Print

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

[Leafsnail]

Just for the record, that is not how tax rates work.  Getting a pay raise will never ever cause you to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes, that's what the "brackets" are all about.

I know you're probably just misinformed about that, but I meet people all the freakin' time who insist on believing the "getting a raise can cost you income because of taxes" myth, and reject any explanation to the contrary.

Didn't know that one (the UK tax system being kindof weird doesn't help here - you kindof lose your lower bands as you earn more).  Still sucks though, and even if earning more can't leave you with less I don't think a sudden huge spike is helpful.  It'd still make employers reluctant to pay past a certain point.

[mainiac]

Do they have to have a plurality at the caucuses/primaries or do they have to have a plurality on the convention floor?

That's a good question, especially with cases like Mississippi where Santorum won the plurality of the primary but Romney was awarded more of the state's delegates (13 to 12 that is) thanks to the "unbound" delegates (read: party chairmen saying who the nominee will be).  Thanks to the way the race has already shaken out, I don't think that's going to come into contention though.  If Santorum doesn't have a plurality of actual delegates from at least five states by the end, it's safe to guess that Romney will have more than 1144 anyway.

I was thinking a different angle.  Suppose in the first round of voting, Gingrich has only 2 states, South Carolina and Georgia.  But the first round doesn't have a majority so there's a second round, where suddenly everyone decides they really like Newt (mass head trauma?).  Can he have a plurality of the states in this second round or is he disqualified because he never won enough primaries/caucuses?

People talk about dark horses, which these rules would disqualify if you needed the plurality of caucuses.  But this rule seems to be practically meaningless if it's based on support on the floor.  A candidate that completely sweeps the biggest 4 states gets like 600 votes from them.  It's kinda hard to see how they could get another 600 votes from the remaining states without taking a plurality in a single one of them.

[Aqizzar]

People talk about dark horses, which these rules would disqualify if you needed the plurality of caucuses.  But this rule seems to be practically meaningless if it's based on support on the floor.  A candidate that completely sweeps the biggest 4 states gets like 600 votes from them.  It's kinda hard to see how they could get another 600 votes from the remaining states without taking a plurality in a single one of them.

I didn't think about it at first, but given all the (intrinsically hyperbolic) talk of a "brokered convention", whereby somebody who didn't even actually run is trotted out and nominated, I'm going to take a stab in the dark that "plurality in at least five states" means "delegate votes at the convention", since there's no other way that scenario would be possible.

[nenjin]

I thought I was alone on this....but I'm kind of expecting the Republican convention to be a "real" convention this time around, because neither Santorum or Gingrich seem to give a fuck about the prevailing party opinion. So if they've got delegates...why not take the convention seriously? Romney is so vulnerable that I think Santorum could actually take the nomination in one of those "seat of your pants" conventions.

I just don't see either of them going this far and then saying "Oh, the guys in the back room want to call this one? Sure, let me just get out of the way."

[Aqizzar]

I just don't see either of them going this far and then saying "Oh, the guys in the back room want to call this one? Sure, let me just get out of the way."

To be perfectly fair, that's what a lot of people said about Hilary Clinton too, at much this same stage of the primaries, and look how that turned out.

Do Rick Santorum and/or Newt Gingrich have bigger, more self-serving egos than Hilary Clinton, or is their fiery opposition to Romney going to disappear the moment the race ends?  That's an open question, although I think history is bearing out in Clinton's favor in regard to the former.

[nenjin]

Then again, we didn't see Hilary self-destructing on the way to the convention. Both Santorum and Gingrich, on the other hand....When you're acting in a way that completely embarrasses the party, and instead of moderating, you double down...yeah. This Republican nomination to me has exceeded the Democratic nomination in terms of media hype and coverage, and unlike Hilary v. Obama, there isn't a clear "Oooohhh we'd really like that guy" candidate among the Republicans. In a race to the bottom, I expect all of them to duke it out at the convention.

[lemon10]

Both Newt and Gingrich.

Huh, both Newt AND Gingrich? 

[Urist Imiknorris]

Newts and Santorumanders are difficult pests to get rid of.

[nenjin]

Both Newt and Gingrich.

Huh, both Newt AND Gingrich? 

You mean what I know.

[Frumple]

Newts and Santorumanders are difficult pests to get rid of.

Do... do Santorumanders evolve into Santorumeleons and then Santorizards?

[nenjin]

No. They don't believe in evolution.

[mainiac]

A brokered convention isn't going to happen unless Santorum and Gingrich start getting bigger shares of the remaining delegates.  If Romney just keeps his current pace he will cinch the nomination with a little breathing space.  No matter the size of their egos, if Romney has the support of a plurality, then there will not be a brokered convention.

[Aqizzar]

By the way, news networks calling Illinois for Romney: With 20% of the vote in, Romney's running away with a serious majority, and all exit polls suggest the same should hold true through the rest of the count.  Santorum might narrow a bit, but this one looks pretty closed.

I will officially the first person to jump on the "Santorum is as good as over" bandwagon.  It's definitely just a question of whether Romney will reach 1144 by the end, and whether he'll need the unboard delegates to get over the top.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know, I think the superdelegates are probably going to be more on Santorum's side than Romney's.

[mainiac]

I don't know, I think the superdelegates are probably going to be more on Santorum's side than Romney's.

Based on what evidence?  Romney leads in the super delegates who have publicly made endorsements so far.  Why would they intentionally destroy their party if they don't feel strongly about the issue to make an endorsement yet?