Print

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

[MaximumZero]

Aqizzar, that means you need MOAR POLITICS. Get two tvs going at once, one on MSNBC and the other on FOX News, and report the hallucinations.

[Zrk2]

Aqizzar, that means you need MOAR POLITICS. Get two tvs going at once, one on MSNBC and the other on FOX News, and report the hallucinations.

When the people on one TV start yelling at the people on the other, then you MIGHT have had too much politics.

When a politician makes sense then you should go sleep for 48 hours, eat a large meal of pasta and then return.

[Capntastic]

These days I just have dreams of living in a libertopia where I check the stock market each morning to make sure that the elemental components making up my body haven't went up in price enough to make the murder and sale of my corpse incentivized enough to make calling in sick the best rational-actor decision.

[LostCosmonaut]

I vaguely recall seeing somewhere that, at current prices, the component elements of your body are worth about $14.

[Karlito]

Yeah, but your body is worth a lot more than that. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus are all cheap, but even assembling them into the basic organic macromolecules is pretty expensive. Just a vial of insulin costs more than $14, for example.

[NobodyPro]

Any news on ACTA? Do I have to hate Obama yet?

[MaximumZero]

Hell, there are about 5L of blood in an average person's body, and a couple of pints is worth ~$300 in Bulgaria, according to a cursory web search.

[Criptfeind]

Any news on ACTA? Do I have to hate Obama yet?

Are you serious?

[palsch]

So the polls suggest Santorum should do well in the three polls today. He has 10%+ leads over Mitt in Missouri and Minnesota, and is second in Colorado based on PPP polls.

On the other hand, none of those polls will be binding. It seems today there are party meetings to choose representatives to send to meetings where delegates will be chosen (potentially with another step between). There will also be non-binding straw/Presidential Preference polls.

At least when the Nevada votes were finally counted it meant something. Other than giving Santorum a boost these votes don't appear to mean much of anything.

[RedKing]

Took me a minute to realize you were using two different definitions of "polls" there, causing me to think the pollsters were actually doing polls about people's expectations of other polls. Yo dawg, I heard you like polls...

Speaking of polls, here's a variety of things to ponder:

Obama's approval rating in positive territory (48% approval vs. 47% disapproval) for the first time since July 2011.

Romney ahead in Colorado, Santorum ahead in Minnesota (where he's seen as the banner-carrier for Minnesota's favorite native nutcase, Michelle Bachmann). They're significant even though "non-binding". Pretty much EVERY caucus is non-binding, in theory. But it's extremely rare for delegates to go against the apportionment of votes determined by the popular election (whether winner-take-all or proportional).

Missouri is purely a beauty contest, because they'll be holding a closed party vote in March to actually determine their candidate picks.

Still, it's an important momentum shift if the results hold close to the poll numbers: Santorum is back in the race, Gingrich is sliding to third, and Paul is at the back of the pack. Minnesota in particular will be interesting to watch because while Santorum appears to have that one in hand, the race for 2nd-4th places is very tight. I had been expecting Santorum to potentially drop out after these races, but now that seems highly unlikely. Perhaps Ron Paul will finally fall on his sword instead, if he places fourth in all three races.

Looking forward, Romney appears to have a lock on Arizona and Michigan (both at the end of the month), but there's a lot of time in between for things to happen.

Also, a hypothetical Obama vs. Romney matchup is now polling 6 points in favor of Obama, whereas before it had been a virtual tie. At this point, *all* of the potential Republican challengers are polling -6 or worse against Obama. Combine that with the recent jobs report and the overall trend of economic data pointing in a good direction, and the GOP has got to be feeling sick in their stomach. If the economy is measurably on track to recovery, they lose their biggest weapon in the general election.

[palsch]

Took me a minute to realize you were using two different definitions of "polls" there, causing me to think the pollsters were actually doing polls about people's expectations of other polls. Yo dawg, I heard you like polls...

Cursed English language...

They're significant even though "non-binding". Pretty much EVERY caucus is non-binding, in theory. But it's extremely rare for delegates to go against the apportionment of votes determined by the popular election (whether winner-take-all or proportional).

The problem here is how drastically the race could change, especially in the eyes of the Republican establishment, between the caucus and the delegates being assigned. In the two previous caucuses they have officially assigned delegates to candidates immediately. In this one you can't assign them like that until much later in the process. While they ought to go along with the caucus results they could make a very strong party case for, say, ignoring Santorum if he drops out between now and then, especially if there is a tight race between an establishment backed figure and a spoiler.

The usual saying is Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There isn't much sign of the latter this year (and arguably less of the former than 2008). If this stretches on too long the whips might start cracking. If they can avoid a messy convention fight in return for mildly annoying some caucus voters (assuming any of them pay attention or it even gets any coverage) then that might not be the worst trade off ever.

[thegoatgod_pan]

The usual saying is Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There isn't much sign of the latter this year (and arguably less of the former than 2008). If this stretches on too long the whips might start cracking. If they can avoid a messy convention fight in return for mildly annoying some caucus voters (assuming any of them pay attention or it even gets any coverage) then that might not be the worst trade off ever.

I think the usual saying is troubled by the Super Pac money. So far the major consequence to the Super Pacs has been a kind of excess of vicious ads that the candidates seem to think they can forswear. Establishment republicans struggle to get their message across. Fox News plays the part of base organizer but badly (for once), since it cannot resist cannibalizing candidates for stories. The whole primary is as unreasonably brutal as Fox news commentary.

Republicans criticizing republicans is old news, but republicans criticizing republicans for being too rich, or too capitalist is just funny.

[RedKing]

Took me a minute to realize you were using two different definitions of "polls" there, causing me to think the pollsters were actually doing polls about people's expectations of other polls. Yo dawg, I heard you like polls...

Cursed English language...

They're significant even though "non-binding". Pretty much EVERY caucus is non-binding, in theory. But it's extremely rare for delegates to go against the apportionment of votes determined by the popular election (whether winner-take-all or proportional).

The problem here is how drastically the race could change, especially in the eyes of the Republican establishment, between the caucus and the delegates being assigned. In the two previous caucuses they have officially assigned delegates to candidates immediately. In this one you can't assign them like that until much later in the process. While they ought to go along with the caucus results they could make a very strong party case for, say, ignoring Santorum if he drops out between now and then, especially if there is a tight race between an establishment backed figure and a spoiler.

The usual saying is Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There isn't much sign of the latter this year (and arguably less of the former than 2008). If this stretches on too long the whips might start cracking. If they can avoid a messy convention fight in return for mildly annoying some caucus voters (assuming any of them pay attention or it even gets any coverage) then that might not be the worst trade off ever.

Yeah, but given the current voter sentiment and popular disgust with "Washington" (i.e. the political establishment) in general, if the Republican nom comes down to bending some delegates to the will of the party elite instead of how the votes came down? They'd be signing their own death warrant in the general election (even though they're probably dead there anyways). Disenfranchising your own constituency, even if totally above-board and legal, is a recipe for a massive revolt within the ranks.

And FOX News has lost some of its ability to deliver elite cues because it's gone from being perceived as the "maverick" cable news station to being part of the establishment (and a track record of more or less supporting Romney hasn't helped in that regard). The real hellraisers in the party are ready to consign anything and everything that supports Mittens to the flames, to "burn the cancer out of the Republican Party". Of course, in so doing they'd leave a charred stump of a party that would never get above 40% support in a national election again. Far too many people are just not comfortable with a party that focuses mostly on God-and-Guns. My most fervent wish is that it goes down to the convention, which is a near-riot as Romney lacks enough delegates to win outright, and the other candidate camps band together to oppose him. Some shady backroom deals award a change of delegates to Romney and he gets the nomination with a taint. Those in the GOP that opposed him get so worked up about it (and the polls show Romney far enough out of reach that they're no real point to their holding their nose and voting for Mitt) that they tear the party in half and create a third party bid, and with it a permanent second major conservative party, thus keeping political power out of conservative hands for a generation. Eventually, the Democrats would overreach and hopefully tear themselves in two as well (a market-liberal centrist party and a true social liberal party), and then we'd actually have some real politics in this country. Four or five major parties would be a good thing.

[mainiac]

Four or five parties is simply not going to happen given the setup of american elections.  You don't even need to blame the "media" or "elites" or anyone else.  In a large-district, first past the post system it is not possible to have 4 or 5 major parties co-exist for an extended period.

[Frumple]

first past the post system

So we fix that, ne? If the big boys did manage to tear themselves into pieces, we'd probably see a hell of a lot more support for a more proportional style or somethin'.