Page 39 of 55 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 780 of 1098
  1. #761
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Bachmann said she'd deliver the same thing. It didn't help her out too much, either.
    She was in a crowded horserace, not a bilateral contest with a sitting President. When the republican nominee starts bludgeoning him with this in September, if we're at or above $4/gallon, it could get legs.

    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

  2. #762
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley

    Plan B From Outer Space (or at least from Tampa)

    In a whispering campaign not ready to go public, some senior Republicans are so anxious about the state of the GOP race they are actually considering the unheard of: a scenario that would lead to another candidate entering the Republican primary race, and potentially an open convention.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-b/?hpt=hp_t2

    This still seems like a long shot to me, but IF it comes to pass, I wonder if in the end it would help or hurt them. My guess is it would hurt them, since the new guy will basically have bucked the system and avoided one of the most intensive vetting processes imaginable. (Which could also mean that the new guy is a much riper target for digging up some unknown dirt.)
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  3. #763
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-b/?hpt=hp_t2

    This still seems like a long shot to me, but IF it comes to pass, I wonder if in the end it would help or hurt them. My guess is it would hurt them, since the new guy will basically have bucked the system and avoided one of the most intensive vetting processes imaginable. (Which could also mean that the new guy is a much riper target for digging up some unknown dirt.)
    These whispers will become louder if Romney can't win Michigan. (Is it a winner take all state? Or are we really just talking semantics about a "win" when the race will probably be within 5 %?)

    Jeb has apparently reiterated that he's not interested this time around. Christie seems like the perpetual flirt. Rubio or Daniels, maybe? But even jumping in now, it is too late to get on most ballots and the existing candidates aren't leaving any time soon (all have had inflows of SuperPAC m/billionaire $$). So even if there is some Superman or Superwoman out there, it's pretty darn late at this point.

    I think these whispers are wishful thinking or fretful chatter. But boy, would it make things even more interesting.

    Anyone see a plausible way for someone to do this, other than a compromise candidate at a brokered convention?

  4. #764
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

  5. #765
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    "All In"

  6. #766
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Per First Read, Michigan is "winner take all by congressional district" so popular vote may or may not be as big a factor as being broadly reported. I have not seen more specific polling, though, so I guess that's what we've got.

    Arizona is "winner take all" per same site.


    Meanwhile, per Nate Silver, Romney is having money trouble. He also shows Michigan as a toss-up, and Georgia a three-way tie essentially. Wow.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...oney-problems/

  7. #767
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Meanwhile, per Nate Silver, Romney is having money trouble. He also shows Michigan as a toss-up, and Georgia a three-way tie essentially. Wow.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...oney-problems/
    There is little question that the Santorum Surge has lessened in the past few days as most state polls show Romney gaining on him, particularly in Michigan. I would imagine that whoever wins that state will be declared the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

    -Jason "Santorum probably wishes Arizona and Michigan had voted over the weekend and Super Tuesday as today!" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  8. #768
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    There is little question that the Santorum Surge has lessened in the past few days as most state polls show Romney gaining on him, particularly in Michigan. I would imagine that whoever wins that state will be declared the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

    -Jason "Santorum probably wishes Arizona and Michigan had voted over the weekend and Super Tuesday as today!" Evans
    Agreed. I still think Romney will squeek one out in Michigan unless there is some game-changer in the debate tomorrow night.

  9. #769
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Seems to me that Mitt did well enough to give himself some space from Santorum in Michigan and AZ. No?

  10. #770
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    A couple developments...

    1) A new Detroit Free Press poll finds Santorum ahead of Romney in Michigan 37-34. The poll was done Saturday thru Tuesday and the Freep folks did not make it known if the numbers had shifted over that time. There have been signs of Romney gaining in recent days and a few polls have even found him back ahead in Michigan. It would be useful to know if the Freep poll found significantly different numbers on Tuesday versus their Saturday polling. Ahh well.

    2) The debate last night could be a huge determining factor for Michigan. 12% of folks in the Freep poll say they are undecided and 45% say they are not fully committed to the candidate they are currently backing. Numbers like that make it possible for Michigan to throw a real surprise result which could create a media story that produces huge momentum for someone. If either Santorum or Romney can win Michigan by 5+ points, it may really carry them for a while.

    3) I found this story amusing about Michigan folks being slammed by Robocalls. Many folks getting the calls are not even GOP sympathizers, which makes you wonder how effective Robocall campaigns can be. Romney, as you might imagine, is placing the most of the calls. I wonder if there may be a bit of a backlash from people who are sick of being bothered.

    -Jason "will be interesting to see who the media talks about as winning the debate the most" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  11. #771
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    Arizona

    By the way, Arizona is one of the few states that awards all its delegates to the winner. Get one more vote than anyone else and you get all 29 delegates. Mitt is gonna win as about 10-15% of the GOP primary voters will be Mormon and something like 90-95% of them are gonna go for Romney.

    At some point, the delegate math is going to start to get really interesting. The fact that Romney will get all the Arizona delegates and that Santorum cannot get a single delegate in Virginia could end up being a big deal if this thing drags out a while as it now appears it might.

    -Jason "Nate Silver says that without Romney's Mormon advantage, Arizona would be a tossup" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  12. #772
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Mitt and Ron Paul double-teamed Santorum pretty thoroughly last night I thought. Mitt came off as a jerk I thought but slit Rick enough to move ahead.

    I'm not sure if Mitt is getting better at destroying the late-risers, or if they collapsed under their own weight. Going into Florida, Newt had a head of steam but Mitt newt-ered him. Last night, Santorum's earmark tangle was almost cringe-worthy. The pro-Romney crowd just made it worse, and Ron Paul basically knee-capped Rick. Yet, Mitt drives big negatives when he goes on the attack. He really comes across (to me, at least) as a bully.

    But I think Mitt did enough to get a win in Michigan. I would love for someone to tell me I am wrong, though, because the horse race must go on. . . .

  13. #773
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post

    "will be interesting to see who the media talks about as winning the debate the most"

    I didn't see the debate, but from the accounts I've read so far, the conventional wisdom seems to be that: (1) Romney was successful in putting Santorum on the defensive about his record as a "fiscal conservative," hammering away on Santorum's votes on spending bills, debt-ceiling increases and earmarks; (2) at the same time, Romney didn't do much to make an affirmative case for himself or articulate any kind of positive vision -- he just spent most of his time and energy trying to disqualify Santorum, at times unapologetically ignoring some of the questions and just saying whatever he wanted to; (3) Gingrich stayed largely on the sidelines and didn't throw any bombs, though he did inject himself as a referee a few times and called Romney out specifically for fudging the truth on whether Massachusetts required the morning-after-pill for rape victims when Romney was governor, and for criticizing Santorum on earmarks when Romney himself had gladly lobbied for earmarks to benefit the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002; and (4) Paul was Paul, and continued (for the time being, at least) to help Romney double-team Santorum.

    The consensus seems to be that Santorum had a tough night, as he spent a good deal of his time trying to defend his Senate record, and did so primarily in Washington wonkspeak that won't resonate with Republican primary voters. Everybody else neither hurt nor really helped themselves.

    The Detroit Free Press has endorsed Romney in the GOP race, but man -- talk about a soft, grudging endorsement. It has some good things to say about Romney's accomplishments with the 2002 Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts, but otherwise it takes Romney to task for being duplicitous about his record (including, in particular, his re-inventions of his positions on RomneyCare and the auto bailout), chides him for lowering himself to the level of lesser opponents rather than rising above them, and leaves the impression that their main reason for endorsing him is simply that the other candidates are worse.

  14. #774
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Roxboro, NC

    Money

    I have a couple questions for the more politically savvy. I have learned a lot from reading this thread because I usually don't follow politics this early in the process. I know the Citizens United case opened the door for corporate donations to politcal campaigns. (At least that is what I think I know) Is this also where the SuperPacs came from? How does the campaign spending this year compare to previous years? The thought going in was that the Citizens United case would increase the amount that the candidates would have to spend. I don't know if that is true or if they are getting the same donations just through a different entity now. And are the SuperPacs a seperate route for more anonymous donations and campaign spending? My other thought was that if they are spending more than usual, could that possible be an economic stimulus in itself? Can these millions that are being spent trickle down to economic growth and actually help Obama's case for re-election? Or is the scale still to small to have much of an effect?

  15. #775
    Quote Originally Posted by nocilla View Post

    I have a couple questions for the more politically savvy. I have learned a lot from reading this thread because I usually don't follow politics this early in the process. I know the Citizens United case opened the door for corporate donations to politcal campaigns. (At least that is what I think I know) Is this also where the SuperPacs came from? How does the campaign spending this year compare to previous years? The thought going in was that the Citizens United case would increase the amount that the candidates would have to spend. I don't know if that is true or if they are getting the same donations just through a different entity now. And are the SuperPacs a seperate route for more anonymous donations and campaign spending? My other thought was that if they are spending more than usual, could that possible be an economic stimulus in itself? Can these millions that are being spent trickle down to economic growth and actually help Obama's case for re-election? Or is the scale still to small to have much of an effect?

    Not quite. The limits on contributions that can be made directly to a candidate's campaign are still in effect, including the outright ban on direct contributions by corporations and unions, and the dollar limits on direct contributions by individuals. Citizens United lifted the measures that prohibited corporations, non-profits and unions from spending on "electioneering communications," which are defined as communications (including TV ads) that mention a particular candidate. The effect of the decision is that now those organizations can spend unlimited amounts on TV ads or any other form of communication advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. The "Super-PACs" are entities that have sprung up since this ruling for the purpose of raising money from those sources and spending it on "electioneering communications." The Super-PACs are not the same thing as the candidates' campaign organizations themselves -- indeed, Super-PACs are supposed to be entirely separate entities and are not allowed (in theory, at least) to coordinate their activities with the campaign of any candidate, though it's not hard to see how the lines might seem to get blurred sometimes. Often the Super-PACs are run by people who do not have official positions with a candidate's campaign organization, but are nonetheless close allies of that candidate.

    As for whether the Super-PACs provide routes for anonymous expenditures, this is where we begin to bump up against the limits of my knowledge. I believe that some Super-PACs are required to disclose their contributors while others are not, and I'm not sure of the differences between them, or what restrictions on their activities might apply to one group but not the other.

    And as for whether the Super-PACs might generate a kind of "economic stimulus," I doubt it. The total amount of money that will be raised and spent in this election cycle by all participating entities -- the Super-PACs, the parties, and the candidates' campaign organizations themselves -- is expect to be around $2 billion. Yes, that's a lot -- but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the overall U.S. economy ($14-15 trillion), and the amount of money that would be needed to generate any perceptible movement in it.
    Last edited by Tom B.; 02-23-2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Corrected typo

  16. #776
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Up up up.

    I gave this some more thought. There's another way in which rising energy prices are a losing situation for Obama.

    As the Republicans promise that they would somehow lower gasoline prices, which low-info voters are probably low-info enough to believe, they're also beating the drum against Iran, saying that the president isn't doing enough to contain Iran. It seems to me that these statements actually could affect oil prices...but in the other direction. If there is a rising perception in the markets that armed conflict with Iran is going to happen, that could drive oil prices up. Which people will blame on the incumbent.

    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

  17. #777
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Up up up.

    I gave this some more thought. There's another way in which rising energy prices are a losing situation for Obama.

    As the Republicans promise that they would somehow lower gasoline prices, which low-info voters are probably low-info enough to believe, they're also beating the drum against Iran, saying that the president isn't doing enough to contain Iran. It seems to me that these statements actually could affect oil prices...but in the other direction. If there is a rising perception in the markets that armed conflict with Iran is going to happen, that could drive oil prices up. Which people will blame on the incumbent.
    A conspiracy by big oil to help elect an oil friendly president is the most plausible explanation.

  18. #778
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Sounds like Jon Huntsman is pushing for a third party. Oh, please please please please please.

    From a horse race perspective, of course.

  19. #779
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Sounds like Jon Huntsman is pushing for a third party. Oh, please please please please please.

    From a horse race perspective, of course.
    He sounded awfully content yesterday on Morning Joe, and while acknowledging the need for another party/voice, he seemed to dismiss himself as potential 3rd party candidate. Huntsman should have withheld his endorsement of Romney if he had any notion of running independently. I think Huntsman realizes that it's not his time, and that he has to spend the next 4 years cultivating the electorate. A Machiavellian strategy would be for Huntsman to push for an independent candidate, excluding himself, to improve the odds of an Obama reelection, and set him up for 2016 instead of having to wait 8 years. But nobody's that cynical in politics.

  20. #780
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    But nobody's that cynical in politics.
    I did a spit-take after reading that. Well-played.

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
  •