:

    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/pri...ounty/map/r/fl

    More or less, Newt's winning the culturally Southern counties, that is, ones in the north and in the interior. Romney's winning the metro ones that have a lot of people in them. Santorum and Paul ain't winning nothin.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  13. #593
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by mph View Post
    Hitting 50% would obviously be a huge story for the Romney campaign, but getting within a couple of points of a majority and beating Gingrich by 15% or more will be enough for the media to report this as a drubbing..
    CNN's word is "thumps". http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  14. #594
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Way Down South...

    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Map is interesting:

    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/pri...ounty/map/r/fl

    More or less, Newt's winning the culturally Southern counties, that is, ones in the north and in the interior. Romney's winning the metro ones that have a lot of people in them. Santorum and Paul ain't winning nothin.
    Is there a Georgia primary? If so, it looks good for Newt -- he's just won the vote in South Georgia.

    sage

  15. #595
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Is there a Georgia primary? If so, it looks good for Newt -- he's just won the vote in South Georgia.

    sage
    Georgia is part of Super Tuesday (I think -- usually is).

    They say that the Florida Panhandle is "South Alabama" -- I think you are right.

    Newt's not going anywhere. And this time, it's personal.

    "46 States to Go"



    P.S. to add: Santorum has become better and better since SC -- maybe too little too late, but impressive from a horse-race perspective.

  16. #596
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Was 13.4% enough to keep Santorum in the race? That is all that really matters tonight, I think. Newt cannot win unless this becomes a 1-on-1 race before it gets to be too late.

    -Jason
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  17. #597
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Was 13.4% enough to keep Santorum in the race? That is all that really matters tonight, I think. Newt cannot win unless this becomes a 1-on-1 race before it gets to be too late.

    -Jason
    He doesn't sound like he's ready to concede to Gingrich just yet.

    "With a big win [in South Carolina], ahead in the polls, money to spend, and he didn't hold," Santorum said of Gingrich. "Not only didn't he hold the lead, at least some of the results I've seen he didn't do very well at all. And I think that shows you that that alternative to Mitt Romney is not one that's going to hunt."
    He's reportedly just started airing anti-Gingrich commercials in Colorado and Nevada. It's possible he's going through the motions for a few days while he considers his options, but it seems more likely that he's going to stay in until his last million is gone.

  18. #598
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    It makes sense for Santorum to compete in the upcoming caucus and otherwise scattered contests before Super Tuesday to see if he can catch lightning in a bottle. Newt can implode at any moment (the popular punditry goes) and someone can catch the pieces. Also, the next few states probably favor retail politics more than Florida did. Absent that, though, I don't see how he really competes on Super Tuesday without a real cash infusion.

    But having said all of that, perhaps a lot of the "anyone but Mitt" feeling has faded. He is never going to win over the far right of the party, but it seems that enough folks are getting comfortable with him to pick him over the other candidates. This was a big win.

    But, having said having said all of that, Newt is fixin' to unleash the Hounds of Hell if he can. I heard some operative on the radio yesterday in an interview, literally saying that Mitt was a congenital liar that seemed like he had a birth defect preventing him from distinguishing truth from lie. Just way over the top stuff, which comes from the master of such language himself.

    Not sure it does much other than damage Mitt for the general at this point. But Newt has risen from the dead more times than Lazarus. He will not go quietly into that long, long night.

  19. #599
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    The central dynamic that still continues, and I think is a HUGE problem for the Republicans when the general election comes, is this:

    A big chunk of Republican voters are not comfortable with Romney. Unfortunately for them (we, given that I'll openly admit my strong fiscal conservative leanings), none of the Conservative candidates has been particularly inspiring. Herman Cain was the most interesting of the Conservative candidates, but obviously he had baggage that destroyed his viability as a candidate. This is an unscientific survey of the several conservatives I know, but there is an almost uniform feeling that Paul is simply not an option due to a variety of his views, Gingrich is damaged goods, Santorum is simply uninspiring to an extreme, and Romney is probably the guy we're going to get stuck with.

    Even if Romney is able to capture a significant number of independents, will the Conservative base come out in sufficient numbers as an anti-Obama vote to put Romney over the top? The Republican party should probably be really worried about this.

    After last night, I think the only chance Newt has is for Santorum to quickly drop out. Even if that happens, Romney's still got a big advantage in infrastructure. Last night was a big win for Mitt.

  20. #600
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    It has been written that the Florida campaign was the dirtiest primary in history, a point which the Obama camp has picked up on.
    “It’s difficult for Romney to claim Floridians voted for him rather than against his opponents, since less than one-tenth of one percent of the ads in Florida promoted Romney positively,” (deputy campaign manager Stephanie) Cutter wrote.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-negative-ads/

    I'm assuming the same could be have been said for Newt if he had won. I've read that the level of negativity is wearing thin on voters, and we've still got "46 states to go" as Gingrich proclaims. IF this fight wears out over the long haul, I could see them running the risk of turning off lots of people, regardless of how positive they may want their overall message to be.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

Similar Threads

  1. Politics of Preschool
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •