Print

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

[Sirus]

That's my guess. Democratic candidates aren't going to spend an excessive amount of money in an largely Democratic area, because they're simply preaching to the choir. Same reason the Republican nominee (whoever it turns out to be) probably won't spend much time in super-conservative areas. It's the swing districts that will receive the most attention.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Interesting bit about the Dems using Iowa as a dress rehearsal. There was a lot of buzz that they used North Carolina (particularly Wake County) as a dry run during the off-year elections last November, and I think there's some weight to that. Dems took the mayor's office by a crushing margin, and retook the school board in a clean sweep of 5 seats up for bid, including unseating the current chair. Although oddly, my wife (who is a granola-muncher blue Democrat) never got any kind of phone calls, mailers, etc. urging her to vote. Maybe it was only in targeted districts.

My family never got any calls either....

I've heard some talks that North Carolina is going to be a political battleground in the 2012 elections because of Obama's unexpected victory in a southern state with a fairly large number of electoral votes back in 2008.

[RedKing]

Well, where we live isn't particularly blue. It's just that we had no open races of note on our ballot. Cary mayoral race (which is small fish compared to Raleigh), and no school board races. And the school board races had achieved national prominence, with over $500,000 poured into the races from both sides--unheard of in a school board race. There was one runoff race, and the outside contributions for the runoff campaign was over $125,000. Just crazy.

@MSH: Yeah, it's going to be an interesting campaign season. I expect we'll see a lot of Obama and Biden. If the Republican nomination goes down to the wire for some reason, I expect we'll get the travelling circus o' nuts too.

[nenjin]

I'm hoping for less Biden, personally. He's like that loud uncle you wish would stop talking. Yes Uncle Harry, we've heard that joke before and we're tired of it.

[ECrownofFire]

Surprise, Johnson is okay and Paul is like him, only with a random hatred on reproductive rights and gays, sorta odd, that.

I thought it was already pretty clear that Gary Johnson was the only decent (now former) Republican candidate, and that Paul's basically "good enough" in relation to him.

[G-Flex]

Crazy political question for everyone: Would you vote for Richard Stallman? Why? Why not?

God no. The man has a very tenuous connection with political and social reality. He's the kind of guy who's nice to have around because he represents some nice/interesting ideas, but he runs off a cliff with them, and seems to exist primarily inside his own head.

There's also the fact that he has no social grace whatsoever. How many people here remember that video of him picking something off his foot and eating it during a lecture? I would prefer my president to be at least as socially presentable as your average eleven-year-old.

[Osmosis Jones]

If we're talking about hypotheticals, how about George Clooney? He's politically aware, doesn't come across as insane in the interviews he's had re: political issues, and has an unholy level of charisma.

Or, assuming a complete overhaul of the whole 'American born' rule, Arnold Schwarznegger? Fidelity issues might plague him, but from what I hear, he's been an effective governator willing to work with both sides. Also, California is freaking huge, it's practically a country in it's own right.

[Sirus]

If we're talking about hypotheticals, how about George Clooney? He's politically aware, doesn't come across as insane in the interviews he's had re: political issues, and has an unholy level of charisma.

Or, assuming a complete overhaul of the whole 'American born' rule, Arnold Schwarznegger? Fidelity issues might plague him, but from what I hear, he's been an effective governator willing to work with both sides. Also, California is freaking huge, it's practically a country in it's own right.

I don't know anything about Clooney's politics, so no comment there.

Schwarznegger? I don't think so. He wasn't a terrible governator, but I don't think he could make a good president. I'd rather have him than Bachman or Perry, but that really isn't saying much.

[Osmosis Jones]

Clooney's a Dem, quite progressive on most social issues (e.g. gay rights, abortion, civil rights etc.), can't remember his financial views, but he seems smart enough to take sensible economic advice.

[Capntastic]

As a Californian with multiple relatives who work for the state, I can tell you that Schwarzenegger had a few alright gambits, but in trying to be a big charismatic leader, had a few huge schemes involving not-paying-state-employees that nearly bankrupted quite a few families.  Of course, CHP officers were immune to furloughs and such, because [whatever reason].

(An anecdotal aside, Arnold raised sales tax by about a penny on the dollar, which only went out of effect in the last few months.  It was widely hailed as a needed concession in these tough economic times.  Jerry Brown is planning on bringing it back, and everyone I've talked to about it is throwing a fit about tax and spend liberals ruining the working man.)

[Aqizzar]

Caucus voting is underway in Iowa.  Entrance polling suggests people under 30 are about 2-in-3 for Ron Paul, but are massively outnumbered by people over 30.  Still way too early to call.

[RedKing]

CNN entrance polls are projecting a Paul-Romney-Santorum finish, which is pretty close to my projection. Of course, these are entrance polls so it's a little like projecting the game based on the halftime score.

[Mego]

CNN entrance polls are projecting a Paul-Romney-Santorum finish, which is pretty close to my projection. Of course, these are entrance polls so it's a little like projecting the game based on the halftime score.

More like predicting the winner of the Super Bowl based on the first day of camp.

I'm expecting Paul and Romney to be close. It's not too important to me, because I won't be voting on that side of the ticket anyway, but it's still interesting to watch.

[Aqizzar]

Going into an hour after the beginning of voting, reported caucuses are almost straight 23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney - still can't be called officially.  Which says Bachmann and Perry are almost certainly underwater in a state they were both heavily banking on, and Gingrich and Huntsman will be looking to New Hampshire and South Carolina for vindication.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Some OWS supporters went to Romney's speech and yelled at him. I don't think it worked very well.

Guardian Article (Video is strangely irrelevant)

Recording of the event.

Going into an hour after the beginning of voting, reported caucuses are almost straight 23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney - still can't be called officially.  Which says Bachmann and Perry are almost certainly underwater in a state they were both heavily banking on, and Gingrich and Huntsman will be looking to New Hampshire and South Carolina for vindication.

Going into an hour after the beginning of voting, reported caucuses are almost straight 23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney -

23%/23%/23% for Paul, Santorum, and Romney

23%/23%/23%

....That.....that's not.....

This is going to be a very interesting election cycle.