U.S. Republican Primary

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:02 pm UTC

IcedT wrote:
Zamfir wrote:Steroid, that might well be an accurate view of what conservatives consider important, but it doesn't much to explain why they would pick Rand as guru. They don't have much choice with Christ, that's part of the tradition.

But why Rand, if God-fearing salarymen are the goal? There are a million management and self -help gurus they could have chosen from. Let's say, the guy who wrote "The 7 habits of highly effective people", or his counterpart from the 1950s.

Why pick an atheist who lived in a sex and drugs sect, and who writes about your ideal men as cowardly suck ups?

My understanding is that Rand is really only embraced by a minority of Republicans, and generally not by the same people who are Christian fundamentalists. Paul Ryan is a bit of an outlier in this case. But Rand's popularity is high because Objectivism is a fairly comprehensive economic philosophy that doesn't take much specialist study to understand and promises to keep taxes low, growth high and government power at a minimum. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how these match the preferences and prejudices of the average voting Republican. Its focus of rights even gives it a bit of a Founding Fathers vibe, and since it was founded by a Russian fleeing Communism it reinforces the idea of American exceptionalism. Really, it's perfect for them besides all the atheism and personal weirdness
[/quote]

Rand is big in libertarian thought, which has a notable influence on the right wing republican crowd. Now, Objectivism fits libertarianism like a glove, but, like basically everything in politics, religion, etc, people gleefuly cherry pick the bits from a philosophy they like without really looking into the rest. So, you've got certain elements of libertarian thought that supports aspects republicans like...and that trickles into mainstream republican thinking. The parts that don't support that, like drug legalization, just don't see the same propagation.

And really, understanding Objectivism is pretty reasonable for any budding philosopher/poly sci major. It's influential and fairly easy to pick up. Not reading up on it would be like not reading any Marx. It's a damned shame Rand was such a dry, boring author, though.

Bharrata
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:57 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bharrata » Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:17 pm UTC

Paul Ryan has recently been trying to distance himself from the Rand fan that he's been for years:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/297023/ryan-shrugged-robert-costa

These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist. Ryan’s actual philosophy, as reported by my colleague, Brian Bolduc, couldn’t be further from the caricature. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Ryan says, his faith and moral values shape his politics as much as his belief in freedom and capitalism does.

“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.


I'm not sure whether or I can believe a Congressmen sat down to read the Summa Theologica. Would that be more or less boring than reading Rand's fiction? :lol:

The New Yorker published an excellent piece on Ryan a couple weeks ago, I've spoilered what I thought was the most interesting part. It seems like around the 2010 elections Paul Ryan and Obama could have made an unlikely partnership to create some bipartisan legislation - after reading the piece, even though I do not agree with Ryan's policy proposals for the most part, I would say that the White House's attempt to marginalize and undercut Ryan might have been one of Obama's biggest mistakes.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza

Spoiler:
Ryan had witnessed three periods when conservatism was ascendant: during the Reagan revolution of the nineteen-eighties; after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress; and after Bush’s election in 2000. Notably, the federal government’s size and responsibilities grew through all three political epochs. Ryan’s Roadmap soon came to define a fourth conservative surge. Unlike the 1994 Contract with America, which in substance was not nearly as ideological as people thought, and unlike Bush’s compassionate conservatism, which was sold as a rejection of anti-government philosophy, the Roadmap was a comprehensive plan to reduce the welfare state and radically curtail the government’s role in protecting citizens from life’s misfortunes.

Ryan recommended ending Medicare, the government health-insurance program for retirees, and replacing it with a system of direct payments to seniors, who could then buy private insurance. (The change would not affect current beneficiaries or the next decade of new ones.) He proposed ending Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor, and replacing it with a lump sum for states to use as they saw fit. Ryan also called for an end to the special tax break given to employers who provide insurance; instead, that money would pay for twenty-five-hundred-dollar credits for uninsured taxpayers to buy their own plans. As for Social Security, Ryan modestly scaled back his original proposal by reducing the amount invested in private accounts, from one-half to one-third of payroll taxes. Ryan’s Roadmap also promised to cut other government spending, though it didn’t specify how. Likewise, it promised to lower income-tax rates and simplify the tax code, but it didn’t detail which popular deductions—mortgage interest? retirement contributions?—it would eliminate.

Conservative intellectuals at National Review and the Heritage Foundation loved the Roadmap, and Ryan became an icon within the insular world of right-wing pundits. In Congress, things were different. In 2008, with midterm and Presidential elections looming, the Roadmap attracted just eight co-sponsors. Only the most astute observers of G.O.P. internal politics noticed what was happening. In a celebratory column about the Ryan plan in the Washington Post, titled “Fiscal Medicine Man,” Robert Novak, the late conservative writer, predicted, “After what is expected to be another bad G.O.P. defeat in the 2008 congressional elections, Ryan, McCarthy, and Cantor could constitute the party’s new House leadership.”

By early 2009, when I first met Ryan in his office, he was caught between the demands of the Republican leaders, who wanted nothing to do with his Roadmap, and his own belief that the Party had to offer a sweeping alternative vision to Obama’s. Ryan soon had an unlikely ally, in Obama himself. Throughout that year, the Administration struggled to defend its ambitious agenda, in part because there was no Republican alternative for the President to attack. Ryan, deferring to the Party leadership, didn’t aggressively push his plan again. But in late January of 2010, a week after the victory of the Republican Scott Brown in the contest for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts—the first election fuelled by the new Tea Party movement—Ryan offered the Roadmap as an alternative to Obama’s budget.

He presented it not as a dry policy plan, with just numbers and actuarial tables, but as a manifesto that drew on the canon of Western political philosophy as interpreted by conservative intellectuals. The document’s introduction referred to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Hayek, Friedman, Adam Smith, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Georges-Eugène Sorel, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Charles Murray, and Niall Ferguson. Ryan himself seemed intent on entering the canon. “Only by taking responsibility for oneself, to the greatest extent possible, can one ever be free,” he wrote, “and only a free person can make responsible choices—between right and wrong, saving and spending, giving or taking.”

Obama saw an opening. Invited to speak before the House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore, on January 29th, he seemed to extend an olive branch to Ryan. “I think Paul, for example, the head of the Budget Committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal,” Obama said. “I’ve read it. I can tell you what’s in it. And there’s some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there’s some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about, because I don’t agree with them.” Afterward, Obama made a point of shaking Ryan’s hand and signing an autograph for his seven-year-old daughter, Liza. There was talk in Washington that the two young, wonky Midwesterners might be able to build a working relationship.

Three days later, the White House started a livelier debate with Ryan. In a press briefing, Peter Orszag, the budget director at the time, dismantled Ryan’s plan, point by point. Ryan’s proposal would turn Medicare “into a voucher program, so that individuals are on their own in the health-care market,” he said. Over time, the program wouldn’t keep pace with rising medical costs, so seniors would have to pay thousands of dollars more a year for health care. The Roadmap would revive Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and “provide large tax benefits to upper-income households . . . while shifting the burden onto middle- and lower-income households. It is a dramatically different approach in which much more risk is loaded onto individuals.” Ryan, who had always had a good relationship with Orszag, later described the briefing as the moment when “the budget director took that olive branch and hit me in the face with it.”



I don't see the Ryan VP nod as the final nail in the coffin for the Romney campaign, if the Obama camp doesn't forcefully refute Ryan's political and economic philosophy it could go very bad for Democrats in November, especially given all the voter disenfranchisement the GOP has been conducting in swing states and the apathy of leftists towards Obama.

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 Aug 14, 2012 12:10 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Look at those stats. All of them increase, not just black voters. Well, all except white voters, which was relatively static(minor swings of a percent or two happen every year, and thus, cannot reasonably be attributed to color). In addition, the swings aren't that big. A 4.7% turnout increase in black voters aged 25-44, for instance, is not that crazy.

It means almost 10% more black people voted for him. A quick google search learns me that about 1/8 Americans are black. So that's a full 1.25% more votes for him. That's about 40% of the gap between him and McCain. I don't see how you can not call that a major influence.
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

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Look at those stats. All of them increase, not just black voters. Well, all except white voters, which was relatively static(minor swings of a percent or two happen every year, and thus, cannot reasonably be attributed to color). In addition, the swings aren't that big. A 4.7% turnout increase in black voters aged 25-44, for instance, is not that crazy.

It means almost 10% more black people voted for him. A quick google search learns me that about 1/8 Americans are black. So that's a full 1.25% more votes for him. That's about 40% of the gap between him and McCain. I don't see how you can not call that a major influence.


10% more black people voted for him? So? More hispanics voted too, right?

More people voting /= more people voting because he was black.

At a minimum, you'd want to control against the overall rise in voter turnout, yes? I mean, if more people in general are voting(and we have, in fact, had a rising turnout trend for the past four elections), then obviously, Obama's skin color didn't cause that.

End result, if less than 1% of the popular vote can reasonably be attributed to skin color/gender....yes, I consider that a minor factor.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

No, controlling against voter turnout from 16 years ago doesn't make sense. If you want a decent comparison look at the last election.

From 2004-2008, white voter turnout dropped. If black voter turnout stayed steady, that would be significant. Not only did black voter turnout not drop, it actually rose by 10%. Regardless of how much of the population black voters represent, that is a significant phenomenon.

I don't understand why this is so hard.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:35 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:No, controlling against voter turnout from 16 years ago doesn't make sense. If you want a decent comparison look at the last election.

From 2004-2008, white voter turnout dropped. If black voter turnout stayed steady, that would be significant. Not only did black voter turnout not drop, it actually rose by 10%. Regardless of how much of the population black voters represent, that is a significant phenomenon.

I don't understand why this is so hard.


It's not controlling against sixteen years ago. It's pointing out that voter turnout as a WHOLE isn't static. It's been increasing very evenly for sixteen years.

Therefore, some of the increase is simply due to overall participation increases, as had been consistently happening when Obama was not running. Therefore, he's not the causal reason.

Merely comparing white voter turnout to black voter turnout is...wildly inadequate. White voter turnout was the ONLY demographic that decreased. Asian and hispanic participation also increased similarly to black voters. This makes white voters the unusual sector, not the black voters. Realistically, white voters already had the highest participation, and the others are merely catching up. So....there's extremely poor support from demographics for the idea that black voters voting for him because he was black was a major factor.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:31 pm UTC

Your conclusion doesn't make sense given the numbers.

Overall the general voter turnout only increased 1.5% vs. 2004. Young black American voter turnout increased 8.3%. If we (wrongly) subtracted 1.5 from 8.3, we'd still have a 6.8% increase in young black voting over 2004. Still an incredibly large change. Looking at it that way is misleading, however, because the only reason general voter turnout went up is because black Americans turned out in droves.

The appropriate way to measure the unprecedented black voter turnout would be against the rest of America. But since I don't feel like doing the math, I'm just going to go ahead and say white+asian+hispanic is roughly equal to white, since they're the majority. So while the rest of America went down a percent, young blacks went up 8.3%, so really their net improvement compared with overall voter turnout is almost ten percent! If you feel like doing the math to eke out an exact value, that's fine, but even an 8.1% increase in voter turnout is incredible.

The point is not that having a black American on the ballot caused more black Americans to vote for Obama, it's that having a black American on the ballot caused more black Americans to vote.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Your conclusion doesn't make sense given the numbers.

Overall the general voter turnout only increased 1.5% vs. 2004. Young black American voter turnout increased 8.3%. If we (wrongly) subtracted 1.5 from 8.3, we'd still have a 6.8% increase in young black voting over 2004. Still an incredibly large change. Looking at it that way is misleading, however, because the only reason general voter turnout went up is because black Americans turned out in droves.


And hispanics and asian turned out in droves too. So, this is categorically wrong.

The appropriate way to measure the unprecedented black voter turnout would be against the rest of America. But since I don't feel like doing the math, I'm just going to go ahead and say white+asian+hispanic is roughly equal to white, since they're the majority. So while the rest of America went down a percent, young blacks went up 8.3%, so really their net improvement compared with overall voter turnout is almost ten percent! If you feel like doing the math to eke out an exact value, that's fine, but even an 8.1% increase in voter turnout is incredible.


Whites are about 72.4%
Blacks are about 12.6%
Everything else is about 15%

You're ignoring something as irrelevant that is actually larger than your proposed cause.

The point is not that having a black American on the ballot caused more black Americans to vote for Obama, it's that having a black American on the ballot caused more black Americans to vote.


It started as a discussion of the effect of traits of candidates affecting the matching demographics of voters. So yes, it is about who they voted for.

So, if we control for overall voting increase(using your source, +1.5% overall), we have a black voter increase of about 6.8%. 96% of black voters voted for Obama, which is about 6% up from average. so, we've got 6% of the usual voting level and 96% of the increased level as additional votes for Obama over the status quo. 96% of 6.8 gets us 6.528%, and 6% of 47.1% is 2.826%. Slap those together, and we've got about 9.354% of the black population overall. Factor that into the overall voting population, and we're looking at about 1.12% of the total votes cast went to Obama that aren't obviously statistically explainable in another way.

And if you wanted to be more accurate, you'd control for the total popularity of Obama as opposed to preceding democratic candidates. That'd put the number even lower.

So, long story short, race, gender, etc, does appear to be a factor, but a comparatively small one. Obama would have also won had he happened to be white.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, if we control for overall voting increase(using your source, +1.5% overall), we have a black voter increase of about 6.8%.
You need to isolate your variable. If half of the voting population was black, and the rest had a no turnout increase, you'd say that overall voting went up 4% and black voting went up 8% so 8-4=4 so we have a black voter increase of 4%. But that's entirely wrong. There was an 8% increase in black voting. The fact that there were also other people who voted at the same rate as last election doesn't change the fact that there was an 8% increase in black voting.

So running your numbers into my chart of the youth numbers, I'm seeing that the overall 18-25 voter turnout increased from 47.0% to 48.6%. However, the white+hispanic+asian voter turnout only increased 0.5% on average, while the black voter turnout increased 8.3%.

So, isolating the variable, black voter turnout outpaced white+hispanic+asian voter turnout by 7.8%. That is huge. That is roughly 3 million more black Americans than would be expected if black voter turnout increased at the same rate as the rest of the nation (~0.5%).

Sure, Obama would have won without them, he beat McCain by 10 million votes. But 3 million votes is not a "minor factor."

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:44 pm UTC

Why are you lumping the white, hispanic and asian voter turnouts together?

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 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Why are you lumping the white, hispanic and asian voter turnouts together?

Because they were talking about black voter turnout, and thusly, not white, asian, or white-hispanic.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, if we control for overall voting increase(using your source, +1.5% overall), we have a black voter increase of about 6.8%.
You need to isolate your variable. If half of the voting population was black, and the rest had a no turnout increase, you'd say that overall voting went up 4% and black voting went up 8% so 8-4=4 so we have a black voter increase of 4%. But that's entirely wrong. There was an 8% increase in black voting. The fact that there were also other people who voted at the same rate as last election doesn't change the fact that there was an 8% increase in black voting.

So running your numbers into my chart of the youth numbers, I'm seeing that the overall 18-25 voter turnout increased from 47.0% to 48.6%. However, the white+hispanic+asian voter turnout only increased 0.5% on average, while the black voter turnout increased 8.3%.

So, isolating the variable, black voter turnout outpaced white+hispanic+asian voter turnout by 7.8%. That is huge. That is roughly 3 million more black Americans than would be expected if black voter turnout increased at the same rate as the rest of the nation (~0.5%).

Sure, Obama would have won without them, he beat McCain by 10 million votes. But 3 million votes is not a "minor factor."


You're deliberately lumping non-black voters together vs black voters again. Why the divide? It looks like you're very insistent on burying the asian and hispanic increases.

You've got similar outcomes in all non-white demographics. This makes whites the outlier, not the blacks. Why are they the outlier? Well, they already had higher turnout. So, yknow...you can't expect the exact same percentage increase indefinitely. In addition, you should expect higher variability in smaller populations.

In short, you have exactly no more statistical evidence for the premise "more black voters voted for Obama because he was black" than you have for the statement "more asian voters voted for Obama because he was black". That seems like wildly insufficient evidence.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In short, you have exactly no more statistical evidence for the premise "more black voters voted for Obama because he was black" than you have for the statement "more asian voters voted for Obama because he was black". That seems like wildly insufficient evidence.

So, basically this entire two page argument could be solved if someone dug up the polls where people declared the importance of race in their decision? Huh.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You're deliberately lumping non-black voters together vs black voters again. Why the divide?
I explained why you need to isolate your variable. Otherwise you get the situation described above, where black voting increases 8% but you normalize it against black voting + non-black voting and you conclude that black voting increased 4%. 8 != 4 so you need to isolate your variable for the conclusion to have any sort of value.

I think I admitted before that all I'm showing is correlation, and that certainly doesn't imply causation by itself. However, the strong sentiment present among the black community in 2008 combined with other factors strongly suggests that the incredible surge in black voting in 2008 was inspired by the historic nature of the first major black candidate to run for president.

It's impossible to scientifically establish causal links related to election data because of the abundance of variables, but it should be clearly obvious to the most casual observer that having a black candidate on the ballot impacted black voting.

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby faranim » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:27 pm UTC

Sorry to switch topics here, but I am not a Republican and so haven't been following the primaries very closely. Does the Ronpaul still have a non-zero chance of being the Republican Candidate at the Convention next week in Tampa? I understand that the mainstream media all assumes that Romney/Ryan will be the Republican on the ballot, but is that guaranteed?

I just think it would be hilarious, considering the amount of time/money that has been spent by the media and various Super-PACs on coverage of Romney/Ryan (attack ads, etc).

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

faranim wrote:Sorry to switch topics here, but I am not a Republican and so haven't been following the primaries very closely. Does the Ronpaul still have a non-zero chance of being the Republican Candidate at the Convention next week in Tampa? I understand that the mainstream media all assumes that Romney/Ryan will be the Republican on the ballot, but is that guaranteed?

I just think it would be hilarious, considering the amount of time/money that has been spent by the media and various Super-PACs on coverage of Romney/Ryan (attack ads, etc).

Perhaps if Romney stepped down and endorsed the Ronpaul instead... how likely is that to happen?

In practice, about is likely as winning the lottery. If you get enjoyment fantasizing about it, go for it, but to seriously make plans hoping it happens is foolhardy.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:39 pm UTC

the Ronpaul is done. He didn't get enough votes in, I think, Kentucky.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

faranim wrote:Sorry to switch topics here, but I am not a Republican and so haven't been following the primaries very closely. Does the Ronpaul still have a non-zero chance of being the Republican Candidate at the Convention next week in Tampa? I understand that the mainstream media all assumes that Romney/Ryan will be the Republican on the ballot, but is that guaranteed?


Essentially, yes, it's guaranteed. I suppose Romney could step in front of a bus or something, but in practical terms, he's getting all the delegates. It's all over at this point save for formalities.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
faranim wrote:Sorry to switch topics here, but I am not a Republican and so haven't been following the primaries very closely. Does the Ronpaul still have a non-zero chance of being the Republican Candidate at the Convention next week in Tampa? I understand that the mainstream media all assumes that Romney/Ryan will be the Republican on the ballot, but is that guaranteed?


Essentially, yes, it's guaranteed. I suppose Romney could step in front of a bus or something, but in practical terms, he's getting all the delegates. It's all over at this point save for formalities.


Dear gods, that would probably put Ryan as candidate - please, $deities, do not let Romney get hit by a bus.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:38 pm UTC

faranim wrote:Sorry to switch topics here, but I am not a Republican and so haven't been following the primaries very closely. Does the Ronpaul still have a non-zero chance of being the Republican Candidate at the Convention next week in Tampa? I understand that the mainstream media all assumes that Romney/Ryan will be the Republican on the ballot, but is that guaranteed?

I just think it would be hilarious, considering the amount of time/money that has been spent by the media and various Super-PACs on coverage of Romney/Ryan (attack ads, etc).
Romney has enough bound delegates to take the thing. Even if all the other candidates ceded their delegates to the Ronpaul, they'd still have to find some weird by-law of the convention that allows bound delegates to vote against state wishes. Which I doubt they will, and all it would do is ensure years of Democratic domination.


eran_rathan wrote:Dear gods, that would probably put Ryan as candidate - please, $deities, do not let Romney get hit by a bus.
Nope. It would free the delegates bound to Romney to vote as they please. They could vote for Ryan, Santorum, or me if they really wanted to. Ryan is, as of now, not officially anything. After the convention, he will be the official RNC candidate for Vice President. If Romney were to die after that, it would be unprecedented as far as I'm aware. I'm really not sure what would happen. It's possible it would still be a Romney/Ryan ticket, with Ryan immediately assuming the office of President right after assuming the office of VP.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Dear gods, that would probably put Ryan as candidate - please, $deities, do not let Romney get hit by a bus.
Nope. It would free the delegates bound to Romney to vote as they please. They could vote for Ryan, Santorum, or me if they really wanted to. Ryan is, as of now, not officially anything. After the convention, he will be the official RNC candidate for Vice President. If Romney were to die after that, it would be unprecedented as far as I'm aware. I'm really not sure what would happen. It's possible it would still be a Romney/Ryan ticket, with Ryan immediately assuming the office of President right after assuming the office of VP.




Lets hope that Rmoney doesn't get hit by a bus, then.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6788
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... l-in-move/
Do you guys think that this election will be a referendum on Democratic vs GOP policies? Specifically, I'm referring to this line:
"His bet is that the era of triangulation is over: that Republicans can win elections without having to compromise. Or, perhaps, in an era when so few voters are truly undecided, he thinks a robust turnout from the Republican base could be enough to get him the 270 electoral votes needed to win."
We all complain how terrible GOP policies are for the country, but it's not costing them much in elections. Sure they could have won control of the Senate in 2010 but that doesn't mean much if you can't get past 60 vote filibuster territory. I know that the public is pretty stupid but you can't ignore everything the public wants in favor of ideology. The GOP has a similar policy to the public that Steve Jobs has; people don't know what they want; we tell them what they want. Poll after poll shows the GOP to be out of sync vs what the public wants, yet they are still competitive with democrats. Can we really blame it all on the economy or is there something deeper at work, like Silver is saying?

This is all dependent on the high degree of correlation between presidential elections and congressional ones. A milder correlation would lead to more gridlock as Congress splits the House and Senate which means four more years of stale mind-numbing gridlock.

Personally, it would be nice if the country got over who was right and wrong, and just decided on a course of action. At a certain point, I would take crappy bad action over doing nothing. If we're gonna screw the old, the poor, and minorities, lets get it over with. If we're gonna take care of the old, poor, and young, we should agree to do that. Btw, if you're confused as to who is wrong, it's the GOP. Any debate on economic policy is only perpetrated by fraudulent GOP party hacks. The majority of economists (90%+) agree on what fiscal and tax policies the country should take. It's the global warming "debate" all over again with the GOP. [cite]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html[/cite]
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic- ... LNJL1oz4Xi Poll that it cited from.

If you're curious on what else economist agree on, http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf is a short list. They got some far out there agreements, like 50% want minimum wage gone, lols. I dunno why they don't want to raise social security taxes either, maybe too regressive?

Edit: Man, this sounds really stream of conscious-like. I hope people can parse what I said.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sam_i_am » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:54 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/in-picking-ryan-romney-makes-an-all-in-move/
Do you guys think that this election will be a referendum on Democratic vs GOP policies? Specifically, I'm referring to this line:
"His bet is that the era of triangulation is over: that Republicans can win elections without having to compromise. Or, perhaps, in an era when so few voters are truly undecided, he thinks a robust turnout from the Republican base could be enough to get him the 270 electoral votes needed to win."
We all complain how terrible GOP policies are for the country, but it's not costing them much in elections. Sure they could have won control of the Senate in 2010 but that doesn't mean much if you can't get past 60 vote filibuster territory. I know that the public is pretty stupid but you can't ignore everything the public wants in favor of ideology. The GOP has a similar policy to the public that Steve Jobs has; people don't know what they want; we tell them what they want. Poll after poll shows the GOP to be out of sync vs what the public wants, yet they are still competitive with democrats. Can we really blame it all on the economy or is there something deeper at work, like Silver is saying?

This is all dependent on the high degree of correlation between presidential elections and congressional ones. A milder correlation would lead to more gridlock as Congress splits the House and Senate which means four more years of stale mind-numbing gridlock.

Personally, it would be nice if the country got over who was right and wrong, and just decided on a course of action. At a certain point, I would take crappy bad action over doing nothing. If we're gonna screw the old, the poor, and minorities, lets get it over with. If we're gonna take care of the old, poor, and young, we should agree to do that. Btw, if you're confused as to who is wrong, it's the GOP. Any debate on economic policy is only perpetrated by fraudulent GOP party hacks. The majority of economists (90%+) agree on what fiscal and tax policies the country should take. It's the global warming "debate" all over again with the GOP. [cite]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html[/cite]
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic- ... LNJL1oz4Xi Poll that it cited from.

If you're curious on what else economist agree on, http://ew-econ.typepad.fr/articleAEAsurvey.pdf is a short list. They got some far out there agreements, like 50% want minimum wage gone, lols. I dunno why they don't want to raise social security taxes either, maybe too regressive?

Edit: Man, this sounds really stream of conscious-like. I hope people can parse what I said.


Well, the Democrats haven't really offered a compelling alternative. Today, It almost feels as though George W. Bush was still in office with a republican congress.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:42 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:Well, the Democrats haven't really offered a compelling alternative. Today, It almost feels as though George W. Bush was still in office with a republican congress.


This depresses the shit out of me. Healthcare reform under a Republican president? I think not. Increased mileage standards for cars? DADT? Making gay marriage an official plank of the Dems? Pulling out of Iraq?

The administration has done a horrible job of selling the benefits of their healthcare bill but not a compelling alternative? Come on.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:36 am UTC

sam_i_am wrote:Well, the Democrats haven't really offered a compelling alternative. Today, It almost feels as though George W. Bush was still in office with a republican congress.
What's your standard for "compelling alternative"? Because I mean, Obama could run on a platform of "if I'm reelected, I'll come to your house and punch you in the face" and I'd consider that a pretty compelling alternative to "If I'm elected, I'm going to lower my taxes, raise yours, and stop funding everything that doesn't involve BLOWING SHIT UP."

Though, to be honest, the current GOP is making me miss Bush.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:40 am UTC

Garm wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:Well, the Democrats haven't really offered a compelling alternative. Today, It almost feels as though George W. Bush was still in office with a republican congress.


This depresses the shit out of me. Healthcare reform under a Republican president? I think not. Increased mileage standards for cars? DADT? Making gay marriage an official plank of the Dems? Pulling out of Iraq?

The administration has done a horrible job of selling the benefits of their healthcare bill but not a compelling alternative? Come on.

Seriously, if anything the Democrats are the ones with a plan these days and the GOP is mostly running on "WE HATE DEMOCRATS!"

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:51 am UTC

IcedT wrote:
Garm wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:Well, the Democrats haven't really offered a compelling alternative. Today, It almost feels as though George W. Bush was still in office with a republican congress.


This depresses the shit out of me. Healthcare reform under a Republican president? I think not. Increased mileage standards for cars? DADT? Making gay marriage an official plank of the Dems? Pulling out of Iraq?

The administration has done a horrible job of selling the benefits of their healthcare bill but not a compelling alternative? Come on.

Seriously, if anything the Democrats are the ones with a plan these days and the GOP is mostly running on "WE HATE DEMOCRATS!"


The thing is the campaigning isn't based on plans, it's based on soundbites. Explaining how the care act works is a bit involved and rather dull, and not something that one can really do in a 5-minute news interview. Claiming that the Democrats are going to kill grandma on the other hand is ideal for the modern TV news environment. It's dramatic, attention grabbing, and brief enough to fit the format.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:34 am UTC

If the Democrats had passed a plan that would give everyone free healthcare including cosmetic surgery and daily massages, pay for it with old VHS tapes of Star Trek, and give every unemployed person in America a job earning $30k/year after taxes, the Republicans could still persuade people that it was the worst thing in history because we don't need the government nannying us, we don't need the government stealing our precious obsolete video tapes, and we certainly don't need condescending welfare from Washington.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Derek » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:12 am UTC

Dauric wrote:The thing is the campaigning isn't based on plans, it's based on soundbites.

Welcome to every election ever.

If the Democrats had passed a plan that would give everyone free healthcare including cosmetic surgery and daily massages, pay for it with old VHS tapes of Star Trek, and give every unemployed person in America a job earning $30k/year after taxes, the Republicans could still persuade people that it was the worst thing in history because we don't need the government nannying us, we don't need the government stealing our precious obsolete video tapes, and we certainly don't need condescending welfare from Washington.

And they would be right on every point.

User avatar
faranim
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:14 pm UTC
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby faranim » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Though, to be honest, the current GOP is making me miss Bush.


The fact that I agree with this statement makes me sad :(

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

faranim wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Though, to be honest, the current GOP is making me miss Bush.


The fact that I agree with this statement makes me sad :(

I’ll get worried when it make you miss Cheney.
wee free kings

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

IcedT wrote:Seriously, if anything the Democrats are the ones with a plan these days and the GOP is mostly running on "WE HATE DEMOCRATS!"


This is disappointing, yes. I mean, I don't really care for the democrat plan much, but if the GOP doesn't come up with something concretely better, then...I'm not going to pick "nothing" over the plan I dislike. So, vote goes third party at that point.

Now, Ryan was probably a decent strategic pick. And at least he seems to have had earlier plans economically that can at least be pointed to and discussed. Hopefully, they'll start doing actual "here's our plan" type stuff soonly.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Essentially, yes, it's guaranteed. I suppose Romney could step in front of a bus or something, but in practical terms, he's getting all the delegates. It's all over at this point save for formalities.


Dear gods, that would probably put Ryan as candidate - please, $deities, do not let Romney get hit by a bus.


Well, that seems unlikely. God only knows what the outcome would be if the hurricane levels the republican convention, tho. I'm not really sure what the fallback plan for that would be. A crappy year for the republicans?

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
IcedT wrote:Seriously, if anything the Democrats are the ones with a plan these days and the GOP is mostly running on "WE HATE DEMOCRATS!"


This is disappointing, yes. I mean, I don't really care for the democrat plan much, but if the GOP doesn't come up with something concretely better, then...I'm not going to pick "nothing" over the plan I dislike. So, vote goes third party at that point.

Now, Ryan was probably a decent strategic pick. And at least he seems to have had earlier plans economically that can at least be pointed to and discussed. Hopefully, they'll start doing actual "here's our plan" type stuff soonly.


If Romney/Ryan roll out the "here's our plan" stuff then they'll lose. What we know of their plan is so unpopular nationally that they have no choice but to lie about it. So they lie. They lie relentlessly and without pause. It's terrible but it's true. Ryan's budget proposal contains too much detail and is too easy to pick apart. Basically, we know that Ryan's reputation as a sharp policy wonk is wildly inflated and that he wants to redistribute a lot of money upward (to the tune of a 2.6 trillion dollar increase in the debt over 10 years). His medicare policies would shift a lot of cost on to seniors, which is one reason the R/R is attacking (in fact-free fashion) Obama's medicare reform under the ACA.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:25 pm UTC

Garm wrote:If Romney/Ryan roll out the "here's our plan" stuff then they'll lose. What we know of their plan is so unpopular nationally that they have no choice but to lie about it. So they lie. They lie relentlessly and without pause. It's terrible but it's true. Ryan's budget proposal contains too much detail and is too easy to pick apart. Basically, we know that Ryan's reputation as a sharp policy wonk is wildly inflated and that he wants to redistribute a lot of money upward (to the tune of a 2.6 trillion dollar increase in the debt over 10 years). His medicare policies would shift a lot of cost on to seniors, which is one reason the R/R is attacking (in fact-free fashion) Obama's medicare reform under the ACA.


I actually bet $20 something like six months ago that Romney would win the nomination but lose the general election. So far, I've seen absolutely nothing that would cause me to doubt that.

Ryan's budget plan isn't the worst of things. Now, it's not the greatest of things either, but with a bit of polish and corrections of the current rough spots, I think it could be made workable. Is this likely? Nah. They'll latch on to the controversial things as critical defenses of freedom.

I also think Ryan's plan simply doesn't reducing spending enough. The repubs talk a good talk about small government, but whenever the rubber meets the road, it never seems to actually happen.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

Garm wrote:If Romney/Ryan roll out the "here's our plan" stuff then they'll lose.

They probably have a better shot at selling people on their policies than making people actually like Romney as a person. I think the campaign realized their candidate was a hollow shell and decided that running on personality (against a rather charismatic opponent) had absolutely zero change of working.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:58 pm UTC

That's probably because the Republicans don't actually want small government, they just want the votes from those who do. Do you have any idea how much governmental oversight banning birthcontrol and abortion will take? Also, they continually want to grow the military (aka the worlds largest defense oriented welfare program).

And Mitt's gone birther. I wish they'd just start saying "vote for Romney cuz Obama is black!" I guess that'd be an honest campaign message tho'... can't have that.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/romney-makes-birth-certificate-joke/1#.UDfAIdaPWrB
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6788
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

That's a ballsy bet considering how much depends on the economy, which in turn is heavily influenced by the Euro crisis, Mid East turmoil, and w/e happens in Asia. You essentially bet that nothing bad was going to happen within 6 months. You've gotten lucky so far. =P

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:35 pm UTC

Ryan's reputation as a deficit hawk is a complete fabrication and any quick look at his record will tell you this. The only thing that makes him a "wonk" is that his lies are more thoughtfully constructed than most of the lies we're used to. He's in this to advance social conservatism, and to cut a fat check to the rich. All else is inconsequential, particularly the deficit- his budget is actually worse for the national debt than Obama's budget. There's really no redeeming value to the thing at all- bad for the deficit, devastating for the poor and the elderly, damaging to our national infrastructure and institutions, and dedicated to helping rich people make money no matter what the social cost is. The thing's just fucking awful.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:49 pm UTC

Yeah, as someone who wants a balanced budget...there's no Clinton to vote for here.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests