Print

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

[G-Flex]

Hell, while we're at it. Let's fucking fix discovery and history channels. I'm sure they'd love some subsidies in exchange fro real science/history shit showing up on their channels.

True that. Fewer aliens and biblical stories, more real science (and history).

And Bigfoot. Don't forget Bigfoot.

[RedKing]

Alright alright, we've had enough back-patting for one night.

Jesus, when the Hell is that primary going to get here?  For now, let's talk about how Gingrich's billionaire bankroller is saying he might dump up to another hundred million dollars into Gingrich's campaign, provided he (and the PACs he legally doesn't run) stops attacking Romney.  Because he'd be happy with either of them winning, as long as Santorum doesn't.

One week. Like I said, three weeks without a race to discuss, and it gets all herp to da derp up in this joint.


More and more pundits are beginning to frame the Michigan primary in apocalyptic terms. Romney's Gettysburg, or Romney's Waterloo, or just "Holy fucking shit, are we SERIOUSLY going to nominate Rev. Analslime?"

FWIW, I don't think this is going to be over until at least May or June. Most of the states don't have that many delegates, and they're mostly proportional races. Neither candidate will be able to build a big enough lead to put this thing away until Texas and California get into the mix. And last I heard, Texas was likely going to delay its primary back from April to late May. We could be sitting in late May with both candidates in a dead heat, likely with Gingrich and Paul out of the race. If those two more or less split (say, California goes for Romney, and Texas goes strongly for Santorum)....see you in Tampa, folks! Bring your riot gear!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I honestly hope Santorum gets the nomination at this point, if only because it means I'll get to watch an Obama vs. Santorum vs. Paul debate.

They'd utterly destroy Santorum. Granted, Paul has his own brand of crazy going on, but it isn't Santorphrenia.

[G-Flex]

or just "Holy fucking shit, are we SERIOUSLY going to nominate Rev. Analslime?"

I laughed less at the "Analslime" and more at the usage of "Rev." to refer to a Catholic. I'm not sure what kind of nerd that makes me.

[Osmosis Jones]

In avoiding crass humour... unique upon the interwubs?

[nenjin]

Jesus, when the Hell is that primary going to get here?  For now, let's talk about how Gingrich's billionaire bankroller is saying he might dump up to another hundred million dollars into Gingrich's campaign, provided he (and the PACs he legally doesn't run) stops attacking Romney.  Because he'd be happy with either of them winning, as long as Santorum doesn't.

I'm thinking he's just investing in the business of Newt, because that guy has to be earning someone money at this point for anyone to care. When he's done with the primaries he's gonna hit the lecture circuit, write another book and generally try to stay as close to politics as he can without actually being elected to something again. He kind of reminds of Blagojevich, if Blagojevich calling everyone's bluff had actually worked. Repeatedly.

[Osmosis Jones]

Okay, self help books and promotional speeches can make a fair bit of money, but *over $100 million*?!

The value of a president in your pocket, sure, that may be worth it, but I doubt Newt is worth that much for anything else.

[mainiac]

Nate Silver had an interesting article about Romney's lack of campaign income.  Some highlights:

He's down to 7.7 million in cash after having spent 18.8 million and taken in only 6.5 million in January.
He's spending a lot less on campaign infrastructure then a typical primary winner would.  There are a lot of major states where he only has a single office.
The other campaigns are taking in slightly less then Romney and spending a buttload less.
The other republicans took in a little less then Romney but spent a lot less.
None of the republicans are doing well in the small donors field which means they will be increasingly dependent on superPACs which have no contribution limits
Obama is doing underwhelmingly in fundraising himself but still standing head and shoulders above the republicans

It should be interesting to see what happens to Romney if he doesn't show improvement in February.  Without ad blitzes, can he remain competitive?  And what will the republicans do if he loses?  Weak as Romney is, they could be running a candidate with no cash or organization to speak of.  IIRC, every 21 face to face conversations between a campaign volunteer and a worker results in another voter making it to the polls.  Kinda hard to get those people to the polls if you don't even have an office to hand out the clipboards to your volunteers.

[RedKing]

Okay, self help books and promotional speeches can make a fair bit of money, but *over $100 million*?!

The value of a president in your pocket, sure, that may be worth it, but I doubt Newt is worth that much for anything else.

My theory? Adelson has devised technology that runs purely on smug, hypocritical self-righteousness. Gingrich is his reactor core.


New Poll Data! Because seriously....what else is there to talk about without going off into 5-page political diatribes?

National:
Two new polls still show Santorum leading Romney nationally, but by differing margins. Quinnipiac has Santorum at +8, while an AP poll has Santorum at a mere +1.

Also, a slate of new polls pitting Obama against the various challengers shows Obama beating any and all of them in the general election. Average margins of victory:
vs. Romney: +5
vs. Santorum: +6
vs. Gingrich: +10.5
vs. Paul: +9

Arizona:
New NBC News poll shows Romney at +16 to Santorum. That's a major change from the poll trends that had been showing the race getting tight. Two other polls show Romney at +10 and +4, so it's difficult to tell what's going on here without looking deeper at the sample and methodology for each.

Michigan:
NBC News poll again, showing Romney at a mere +2. Mitchell/Rosetta Stone also showing Romney at +2. Rasmussen continues evidencing a Santorum bias with showing Santorum at +4 here.


Even with the apparent bump back up in Arizona, this isn't great news for Romney. The narrative being created is that Arizona is small potatoes, and it's all about Michigan, because it's Romney's "home state". New Hampshire was also "Romney turf", as is Masschusetts. Not sure how many "home states" a guy can have. 

Failure to win Michigan is being spun as a potential campaign killer. Yet despite that, Romney continues to spout the line that the automakers bailout was a terrible idea and that Michigan's economy would be as good if not better had the automakers been allowed to fail. Probably not the brightest thing to say in a state where over 30 percent of the population either works in the auto industry, or works for an industry that depends on the auto industry. Also could be why in hypothetical "Obama v. various GOP candidate" type polls in Michigan, Obama is winning by anywhere from 18 to 28 points. I think you can say Michigan is a safe blue state in the fall.

Wisconsin:
Marquette University ran a slew of polls. Verdict? Santorum at +16, and Ron Paul just a point out of 2nd place. Romney is none too popular up there.
But Obama is still polling over 50% against any of the GOP field, with anywhere from an 11 to 23 point lead.

[FearfulJesuit]

Santorum:Democrats are anti-science.

[Karlito]

Santorum:Democrats are anti-science.

The fact that people can seriously continue to claim that global warming is based on "phony studies" and be taken seriously is completely ludicrous.

[nenjin]

Santorum is anti-reality.

[Montague]

So, is it too late for Gringrich or Ron Paul to win the nomination?

How does that even work?

[GlyphGryph]

I think its too late for anyone to "win" the nomination.

[RedKing]

So, is it too late for Gringrich or Ron Paul to win the nomination?

How does that even work?

Not by any means, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where they manage to do so (other than the other three candidates dying due to a meteor hitting the debates or something).

A candidate needs a bare majority of delegates at the convention to receive the nomination. For that GOP, that's 1191 delegates. At this point, there isn't even a universal answer to how many pledged delegates each one has (much less unpledged), but the rough estimate is that Romney leads with 104 pledged, Santorum has 36 pledged, Gingrich has 34 pledged, and Paul has 28 pledged. There's still a ton of unpledged delegates out there to be divvyed up too. In theory, these should break according to the proportions that each candidate won their state by (or in the remaining winner-take-all contests, they should all vote for whoever won their state.) But they are not procedurally obligated to do so. (That's the difference between pledged and unpledged).

Supposedly, in some of the caucus states, the Paul camp has been working to secure the support of the unpledged delegates, even when he's coming in 3rd or 4th place. And when push comes to shove, if nobody has won enough pledged delegates to win outright before the convention, it comes down to that big pool of unpledged delegates. If the party bosses and the campaigns push and pull and shove and wheedle enough to get enough of them to flip their votes, anything can happen. However, if the end result is significantly out of joint with what would be expected if the unpledged delegates voted based on the primary/caucus results, you can expect all hell to break loose within the ranks.

But I don't see the party establishment pushing and prodding to sway people for Gingrich or Paul. If anything, they'd likely try to pull unpledged delegates over to Romney, even if Romney didn't win according to the primary results. Which would result in a delicious civil war within the GOP and quite possibly a third-party run by Santorum and/or Ron Paul.