Print

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

[Nadaka]

Does it have hordes of horse-riding barbarians? Because that would be awesome.

Actually... It does, and they even wear funny hats.

[nenjin]

I never really thought about it, but yeah, throw some dudes in furs on horseback and let them ride around, you could call anything in the Midwest Mongolia.

[mainiac]

Do you guys think that Romney is going to get a bump going into super Tuesday?  Because a lot of the polls show him not doing great across the board.  Obama was trailing Clinton until Super Tuesday.

[RedKing]

I don't see much bumpitude from last night's results. Even his own "victory" speech, he had to admit that they didn't win Michigan by much. If anything, I think it secured Santorum's position as the anti-Romney, given how poorly Gingrich fared.

Delegate-wise, Romney came out of Michigan with 14, Santorum with 12. Romney got all 29 of Arizona's, but they're small fry compared to a number of other states.

It'll take a couple of days for the state polls to catch up with any carryover effect from the MI/AZ elections. But my guess would be that'll you see a slight (1-2%) intensification for the front-runners in the states where we have some recent poll data (i.e. Santorum gains slightly in Ohio, Romney gains slightly in Massachusetts). I don't know that that holds true for Gingrich in Georgia. At some point, people have to realize that Newt's ship has sailed.

In the absence of poll data on most of the Super Tuesday states, my gut reaction would be to say Santorum wins Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee. Romney wins Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia. I think Gingrich makes his heroic last stand in Georgia, but then is finished as a relevant candidate. No idea on Wyoming -- it's rural as all hell, which favors Santorum, but it's also a Rocky Mountain state, which typically has favored Romney because of at least some Mormon population and the higher name recognition. But then, that didn't save him in Colorado, so who knows?

The other issue is that these races are almost entirely proportional, so it's tough for either one of them to run away with this thing. Even if Santorum wins 6 states to Romney's 3, the overall delegate lead will probably still remain with Romney, although smaller.

[scriver]

I don't see how any democrats could ever vote for Santorum, even for oils. If I was American, I wouldn't want him anywhere near even a chance, no matter how small, of becoming president.

[nenjin]

I think Romney is going to get the "reality check" bump, when Republicans have to finally settle on something. To me Santorum makes for great political theater, but his own rhetoric has put his chances of the nomination in the "got nothing else to lose" column.

And right now, Republicans don't seem that desperate to me. Having a lame duck candidate get soundly defeated by Obama is better than having someone with Santorum's views come to define the mainstream Republican party, while still getting soundly thrashed.

While I'm sure a contingent of the Republican party would love to embrace his extremist views, I think he leaves a bad taste in the mouths of just about all the moderates. Even staunch Christians are having a hard time agreeing with Santorum, particularly when he starts going off the cuff about what he thinks religion means.

Romney may not excite hardly anyone, but I think this whole Santorum thing has just been Republicans desperately entertaining any idea that seems more exciting than the guy they should be running with.

I mean, they must feel exactly how Democrats felt with Kerry. To me the choice between Romney and Santorum for Republicans is akin to the choice between Kerry or, say, Al Sharpton for Democrats. Sharpton may generate buzz, but his own mouth becomes his worst enemy after a certain point. Santorum strikes me the same way. Maybe he's far more reserved when he's not stumping for the White House.

[Aqizzar]

One thing I'm curious to see is how Virgina turns out.  Since only Romney and Ron Paul will actually be listed on the ballot (Santorum and Gingrich totally spaced), I'm wonder if the Santorum and Gingrich PACs will make some isolated effort to pose as the Paul campaign, to try to deny Romney any percentage they can.  Especially since Paul himself has probably written it off, since Virginia isn't a caucus state.

By the way, most of the Super Tuesday states are actually district-winner-take-all, like South Carolina was.  Even if the percentages are really close, it's entirely possible for one candidate to sweep a bunch of votes from a state if they get the plurality in a lot of counties.  Ironically, Massachusetts is not one, being straight proportional, so I expect a lot of hay to be made over how large or small Romney's take is in another home state.

I mean, they must feel exactly how Democrats felt with Kerry. To me the choice between Romney and Santorum for Republicans is akin to the choice between Kerry or, say, Al Sharpton for Democrats. Sharpton may generate buzz, but his own mouth becomes his worst enemy after a certain point. Santorum strikes me the same way. Maybe he's far more reserved when he's not stumping for the White House.

As if Romney needed any more comparisons to Kerry.  I'm sure he hates it when people say that.

[Bauglir]

I don't see how any democrats could ever vote for Santorum, even for oils. If I was American, I wouldn't want him anywhere near even a chance, no matter how small, of becoming president.

Those votes are likely due to trying to sabotage the Republican candidacy after the primary, the idea being that Santorum is entirely unelectable, and repugnant enough to the general population that voter turnout will spike for the sole purpose of voting against him. I think they might give too much credit to the people who currently don't plan on voting, and too little to the "anybody but Obama" mindset, but we might see.

[scriver]

Hehe, yeah, that's what I meant. But the thought of him even being close to having a chance...

[RedKing]

While I'm sure a contingent of the Republican party would love to embrace his extremist views, I think he leaves a bad taste in the mouths of just about all the moderates.

Yes, all five of them that are still in the party at this point. 

Seriously, the GOP has run moderates out of the party on a rail the last few years. 2010 saw a pretty effective internal pogrom that pitted Tea Party types against moderate Republicans in primary races across the country. The Tea Party won more than half of those and disenchanted a lot of the moderate base. The polarization and obstructionism that followed the 2010 election further disenchanted the moderates who were left. Just yesterday, moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) announced she's not running for re-election and cited the polarization in Congress as a major factor. That pretty much leaves Susan Collins as the lone Republican Senator who could actually be expected to compromise with the Democrats on *any* issue. Maybe Richard Lugar and Scott Brown if you catch them on a good day, although they're both under pressure to tow the party line or face a hardcore primary opponent. The guys like Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chaffee are gone (and both are persona non grata within the Party).

See, there's a significant number of people remaining within the GOP who've drunk enough of their own Kool-Aid to believe that they are the majority opinion in the country, and that America's silent majority is looking for a strong WASPy (or hell....just white and Christian in a pinch) male who will put America back on the Christian foundation it was built upon (at least, in their understanding of history). They also tend to believe that all of America's problems, be they economic, foreign policy, environmental, crime, what have you....are caused by not being religious enough. These are the people Santorum is appealing to when he says that seperation of church and state makes him want to throw up.

[nenjin]

Actually, one benefit Santorum has brought to this whole process is that moderate Republicans are being prompted to express their views. Gingrich didn't cause that to happen, probably because he has "political operative" stamped on his forehead and most didn't feel the need to respond.

But Santorum has a grass roots persona that I think makes moderate Republicans go "Ok, wait a minute, I think it's time I remind someone who actually speaks for me." Like Santorum is just credible enough he warrants refutation.

Also, I draw a pretty sharp distinction between Moderate Republican as Voter, and Moderate Republican as Politician. There are still plenty of moderate Republican voters, even if their moderate politician counter-parts were effectively run out of office by the Tea Party.

See, there's a significant number of people remaining within the GOP who've drunk enough of their own Kool-Aid to believe that they are the majority opinion in the country, and that America's silent majority is looking for a strong WASPy (or hell....just white and Christian in a pinch) male who will put America back on the Christian foundation it was built upon (at least, in their understanding of history).

I believe these people are a far smaller demographic than the media would have us believe. The numbers of any political/social group seem much larger when they are dominating national conversations. Again, tons and tons of political theater that I don't think actually speaks to how people will vote when they have to consider the outcomes of their decision.

[tryrar]

yo, been watching this thread, but have yet to post(I think). However, this bit from santorum I just couldn't let pass

If you don't want to read the entire article, here's the main point from it(He's talking about the deceleration of independence here):
“The men and women who signed that declaration wrote the final phrase, ‘We pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor,” Santorum said.

Does anyone ELSE see anything wrong with this statement? 

[Aqizzar]

But Santorum has a grass roots persona that I think makes moderate Republicans go "Ok, wait a minute, I think it's time I remind someone who actually speaks for me." Like Santorum is just credible enough he warrants refutation.

Also, I draw a pretty sharp distinction between Moderate Republican as Voter, and Moderate Republican as Politician. There are still plenty of moderate Republican voters, even if their moderate politician counter-parts were effectively run out of office by the Tea Party.

Yes, a critical distinction needs to be made between Republican-identifying voters at large, and the actual Republicans holding and running (against each other) for offices.  The real KoolAid problem is at the top, and Olympia Snowe's departure is a strong sign of that (not that she didn't have her problems with the Democrats, but she made no bones about the ossification and obstinacy of her colleagues).

I agree that Santorum's prominence, even if he doesn't get the nomination, could easily lead to a new movement in the Republican party in the next election cycle, especially if the Republicans get their clocks cleaned in Congressional elections.  There will be no small number of people saying, "If we lost at all, it's because we still weren't conservative and absolute enough," just like they do every time they lose.  But I think that this cycle might finally be what gets a serious, genuinely ground-up demand in the party (and it would have to be ground-up, since only the true believers and truly craven are left in the national party management) for Republican candidates who talk like ordinary people with ordinary gray areas about non-government issues.  I don't know how far it would get if it happens, but it'll be a bloody fight no matter what.

Of course, that's exactly what the Tea Party was supposed to be, and was for about five weeks in 2009 before the Republican bankrollers bought the name and dressed up God Guns n' Gays as fiscal conservatism.  It's hard to imagine that exact same co-opting not happening again in such a scenario.

[Sirus]

yo, been watching this thread, but have yet to post(I think). However, this bit from santorum I just couldn't let pass

If you don't want to read the entire article, here's the main point from it(He's talking about the deceleration of independence here):
“The men and women who signed that declaration wrote the final phrase, ‘We pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor,” Santorum said.

Does anyone ELSE see anything wrong with this statement? 

Well, I don't think any women signed the DoI, considering that women weren't allowed into politics yet. I could be wrong, I don't have it handy.

[RedKing]

But as the number of moderate options for them to vote for diminish, so will the party membership and voting patterns. My father-in-law has been a lifelong Republican, of the fiscal conservative/social libertarian "New England"-style Republicanism. He's so fed up with the Republican party at the national, state and local levels that he's planning on changing his registration to Independent this cycle. Likewise certain Republican friends of mine. They don't even want an indirect association with the sort of asshattery that is regularly coming to stand for "Republican ideals". Like when the local County Commission chair attacks a sustainability study as some nefarious tool of a "UN one-world-government conspiracy" or ramrods through a resolution stating that our county supports an anti-gay-marriage amendment on the ballot without any public input and without any poll data to support that assertion.

OTOH, some other Republican friends (mostly ex-friends now) have gone the other route, immersing themselves in the culture war to the point where we simply can't speak to one another. They've got the kind of blind fervor I'd expect to see out of a jihadi.

This is why I'm all for Santorum getting the nomination. Not only will he lose to Obama, but he'll break the Republican Party as we know it, and finally divorce the unholy marriage of fiscal conservatism and religious conservatism that Reagan created. Let the Bible-thumpers have its discarded husk, and create a new secular, rational fiscal conservative party. Might find a lot of people interested.

talking about the deceleration of independence here

Heh....I know that's a typo, but it seemed oddly appropriate.