Print

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

[RedKing]

Although if he only has 45% of the pledged delegates, and it comes down to the unpledged delegates basically "handing" him the nomination...that's going to have about the same amount of blowback within the party as a brokered convention would. Either way, it's going to be seen as the "smoke-filled backroom" and the establishment "stealing" the nomination for Romney.

Which, if Romney loses, means they'll once again deduce the moral of the story to be "We lost because we weren't rabid ENOUGH." 2014 mid-term elections will see the "liberal" Tea Party supplanted by the Fatherland Party and their paramilitary arm. 

So who knows...maybe it's best for all if a wounded and exhausted Romney wins the nomination, only to be deserted by the far-right and steamrolled by the Left.

[mainiac]

Although if he only has 45% of the pledged delegates, and it comes down to the unpledged delegates basically "handing" him the nomination...that's going to have about the same amount of blowback within the party as a brokered convention would. Either way, it's going to be seen as the "smoke-filled backroom" and the establishment "stealing" the nomination for Romney.

Super-delegates gave Obama the nomination in 2008.  Some people grumbled but it was hardly a repeat of the 1968 democratic convention fiasco.  Super delegates pushing a candidate over the top isn't ideal but it's not an actual brokered convention which makes for truly horrible optics.

[RedKing]

Although if he only has 45% of the pledged delegates, and it comes down to the unpledged delegates basically "handing" him the nomination...that's going to have about the same amount of blowback within the party as a brokered convention would. Either way, it's going to be seen as the "smoke-filled backroom" and the establishment "stealing" the nomination for Romney.

Super-delegates gave Obama the nomination in 2008.  Some people grumbled but it was hardly a repeat of the 1968 democratic convention fiasco.  Super delegates pushing a candidate over the top isn't ideal but it's not an actual brokered convention which makes for truly horrible optics.

Yeah, but Obama was the "insurgent" candidate. If the superdelegates had given it to Clinton, I think it would have been a whole different story. The "PUMA" crowd was nothing compared to what pissed-off Obama supporters would have been.

Same way that if the superdelegates end up giving it to Santorum or Gingrich, there will be grumbling and rolling of eyes among the GOP establishment but they're not exactly going to be ranting and railing and gnashing teeth (at least in public).

[Aqizzar]

For the record, Romney has to obtain something like 47% of all remaining delegates to reach the 1144 needed for an automatic majority nomination, Santorum needs to get about 65% of the remainder.  It sounds impossible for Santorum to make it over the top, but it's hardly inconceivable that Romney could get less than half of all remaining votes, especially if any bit of his money dries up.  When he has to spend six times as much as Santorum to achieve slightly better than parity in places like Ohio, that is a campaign on a rickety platform.

Interesting parsing from the exit polls: in Ohio at least, Romney and Santorum were about equally matched in preference (about 35-40% apiece) for all voters, except those with incomes over $200,000 who Romney ran away with, just enough to push him into victory.  Wealthy people tend to vote in higher percentages than other demographics by average (greater political literacy, personal interest, ability to take off a Tuesday afternoon), and don't vary much between elections.  Pollsters have actually seen a noticeable increase in voter turnout among the highest-polled-for income brackets across almost every race in the Republican primary, virtually all of them saying they're for Romney.  He actually is a "Movement Candidate" - it's a movement of wealthy people.

Also, the Democratic primary in Ohio, a primary with essentially one name on the ballot, had higher voter turnout than any one Republican's total votes.  Yes, Romney got 457k votes, and the Ohio Democratic Party got about 480k people to turn out to cast a purely symbolic vote for Obama in their primary.  Intriguing.  Meanwhile, leprechaun Representative Dennis Kuicinich lost his primary renomination for his redistricted seat.  Yes, he won't be losing his Congressional seat because of redistricting, he'll be departing Congress because a different Democrat foisted him out.

And just because it's my thread, here's a Sarah Palin word salad for you.  Yeah yeah, posted by Think Progress, it's her on Fox and it was on YouTube's frontpage.

[nenjin]

Meanwhile, leprechaun Representative Dennis Kuicinich lost his primary renomination for his redistricted seat.  Yes, he won't be losing his Congressional seat because of redistricting, he'll be departing Congress because a different Democrat foisted him out.

I always thought he was a gnome Representative, myself. Those ears, man.

[alway]

Interesting parsing from the exit polls: in Ohio at least, Romney and Santorum were about equally matched in preference (about 35-40% apiece) for all voters, except those with incomes over $200,000 who Romney ran away with, just enough to push him into victory.  Wealthy people tend to vote in higher percentages than other demographics by average (greater political literacy, personal interest, ability to take off a Tuesday afternoon), and don't vary much between elections.  Pollsters have actually seen a noticeable increase in voter turnout among the highest-polled-for income brackets across almost every race in the Republican primary, virtually all of them saying they're for Romney.  He actually is a "Movement Candidate" - it's a movement of wealthy people.

Well, Romney did win Ohio by *puts on sunglasses* one percent. 

[MaximumZero]

And just because it's my thread, here's a Sarah Palin word salad for you.  Yeah yeah, posted by Think Progress, it's her on Fox and it was on YouTube's frontpage.

I didn't make it to the end. What the hell was she babbling about?

[Flying Dice]

And just because it's my thread, here's a Sarah Palin word salad for you.  Yeah yeah, posted by Think Progress, it's her on Fox and it was on YouTube's frontpage.

I didn't make it to the end. What the hell was she babbling about?

Apparently it isn't the social conservatives that want to roll the clock back to the 1800s.   

[Sirus]

My favorite parts about the video?
1: The like/dislike bar.
2: The last part of the URL:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

AAAAAAAAAA

Least favorite part is the commentators saying that modern Democrats are aligned with the KKK.

[Capntastic]

"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" -Talking Heads All Over

[Luke_Prowler]

That woman takes talking shit to an artform

[Leafsnail]

How can you talk for so long and yet not provide anything at all to back up your main statement?  I mean, at least she had a point this time, but she just rambled randomly for the rest of her talk without explaining how Obama wants to take America back to before the Civil War at all.

[nenjin]

How can you talk for so long and yet not provide anything at all to back up your main statement?  I mean, at least she had a point this time, but she just rambled randomly for the rest of her talk without explaining how Obama wants to take America back to before the Civil War at all.

Do you watch much Fox News? Because that's SOP.

[alway]

That woman takes talking shit to an artform

Abstract art, maybe.

In other news, Santorum takes Kansas, Romney takes Wyoming. Nothing really unexpected there.

[Nadaka]

I find it odd that Newt is polling #1 in Mississippi, followed by Romney.