U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:42 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:EDIT: Although actually, it's half that many now in Florida, because they broke the rules on when they could hold primaries. US politics is incredibly stupid sometimes. :roll:


Not that I blame Florida. Why should Iowa always get to have the first primary? All that does is ensure that Iowa keeps getting farming subsidies, distorting the market and making everyone but Iowa poorer. Fuck you, Iowa. Just because you are in the center of the country doesn't mean you are the center of the country.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Not that I blame Florida. Why should Iowa always get to have the first primary? All that does is ensure that Iowa keeps getting farming subsidies, distorting the market and making everyone but Iowa poorer. Fuck you, Iowa. Just because you are in the center of the country doesn't mean you are the center of the country.

Minor nitpick, but NH has the first primary, Iowa just gets a stupid caucus. Primaries are much more awesome (You could even say they're "wicked better"). Also, I'm from NH, but I hate my state (seriously, fuck NH).

Anyway, the problem with that specific criticism is that any state being the first primary / caucus will distort things in their favor. Florida being first will mean more things to help old people and Cuban-Americans, California first would mean more focus on Latino-Americans, and so on.

That said, I think you're overestimating the political impact of such- farm subsidies aren't just popular in Iowa, but in much of the midwest and the south (though it probably won't be corn for them). What political advantage does NH get out of being the first primary? None that I know of. The early states get a boon far easier to grasp: money. All of that advertising, campaign staff and offices, campaign stops, material, and so on, brings a lot of money into the state. It's also why the early states are pissed about the debate heavy primary- more focus is on the debates than before, meaning less campaigning in the states themselves, and thus, less money.

All Florida is interested in is that money, and they knew they just had to play chicken long enough with the major parties to get it. They didn't get it in 2008, because everyone was pissed about it, but they were only punished with a slap on the wrist because nobody wanted to piss off all the local politicians that would help them with campaigning in the biggest swing state in the nation. If I was a betting man, I'd be willing to bet that in 2016 (if Obama wins, else 2020) both parties will be afraid of even threatening to take away half of Florida's delegates. I don't think many other states could repeat what Florida has done here, actually- a non swing state will just get told to shut up and go away, and a smaller swing state would have to be able to out-maneuver both Florida and whoever it was attempting to replace.

I also highly doubt anyone will be able to replace Iowa & NH as the first states anytime soon- NH is willing to go as batshit crazy as they need to in order to retain their position (we threatened to move our primary into fucking December just to ensure Nevada wasn't too soon after us- they weren't even trying to get ahead), and I doubt Iowa feels much different. Not that it can't or won't happen, but it'd take either an unlikely turn of events or careful (and long turn) planning on behalf of some other states.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

Yes but it should rotate so that it isn't the same state each election year that gets to be first/early.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Yes but it should rotate so that it isn't the same state each election year that gets to be first/early.

Ideally? Perhaps. Practically? Won't happen. I know I personally bemoan the lack of liberal states in the early process- NH isn't really liberal in a traditional sense, and while Iowa tends to vote democratic, it's got a lot of conservatives (in both parties) too. Florida is a swing state, and South Carolina is conservative. A state like Oregon might be a better fit- I read it has both the most conservative and most liberal voting blocks in the country. Or perhaps that would just make it worse. Hmm. Vermont would be an interesting replacement for NH- then the candidates could fight over who likes Ben & Jerry's more, or something.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:48 pm UTC

Yeah, Vermont is awesome. It's full of the people in Upstate NY who were smart enough to say Foxtrot Union to NYC.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:30 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:If Santorum had won outright, any headlines that Romney got would have been Santorum's, and he would have spoken last at the end of the night. This change in events would have been far more significant than any difference than has even been (fraudulently) alleged to have been made by the ACORN bogeymen the GOP has been chasing when suppressing the vote.
Look, nobody cares that you think Democrats are incapable of committing voter fraud.

EsotericWombat wrote:And if they actually believed in the reasons they said they were doing it, then they wouldn't have handled Iowa so incompetently.
You do know there's more than one Republican, right? That they can have different beliefs and levels of competence?

CorruptUser wrote:Why should Iowa always get to have the first primary?
Because sometimes switching costs are higher than the benefit of switching.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:But Santorum already won the bragging rights title in Iowa by being such a dark-horse and getting the (for all practical purposes) tie with the generic front runner guy. I think just about all the headlines mentioned the incredible closeness and had both candidate's names, so I'm not sure how much those few vote would have really helped Santorum if they were tabulated correctly in the first place.


He still would have been the last to speak, and he would have been able to give an "I won" speech rather than an "I did good" speech. Which isn't a big difference, but as I previously stated, I'm not claiming that it's a big difference. I'm merely claiming that it's a bigger difference than there would be even if the lies we've been told by the GOP about voter fraud were true.

@Vaniver: if you actually had a leg to stand on, you wouldn't need that strawman
Image

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:08 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:If Santorum had won outright, any headlines that Romney got would have been Santorum's, and he would have spoken last at the end of the night. This change in events would have been far more significant than any difference than has even been (fraudulently) alleged to have been made by the ACORN bogeymen the GOP has been chasing when suppressing the vote.
Look, nobody cares that you think Democrats are incapable of committing voter fraud.

That seems a bit unfair of a response to me- EsotericWombat is pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives defending voter alienation efforts by saying they need to prevent voter fraud, then conservatives giving a collective shrug to a potential instance of fraud in the Iowa caucus. They didn't (as far as my reading can gather) imply that democrats are any less capable of fraud than republicans, or vice-versa.

User avatar
Ibid
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:17 am UTC
Location: In the same place

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ibid » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:41 pm UTC

Wonderful, and I'll agree that maybe in a general discussion of Republican versus Democrat, that would be an important distinction. But here? In a thread about the republican primary? It's a "let's take this off where I can bash the entire party" move.

If I want to discuss the Republicans as a whole, I'll discuss the General Election. In the case of Romney vs. Santorum? It's irrelevant, and serves only to tar them both (albeit deservedly). Really, it's the direction I would expect the Obama campaign to go (and he has to certain extents), but that's political 'debate'. This is private debate, where cheap tricks like that only serve to make the discussion pointless.
Ibid: Most prolific author in academia

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

The national Republican party has made it a priority to deny the right to vote to poor, black, and young voters on the basis of ballot integrity, and has not made it a priority to fix the very real problems with its handling of elections in Iowa. Pointing that out isn't a cheap trick.

But yeah, I can see how discussing how a distorted outcome in Iowa pertains to a major piece of the GOP's 2012 electoral strategy has no place in a thread about the Republican primary.

Image
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:20 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:That seems a bit unfair of a response to me- EsotericWombat is pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives defending voter alienation efforts by saying they need to prevent voter fraud, then conservatives giving a collective shrug to a potential instance of fraud in the Iowa caucus. They didn't (as far as my reading can gather) imply that democrats are any less capable of fraud than republicans, or vice-versa.
Esoteric_Wombat wrote:actual illegal balloting is so trivial-- statistically speaking-- to how elections are fucked with in this country that it's borderline deceitful to even talk about it as a factor here.
...
But that's not what ["integrity of the ballot"] was ever about. It was always about suppressing the poor vote, the black vote, and the youth vote.
...
spending lots of money to solve a problem that doesn't fucking exist.
...
any difference than has even been (fraudulently) alleged to have been made by the ACORN bogeymen
My position, if you go back far enough in this thread to find it, is that voter fraud is committed by both parties.

It seems unlikely to me, though, that this was voter fraud rather than a typo, and even if it were voter fraud, the benefit to Romney is temporary and small. If Santorum had won Iowa by 12 votes instead of losing it by 8, it wouldn't have made him significantly better off. Iowan voters are among the most favorable to Santorum of Republican voters; and so eking out a tie against Romney there signifies that he will lose across the entire country. The main effect Iowa had on Santorum- collapsing the trio of Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum into just Santorum, thus keeping him in the race- would happen in both scenarios.

EsotericWombat has made it clear that his primary interest in this 20 vote typo is that it means Republicans are hypocrites, and thus policies that purport to reduce voter fraud should be opposed because Republicans are hypocrites. If you do believe this is voter fraud, that means that voter fraud is an issue that should be taken seriously, and we should adopt policies that reduce it, unless Democrats are incapable of committing voter fraud, and it's just those villainous Republicans.

EsotericWombat wrote:The national Republican party ... has not made it a priority to fix the very real problems with its handling of elections in Iowa.
You know the national Republican party doesn't run the Iowa caucus elections, right? The Iowa Republican Party does, and they're led by an Iowan elected by Iowans. The standard operating procedure is to take 2 weeks to certify the results, which gives plenty of time for irregularities like this to be noticed and resolved. If anything, the culprit here is the demand that results be tallied that night.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Ibid
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:17 am UTC
Location: In the same place

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ibid » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:The national Republican party has made it a priority to deny the right to vote to poor, black, and young voters on the basis of ballot integrity, and has not made it a priority to fix the very real problems with its handling of elections in Iowa. Pointing that out isn't a cheap trick.

But yeah, I can see how discussing how a distorted outcome in Iowa pertains to a major piece of the GOP's 2012 electoral strategy has no place in a thread about the Republican primary.


Again, not a cheap trick in a thread about the general election, talking about how much you think the Republican party sucks systematically in a thread that is explicitly about talking about the players within that system? Not helpful.

Consider this, if we were having a discussion on what power plays we believe are occuring within China as they ramp up to their power changes, then discussing that you don't like Chinese human rights abuses is a derailment of the thread, unless you're arguing that one or the other side is going to change that, which you haven't been. I'm not a conservative. I'm not even an American. I don't LIKE the republicans. But I would still like to discuss the differences between them and their primary, rather than discuss why I don't like all of them at once.
Ibid: Most prolific author in academia

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

No, Vaniver, your explanation does not include massive hypocrisy and general douchey-ness of the RNC, and is therefore wrong.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:My position, if you go back far enough in this thread to find it, is that voter fraud is committed by both parties.

Haven't done any major research on voter fraud, but that seems plausible to me.

Vaniver wrote:It seems unlikely to me, though, that this was voter fraud rather than a typo, and even if it were voter fraud, the benefit to Romney is temporary and small. If Santorum had won Iowa by 12 votes instead of losing it by 8, it wouldn't have made him significantly better off. Iowan voters are among the most favorable to Santorum of Republican voters; and so eking out a tie against Romney there signifies that he will lose across the entire country. The main effect Iowa had on Santorum- collapsing the trio of Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum into just Santorum, thus keeping him in the race- would happen in both scenarios.

I don't particularly disagree with this assessment, I just don't feel it's relevant.

Vaniver wrote:EsotericWombat has made it clear that his primary interest in this 20 vote typo is that it means Republicans are hypocrites, and thus policies that purport to reduce voter fraud should be opposed because Republicans are hypocrites. If you do believe this is voter fraud, that means that voter fraud is an issue that should be taken seriously, and we should adopt policies that reduce it, unless Democrats are incapable of committing voter fraud, and it's just those villainous Republicans.

As I detest attempting to put words in people's mouths, I'll give my own take on why it's an issue then. The republican party, and many of its conservative supporters, have created voter suppression laws in many US states since the 2010 elections- these laws happen to heavily disenfranchise groups that overwhelmingly vote democrat, and the republicans defended their actions by saying it'd reduce voter fraud, and that reducing voter fraud was necessary. Then, in the Iowa caucus, there's an instance of improper vote counting- possibly by fraud, possibly by error, perhaps some other option, but an aberration of the vote count nonetheless- and the response from the republican party- who heralded the passage of those laws- is muted and nearly non existent. If they care about getting the proper results to elections so much that they'll pass laws that reduce voter participation (voter participation being something I feel that many would argue is important to a functional democracy), then why don't they care about an instance of voting errors within their own party?

The potential for democrats or republicans themselves to benefit from or instigate voter fraud, at least for me, doesn't factor in at all.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:09 pm UTC

And at long last, an actual good point. You're right. I don't expect Reince Priebus to swoop in from on high and fix this. Still, the fact that nobody on the Republican side seems to be talking about this is telling.

I find it hard to believe that someone could read what I wrote and suppose that I was alleging fraud in Iowa. I am saying that the process in Iowa unfairly diminished the influence of some Iowa voters on their party's nomination. That the voter has a right to his or her fair share of influence over elections is allegedly the bedrock principle behind "integrity of the ballot" initiatives. If there existed any such concern for this in the party that has spent three years insinuating that Obama only won because ACORN stole the election for him, the result in Iowa would be a lot more troubling to the GOP than it seems to have been.

Your belief that both parties commit voter fraud is irrelevant. The numbers show that neither party does in a manner nearly as statistically significant as the glitch in the Iowa results. Probably because if you have resources to perpetrate voter fraud on the scale necessarily to tip an election you'd be far better off putting them towards GOTV.

By the way, color me unimpressed that it takes so long to tally so few votes.
Last edited by EsotericWombat on Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:By the way, color me unimpressed that it takes so long to tally so few votes.

Oh, God. This.

I am registered to vote in Lee County, Iowa. The population of Lee County is 35,862. Out of those 35,862 people, 27,900 are of voting age. Out of the 23,776 citizens who are registered to vote, only 836 people bothered to participate in the caucus on 3 January.

The results weren't reported to local media until almost three hours later.

Don't even get me started on the mess that was the caucus process itself. Holy shit.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby buddy431 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
EsotericWombat wrote:The national Republican party ... has not made it a priority to fix the very real problems with its handling of elections in Iowa.
You know the national Republican party doesn't run the Iowa caucus elections, right? The Iowa Republican Party does, and they're led by an Iowan elected by Iowans. The standard operating procedure is to take 2 weeks to certify the results, which gives plenty of time for irregularities like this to be noticed and resolved. If anything, the culprit here is the demand that results be tallied that night.

Further in the same vein, the Iowa caucuses don't have any stringent voter ID laws that EW seems most concerned about (you do need to prove your name and address, but that can be from, for example, utility bills). You do have to be a registered Republican, but you can register at the caucuses. Not all Republicans hold the same views.

Iowa currently is one of the easier states to vote in, with no photo ID laws, same day registration, and generous absentee voting allowances. It is true that the Republican Secretary of State was (and it) pushing for a bill requiring photo IDs, that passed the House, but failed in committee in the Senate. It would certainly be interesting to see what the Republican party did with its caucuses if such a bill did pass. Again though, I don't think the Secretary of State is on the central committee or has much say in how the party runs its elections.

Edit: Now that I'm reading the party platform, however, it appears that the party does oppose same-day registration, and favors photo-ID laws (7.49, 7.50, 7.51). That's interesting. I'd like to know how the party platform is decided on, as well as who decides how the caucuses are to be run.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:57 pm UTC

buddy431 wrote:Iowa currently is one of the easier states to vote in, with no photo ID laws, same day registration, and generous absentee voting allowances. It is true that the Republican Secretary of State was (and it) pushing for a bill requiring photo IDs, that passed the House, but failed in committee in the Senate.

Well, when I went to the caucus on 3 January in my county, I was required to show my photo ID. Also, you can't vote via absentee ballot for the caucuses. If you were, I would have done that instead of standing around in a jam-packed high school cafeteria for nearly two hours before even being able to vote.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:00 pm UTC

Yeah, I watched Jon Stewart's essay on how charming it was to see such raw democracy as the Iowa caucus with the papers being stuffed in boxes and counted in the front of the room. But holy crap, if you can't tell immediately that your precinct total is twenty more than the number of ballots that you collected then your process is deeply flawed. I'm not well-informed on the process, but it's somewhat shocking that there weren't partisan checks on the process except the informal one that was announced AFTER the results were certified by the county. I find myself hoping that the people who goofed off on signing off on this precinct have reached the pinnacle of their advancement in the state Republican party by having given the system such a black eye, but we'll probably never know.

At the same time, big whoop. This is proportionally assigned delegates who aren't bound to support their candidates for an independent organization who is allowed to be as sloppy as they want to be. At best, it is one more topic in the broader discussion of whether Iowa deserves the privilege of being the perennial first hurdle in the presidential race, but it will eventually be neither the first nor the final word in that argument.

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby buddy431 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:19 pm UTC

Giant Speck wrote:
buddy431 wrote:Iowa currently is one of the easier states to vote in, with no photo ID laws, same day registration, and generous absentee voting allowances. It is true that the Republican Secretary of State was (and it) pushing for a bill requiring photo IDs, that passed the House, but failed in committee in the Senate.

Well, when I went to the caucus on 3 January in my county, I was required to show my photo ID. Also, you can't vote via absentee ballot for the caucuses. If you were, I would have done that instead of standing around in a jam-packed high school cafeteria for nearly two hours before even being able to vote.

You did have to show a photo ID at the caucuses (as opposed to proof of address)? If you don't mind asking, what precinct was this? Several sources I've read have indicated that the party wasn't requiring photo IDs, but, admittedly, I'm not from Iowa and am just reading these second-hand. Also, it's not clear to me how much of the process is organized by the party at the state level vs. the precinct level.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:27 pm UTC

buddy431 wrote:
Giant Speck wrote:
buddy431 wrote:Iowa currently is one of the easier states to vote in, with no photo ID laws, same day registration, and generous absentee voting allowances. It is true that the Republican Secretary of State was (and it) pushing for a bill requiring photo IDs, that passed the House, but failed in committee in the Senate.

Well, when I went to the caucus on 3 January in my county, I was required to show my photo ID. Also, you can't vote via absentee ballot for the caucuses. If you were, I would have done that instead of standing around in a jam-packed high school cafeteria for nearly two hours before even being able to vote.

You did have to show a photo ID at the caucuses (as opposed to proof of address)? If you don't mind asking, what precinct was this? Several sources I've read have indicated that the party wasn't requiring photo IDs, but, admittedly, I'm not from Iowa and am just reading these second-hand. Also, it's not clear to me how much of the process is organized by the party at the state level vs. the precinct level.

Keokuk Precinct. When you signed in at the caucus location, it seemed as though they had a list of registered Republicans from each ward, and they needed your photo ID to cross-reference with the list. I was not on the list, as I had to actually register as a Republican that evening, but I believe my mother was.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Griffin » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

So, last I heard, Huntsman is looking at a potential second place finish in New Hampshire - recent anti-Romney attack ads have dinged his campaign, and those votes look to be jumping ship to Huntsman. Not that they've really done any significant DAMAGE to Romney's campaign, but it won't really take many votes to move Huntsman above Paul at this point.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:04 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:So, last I heard, Huntsman is looking at a potential second place finish in New Hampshire - recent anti-Romney attack ads have dinged his campaign, and those votes look to be jumping ship to Huntsman. Not that they've really done any significant DAMAGE to Romney's campaign, but it won't really take many votes to move Huntsman above Paul at this point.

I'd very much like to see Huntsman do well- he's the only republican candidate I find at all tolerable, and while he's almost certain not to get the nomination this year (too strong of a rightwards tilt in the republican party right now), I'd love to see him as their nominee in 2016- he's a good candidate overall (or I think so anyway), he just needed this campaign to work out the kinks in his campaign and messaging. He'd likely force the democrats to nominate a good candidate of their own in 2016 or lose- apparently, one of the incentives for Obama to make him the ambassador to China in the first place was to make him have less time to build up resources and infrastructure to campaign this time around (ironically, while giving him a wonderful bit to put on his resume). And the best result for everyone is if both parties have very good candidates*.

I read one bit that said he was the "thinking man's R. Paul"- much the reasonableness, without the craziness. I haven't really checked to see how applicable or logical that is though.

* No, I don't think this diverges from an earlier comment I made- to many people, the rest of the republican field is bad candidates, so wishing for the weakest one doesn't particularly change that.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Griffin » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:06 pm UTC

I thought Johnson was the thinking mans the Ronpaul?
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Probably a more valid comparison (truth be told, I haven't actually read much on Johnson's views), though Huntsman has the advantage of being far more electable- to the point of having a practical shot at victory. I try (and possibly fail- I can't really be a fair judge of myself) to consider practicality in many matters, and I feel this is one where it matters- else, I could just call myself the thinking man's R. Paul! (all of his positions I like, without any of the positions I don't like! :lol: ) OK, that's a bit of a stupid slippery slope, since I'm obviously not on any ballots (nor do I intend to get on any at any point in my life), and I'm not even 35 to be eligible for president in the first place, but my basic point stands.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby The Reaper » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:14 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Probably a more valid comparison (truth be told, I haven't actually read much on Johnson's views), though Huntsman has the advantage of being far more electable- to the point of having a practical shot at victory. I try (and possibly fail- I can't really be a fair judge of myself) to consider practicality in many matters, and I feel this is one where it matters- else, I could just call myself the thinking man's R. Paul! (all of his positions I like, without any of the positions I don't like! :lol: ) OK, that's a bit of a stupid slippery slope, since I'm obviously not on any ballots (nor do I intend to get on any at any point in my life), and I'm not even 35 to be eligible for president in the first place, but my basic point stands.

Perhaps you should read up on Gary Johnson then. Huntsman has little to no shot at victory, as a recent poll has found that even Stephen Colbert has a better chance at winning the GOP vote. I agree that Johnson's the thinking man's the Ronpaul, without the blind ideology.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:22 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:Perhaps you should read up on Gary Johnson then. Huntsman has little to no shot at victory[...]

Did you realize Gary Johnson has a smaller chance of victory in the Rebublican primaries than Hunstman does?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby The Reaper » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:23 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
The Reaper wrote:Perhaps you should read up on Gary Johnson then. Huntsman has little to no shot at victory[...]

Did you realize Gary Johnson has a smaller chance of victory in the Rebublican primaries than Hunstman does?

That's probably because he's no longer running as a Republican. He's already been endorsed by at least 2 state's libertarian parties, however. If/when Paul doesn't win, presumably all those votes will go somewhere, quite possibly to Johnson.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.c ... y-johnson/
http://www.sclibertarians.net/node/10

Another interesting link, albeit not a state-level endorsement:
http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-soc ... -7787.html

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:30 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:
Роберт wrote:
The Reaper wrote:Perhaps you should read up on Gary Johnson then. Huntsman has little to no shot at victory[...]

Did you realize Gary Johnson has a smaller chance of victory in the Rebublican primaries than Hunstman does?

That's probably because he's no longer running as a Republican. He's already been endorsed by at least 2 state's libertarian parties, however. If/when Paul doesn't win, presumably all those votes will go somewhere, quite possibly to Johnson.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.c ... y-johnson/
http://www.sclibertarians.net/node/10

I'm just saying your argument against Hunstman "he's not viable" falls a little flat when it's followed by "try Johnson".

Similarly, his main site railing against the two-party system falls a little flat knowing he was running as a Republican THIS ELECTION CYCLE.

And yes, I was aware that he dropped out of the GOP race before you told me.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby The Reaper » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I'm just saying your argument against Hunstman "he's not viable" falls a little flat when it's followed by "try Johnson".

Similarly, his main site railing against the two-party system falls a little flat knowing he was running as a Republican THIS ELECTION CYCLE.

And yes, I was aware that he dropped out of the GOP race before you told me.

... Did you miss the link I put in there that says that Huntsman has little to no chance (4%), and that Stephen Colbert has a better one (5%)?
FTA:
Even if Huntsman finishes second in New Hampshire tonight it doesn't speak well for his prospects down the line that he's running behind Stephen Colbert.
The Johnson part was mostly in response to the "I haven't actually read much on Johnson's views"

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:38 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:... Did you miss the link I put in there that says that Huntsman has little to no chance (4%), and that Stephen Colbert has a better one (5%)?

Nope.

ETA: I'd be scared to elect Colbert. Would he stay in character as president? What kind of political experience does he have? No one would actually want Colbert to win.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Griffin » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

I would want Colbert to win, I think. Not because I think he would be great, mind you, just because I haven't seen any evidence he'd be as bad as the alternatives.

And I imagine he would not stay in character except for certain speeches, heh. If he was VICE president, though, he could stay in character all the time! So Stewart for pres!

And seriously, Reagen was an actor. An actor! Surely the comedic duo have a better handle on politics than Reagan did. I guess they should become governors or something first, though?

Also, I've just realized something very awesome about the whole SUPER-PAC thing. A candidate doesn't have to run any more - someone could get a super-pac to get someone elected like stewart, and no one would have to know who was responsible.
Last edited by Griffin on Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Radical_Initiator » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:40 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:And I imagine he would not stay in character except for certain speeches, heh.


Stephen Colbert elected: "War on Bears" immediately declared.
I looked out across the river today …

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:48 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:And seriously, Reagen was an actor. An actor! Surely the comedic duo have a better handle on politics than Reagan did. I guess they should become governors or something first, though?

In all seriousness, I MUCH prefer the idea of a former governor getting elected president than the idea of a former senator or representative, in general. And if they have no reasonable political experience, I'm very wary, even if they were CEOs or whatever. Experience with both politics and something else big and important is a plus, though.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:59 pm UTC

And why is being an actor less respectable than being an attorney*? Actors make for great diplomats, a critical component of being "Chief Diplomat", and smart ones are quasi-attorneys already due to the nature of Hollywood contracts and all.

*Majority of US presidents, governors, senators, representatives, et al, are attorneys. Obama is Harvard Law, Bush is a lawyers, Clinton, Bush Sr, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy...
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And why is being an actor less respectable than being an attorney? Actors make for great diplomats, a critical component of being "Chief Diplomat", and smart ones are quasi-attorneys already due to the nature of Hollywood contracts and all.

Wait, who said lawyers were more respectable than actors?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:04 pm UTC

Implied every time people mock Reagan for being an actor (despite being governor for 8 years), rather than for his scandals. Far fewer people mock Presidents for having been lawyers.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Implied every time people mock Reagan for being an actor (despite being governor for 8 years), rather than for his scandals. Far fewer people mock Presidents for having been lawyers.

Mocking someone for being an actor is silly, I agree.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Wodashin
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:54 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Wodashin » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:09 pm UTC

The fact that we have so many lawyers as politicians is the bad thing.

So yes, more actors. More scientists. More engineers. More businessmen and women.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:39 pm UTC

Wodashin wrote:The fact that we have so many lawyers as politicians is the bad thing.

So yes, more actors. More scientists. More engineers. More businessmen and women.

I used to think like that.

Enter Angela Merkel. A PhD in quantum chemistry, and what does she do? Close down all nuclear power stations (because scary!) and replace them with coal power. I'm not even very enthusiastic about nuclear power. But prefering coal over nuclear is so monumentaly stupid I just can't grasp it.

Background is pretty much irrelevant. Backbone, honesty, integrity, those are things I want in a politician. Intelligence is a nice bonus, but they really only need enough intelligence to surround themselves with the right advisors.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 22 guests