Page 5 of 55 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 1098
  1. #81
    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 77devil View Post
    Unless somebody turns up a scandal in Romney's past or he flames out in Iowa, both highly unlikely...
    That's one of the big benefits of a second-go-round candidacy. All your dirt has been dug, and either there is none to find (Romney) or people have come to deal with it (Gingrich). Maybe Herman Cain can give his candidacy another shot in 12 years after people are no longer surprised by his (alleged) cheating ways.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    I saw the author of Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds, LBJ, Barry Goldwater, and the Ad That Changed American Politics on a news broadcast this morning describing the famous, perhaps infamous, ad. Arguably it was the birth of negative advertising in the television era. It was shown just once and seen by an estimated 50 million viewers. Goldwater was already behind, but his poll numbers plunged afterwards.

    For those of us who grew up in that era, fear of nuclear war, especially in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, was real. This ad preyed on a lingering fear.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBn...eature=related
    The fascinating thing about the Daisy commercial, as you said, is that it only aired once.

    Kind of makes our current negative ads look tame. Sure, Newt has baggage and Romney flip-flops (both per current attack ads -- not my opinion) -- but neither is going to cause the end of life on this planet and the destruction of our civilization in a fiery hellball of nuclear warfare.

    So maybe we should all pat ourselves on the back?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    So no Gingrich on the Va. ballot...wow! He says he's going to grind out a write-in campaign, but according to state law he's SOL. Virginia is basically a home away from home state, so that's a pretty huge loss for him.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    brooklyn
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    So no Gingrich on the Va. ballot...wow! He says he's going to grind out a write-in campaign, but according to state law he's SOL. Virginia is basically a home away from home state, so that's a pretty huge loss for him.
    yea, this is a big problem for newt, as it speaks to the larger problem of his campaign having a very poor infrastructure (boots on the ground). this is apparently scaring of congressional republicans too, since the nominee's campaign would need to be integrated with each individual district.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    So no Gingrich on the Va. ballot...wow! He says he's going to grind out a write-in campaign, but according to state law he's SOL. Virginia is basically a home away from home state, so that's a pretty huge loss for him.
    No Gingrich, no Perry, no Bachmann, no Santorum, and no Huntsman. Having some experience with the primary petition process for Virginia I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to organize the kind of effort it takes to make the Va primary ballot. It takes 10,000 signatures of voters eligible to vote in Virginia and the have to stipulate that they plan to vote in the relevant primary (e.g. GOP if signing a petition for a GOP candidate). Out of those 10,000 signatures, the candidate must have at least 400 signatures in each of Va's 11 congressional districts. I order to avoid scrutiny of each signature, a candidate must provide 15,000 signatures with 600 from each district. We saw what happens when campaigns (Perry and Gingrich) flirt with that line.

    The collection process is also cumbersome. Here's a copy of the 8.5 x 11 petition form. Each page must be signed and notarized. Each page also needs to be organized by either city/county or congressional district. The bottom line is the person collecting signatures is making a significant commitment and needs to be highly motivated. There are two ways to find motivated people in the numbers required to make the ballot. You either need an army of true believers (Paul) or the money to pay collectors (Romney). The going rate is $1 per signature plus expenses and one or more full-time staffers just to oversee the collectors.

    The real surprise isn't Gingrich-he surged late and got a very late start in Virginia. Perry, however, got started much earlier (before his poll collapse) and he was paying signature collectors. I think most insiders were very surprised he turned in fewer than 15k signatures.

    The real news here is how unnecessarily difficult Va has made this process. I hate to parrot Gingrich's line (Im not a supporter) but there's something wrong with a system that excludes 5 of 7 candidates. There's no doubt that this is bad news for for both Gingrich and Perry who didn't need this story breaking before Iowa.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Quote Originally Posted by mph View Post
    No Gingrich, no Perry, no Bachmann, no Santorum, and no Huntsman. Having some experience with the primary petition process for Virginia I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to organize the kind of effort it takes to make the Va primary ballot. It takes 10,000 signatures of voters eligible to vote in Virginia and the have to stipulate that they plan to vote in the relevant primary (e.g. GOP if signing a petition for a GOP candidate). Out of those 10,000 signatures, the candidate must have at least 400 signatures in each of Va's 11 congressional districts. I order to avoid scrutiny of each signature, a candidate must provide 15,000 signatures with 600 from each district. We saw what happens when campaigns (Perry and Gingrich) flirt with that line.

    The collection process is also cumbersome. Here's a copy of the 8.5 x 11 petition form. Each page must be signed and notarized. Each page also needs to be organized by either city/county or congressional district. The bottom line is the person collecting signatures is making a significant commitment and needs to be highly motivated. There are two ways to find motivated people in the numbers required to make the ballot. You either need an army of true believers (Paul) or the money to pay collectors (Romney). The going rate is $1 per signature plus expenses and one or more full-time staffers just to oversee the collectors.

    The real surprise isn't Gingrich-he surged late and got a very late start in Virginia. Perry, however, got started much earlier (before his poll collapse) and he was paying signature collectors. I think most insiders were very surprised he turned in fewer than 15k signatures.

    The real news here is how unnecessarily difficult Va has made this process. I hate to parrot Gingrich's line (Im not a supporter) but there's something wrong with a system that excludes 5 of 7 candidates. There's no doubt that this is bad news for for both Gingrich and Perry who didn't need this story breaking before Iowa.
    I don't know a lot about politics and elections, but that is absolutely the most ignorant process I have ever heard of. Only in America would someone come up with something that stupid. Unreal.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Newton_14 View Post
    I don't know a lot about politics and elections, but that is absolutely the most ignorant process I have ever heard of. Only in America would someone come up with something that stupid. Unreal.
    Is this also true on the Democratic side? I've never heard of something this onerous. States certainly need to set some standard for getting on the ballot, but yikes. Talk about the machine running the process.

    Larger picture, though, is that Romney has money and organization. In the end, I think that will grind everyone else down for better or worse.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Is this also true on the Democratic side? I've never heard of something this onerous. States certainly need to set some standard for getting on the ballot, but yikes. Talk about the machine running the process.
    Yes. The requirements apply to both parties. Here's the Board of Elections document that explains the process in depth. From the introduction:

    The Democratic Party of Virginia and the Republican Party of Virginia are the only organizations currently recognized as political parties under ' 24.2-101 of the Code of Virginia. Therefore, they are the only political parties permitted to select a Presidential Primary in connection with the respective national conventions in the summer of 2012.

    The deadlines provided below apply ONLY to those political parties and candidates who wish to participate in either party's presidential primary.
    and

    Must be signed by not less than 10,000 qualified voters in Virginia, including at least 400 qualified voters from each of Virginia's eleven congressional districts, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate named on the petition.

    Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign a petition, it is recommended that 15,000 - 20,000 signatures be obtained with at least 700 signatures from each congressional district.
    This was later clarified to specify that any candidate providing 15K signatures with 600 from each district wold be presumed to have met the threshold of 10K and 400 valid signatures.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Intrade Update

    In the less than two weeks since Jason started this thread, Romney has gone from 59% on Intrade to 71%, while Gingrich has dropped about the same amount, down to 7.9%. Paul is steady at 7, Huntsman has dropped to 4.6%, and then the rest. Seems like the traders there, like many others, have come to view Romney as inevitable at this point.

    This despite the fact that the Intraders have Paul at 50% to win Iowa, with Romney second at 31%, then Gingrich at 11%. These folks don't seem to think that Paul winning Iowa, if it happens, will have much impact on the race's ultimate outcome at all. They're probably right.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    In the less than two weeks since Jason started this thread, Romney has gone from 59% on Intrade to 71%, while Gingrich has dropped about the same amount, down to 7.9%. Paul is steady at 7, Huntsman has dropped to 4.6%, and then the rest. Seems like the traders there, like many others, have come to view Romney as inevitable at this point.

    This despite the fact that the Intraders have Paul at 50% to win Iowa, with Romney second at 31%, then Gingrich at 11%. These folks don't seem to think that Paul winning Iowa, if it happens, will have much impact on the race's ultimate outcome at all. They're probably right.
    I will forever find it funny that I started this thread to talk about what a fabulous bargain it was to buy Gingrich and sell Romney... and Newt's campaign promptly tanked

    The ever-brilliant Nate Silver has a column up titled "How Can Romney Lose." He starts by saying that he thinks Romney's Intrade stock might actually be a tad undervalued... then he goes ahead and plots out how Romney might not win, at least partly because of elevated expectations.

    We'll likely know a lot more in a week. Iowa can be crazy. At this time 4 years ago, ARG, Reuters, and Insider's Advantage all had polls showing clinton winning Iowa. The Quad City Times poll had Edwards with a lead. Then, in the final couple days, Obama seemed to surge a bit. Still, on election night, any one of the 3 candidates thought they could be the winner.

    -Jason "fun times ahead!" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    PPP Poll

    PPP, which is a highly respected polling organization, just released a new Iowa poll minutes ago. It is the first poll done in almost a week as most pollsters took a break for the Holiday weekend. Here is what it shows--


    Paul 24
    Romney 20
    Gingrich 13
    Bachman 11
    Perry 10
    Santorum 10
    Huntsman 4


    That is quite a tight race. PPP says Paul appears to be assembling the same core supporters who gave Obama victory in Iowa in 2008 -- young, independent-minded voters who are sick of the status quo. In fact, there are apparently a large number of self-identified Democrats and Independants who plan to come out to the GOP Caucus to vote for Paul. PPP says that if turnout is bad, they expect Romney to win but a strong turnout will almost certainly mean a victory for Paul.

    Romney actually has a negative approval rating among likely GOP caucus-goers, 47 percent disapprove of him and only 44 percent approve. The consensus is that Paul voters are largely "true believers" in his cause. Most of the other voters are either pro or anti-Romney. Mitt is lucky there are 4 candidates dividing the "anti-Romney" vote fairly equally. If any one of the 4 can get some momentum in the final few days, it could vault that candidate to a surprise victory as there appears to be a lot of "anti-Romney" votes to be had in Iowa. There seems to be some thought that Santorum, who has put a ton of time in Iowa, may have the momentum now. I guess everyone else has had a shot, why not him?

    -Jason "I root for interesting campaigns that last a long time, that is what I like" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    PPP, which is a highly respected polling organization, just released a new Iowa poll minutes ago. It is the first poll done in almost a week as most pollsters took a break for the Holiday weekend. Here is what it shows--


    Paul 24
    Romney 20
    Gingrich 13
    Bachman 11
    Perry 10
    Santorum 10
    Huntsman 4


    That is quite a tight race. PPP says Paul appears to be assembling the same core supporters who gave Obama victory in Iowa in 2008 -- young, independent-minded voters who are sick of the status quo. In fact, there are apparently a large number of self-identified Democrats and Independants who plan to come out to the GOP Caucus to vote for Paul. PPP says that if turnout is bad, they expect Romney to win but a strong turnout will almost certainly mean a victory for Paul.

    Romney actually has a negative approval rating among likely GOP caucus-goers, 47 percent disapprove of him and only 44 percent approve. The consensus is that Paul voters are largely "true believers" in his cause. Most of the other voters are either pro or anti-Romney. Mitt is lucky there are 4 candidates dividing the "anti-Romney" vote fairly equally. If any one of the 4 can get some momentum in the final few days, it could vault that candidate to a surprise victory as there appears to be a lot of "anti-Romney" votes to be had in Iowa. There seems to be some thought that Santorum, who has put a ton of time in Iowa, may have the momentum now. I guess everyone else has had a shot, why not him?

    -Jason "I root for interesting campaigns that last a long time, that is what I like" Evans
    Gingrich's Super-PAC has apparently sent out a pile of negative flyers against Mitt, calling him "the second most dangerous man in America" or something like that. Having watched Newt for 20-something years now, I expect him to finish this stretch with a bunch of haymakers. Whether anything lands or not is still to be seen.

    I think Romney and Paul are the only folks with strong organizations to carry through a long fight. Heck, the rest couldn't even get on the Virginia ballot. And Romney has TONS of cash. I just don't see how anyone grinds him down, despite the fact that the majority of the party just isn't that in to him.



    Edit to add: Newt is swinging at Paul, too:

    "I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

    Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 12-28-2011 at 08:03 AM.

  13. #93
    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 OldPhiKap View Post
    "I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.
    I wonder if he realizes that's far less insulting to Ron Paul than it is to "every decent American" that thinks Paul is someone they could support.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I wonder if he realizes that's far less insulting to Ron Paul than it is to "every decent American" that thinks Paul is someone they could support.
    I doubt it. This is classic Newt. You either love it, or you hate it. Hard to be neutral on the man.

    It will be interesting to see if Newt climbs back into Iowa, or goes down in a wild thrashing collapse. He still has South Carolina as a fire wall, regardless.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    If Mr. Paul wins Iowa, the news about his racist--euphemistically speaking--newsletters will begin to proliferate.

    Mr. Romney is in very good shape. I suspect he has ramped up spending...excuse me, I suspect his PACs, with which he assures everyone he has no connection to...have ramped up spending so he can focus on the only person with a comparable treasure chest: Barack Obama.

  16. #96

    organization

    Iowa is a caucus, not a primary ... so organization is everything and the ad campaign, while still important, is relatively less so.

    I bring this up because of a news report I heard on Dec. 22, while driving down to my family's home for this Christmas vacation. A reporter in Iowa was flabbergasted by the lack of organization exhibited by Gingrich's campaign. He said that Gingrich had almost nobody on the ground in Iowa -- everything was going into his ads. He said that as of Dec. 22 -- just about two weeks before the caucus -- none of the phone banks in Gingrich's headquarters had been connected (so maybe they are using cell phones).

    I don't know ... I'm not there. But that sounds like a recipe for a disastrous showing in Iowa.

    Makes me wonder if a witch might not have cast a spell: "She turned me into a Newt!"
    Last edited by JBDuke; 12-28-2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason: typos

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Is it me, or is Iowa just hugely unimportant if you are a mainstream candidate (Romney, Gingrich, even Perry to an extent).

    Paul won't win the nomination. When was the last time the Iowa winner did? I realize Iowa thins the herd a little bit by picking off the minnows, but it seems a lot of time and effort is put into a caucus that seems to be rather irrelevant come convention time. I guess Romney is following that strategy a bit.

    And states can expletive up a ham sandwich when it comes to voting laws. Heck, that's not just voting laws.

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Is it me, or is Iowa just hugely unimportant if you are a mainstream candidate (Romney, Gingrich, even Perry to an extent).

    Paul won't win the nomination. When was the last time the Iowa winner did? I realize Iowa thins the herd a little bit by picking off the minnows, but it seems a lot of time and effort is put into a caucus that seems to be rather irrelevant come convention time. I guess Romney is following that strategy a bit.

    And states can expletive up a ham sandwich when it comes to voting laws. Heck, that's not just voting laws.
    Olympic fan addressed that question:
    http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...619#post536619

    "Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses..."

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Is it me, or is Iowa just hugely unimportant if you are a mainstream candidate (Romney, Gingrich, even Perry to an extent).

    Paul won't win the nomination. When was the last time the Iowa winner did? I realize Iowa thins the herd a little bit by picking off the minnows, but it seems a lot of time and effort is put into a caucus that seems to be rather irrelevant come convention time. I guess Romney is following that strategy a bit.

    And states can expletive up a ham sandwich when it comes to voting laws. Heck, that's not just voting laws.
    Seems to me that "rather irrelevant" is an understatement.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Olympic fan addressed that question:
    http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...619#post536619

    "Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses..."
    Right, but the nominees since then have been:

    Ford (incumbent)
    Reagan
    Reagan (incumbent)
    Bush
    Bush (incumbent)
    Dole
    W. Bush
    W. Bush (incumbent)
    McCain

    Maybe it's upthread, but 4 of those 6 are incumbents, so that stat is a little skewed. A sample size of 2 of 4 for the non-incumbents is a little small. Although, I'd agree that this is a really unusual year thus far.

    Frankly, I'd love a federal statute that forced primaries to all be within 14 days of each other, with the convention coming within 30 days of that -- think of it like post lock-out NFL and NBA free agent periods. What fun!! I realize that's trampling on all sorts of Federalist principles, which then leads to PPB. I get that. But the primary process, while fun from a tracking standpoint, seems like a pretty inefficient and meandering process that doesn't really keep the eye on the ball. Probably preaching to choir, though.

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
  •