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
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The issue here is that any challenge from the left would all but ensure the defeat of both Obama and the challenger. Obama hasn't done a perfect job, and I could list a lot of things I don't like the way he's handled, but in the end, I'd say he's done a decent job overall. The most liberal president in the world would still encounter the same roadblocks Obama has- a filibuster heavy senate during his first 2 years, and a republican controlled house of representatives during the next 2.

Realistically, the only way we'd get more liberal policies out of those situations is for someone more adept at controlling the legislature to be president, such as LBJ. Feingold was a great senator, but I don't think he'd fit that bill. I don't really think there's any liberal alternatives that could fit that bill, at least at the moment. Obama, at least, seems to have started to find his backbone, and seems better at not surrendering points fruitlessly to the house, recently; my gut says that if he wins reelection, his 2nd term will go much better than his 1st. I could be wrong though.

You're ignoring a couple concepts and trends. Usually, when someone takes a seat from the other party, they're moderate because that's the only way they managed to snag independent votes, primary voters, and voters from the other party. The 2010 election for republicans upended that concept. The entire republican party got more members, AND became more conservative. That means all the moderates got kicked out, and all the Democratically held seats got replaced by super conservatives.
Next, Democrats have the traditional problem, in order to take republican seats, they run moderates which means that if they do win, those moderates water down any Democratic legislation even before the republicans begin the legislative back and forth.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, I'm not even starting on how united republicans are, the concept of filibustering all legislation and appointments, one sided redistricting in states (which locks in majorities/biases to GOP for a decade, at least until changing demographics mess it up).

folkhero wrote:You are using the words "liberal," "centrist," and "conservative," as though their is some objective spectrum which people can be placed on, not things that are relative to each other for a given group of people.

Are you just nitpicking since Europe's most conservative politician would be considered a liberal here, therefore me labeling politicians for the US is completely invalid? :roll:

If you didn't consider the rest of the world, then what exactly is your point? You don't think it's possible to reliably place people on a political spectrum?
Image


Edited multiple times to keep a consistent line of thought, me angry now.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You're ignoring a couple concepts and trends. Usually, when someone takes a seat from the other party, they're moderate because that's the only way they managed to snag independent votes, primary voters, and voters from the other party. The 2010 election for republicans upended that concept. The entire republican party got more members, AND became more conservative. That means all the moderates got kicked out, and all the Democratically held seats got replaced by super conservatives.
Next, Democrats have the traditional problem, in order to take republican seats, they run moderates which means that if they do win, those moderates water down any Democratic legislation even before the republicans begin the legislative back and forth.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, I'm not even starting on how united republicans are, the concept of filibustering all legislation and appointments, one sided redistricting in states (which locks in majorities/biases to GOP for a decade, at least until changing demographics mess it up).

I don't see how what you said disagrees with what I said though. I agree with your interpretation on events, but that doesn't change the roadblocks that Obama has had to deal with. He's still limited by the political alignment of Congress in getting what he wants. If he was a more capable manipulator of Congress, or had been a better fighter early on, he could have gotten laws more to his (and presumably, liberal's) liking. He does have more centrist positions on a number of things, but I wasn't disagreeing with that. If you ratcheted Obama up to being more liberal than the most liberal liberal that ever liberal'd, he still would have had Congress as an obstacle to overcome. He's starting to fight more astutely, and seems less willing to give the republicans something for nothing, like he had in the past, so that's why I think if he wins reelection he'll do better; he's learned how to be better at getting what he wants as president.

I guess, in short, I don't think anything you said there was false, but I'm not sure how it interacts with any of what I said in the bit you quoted me for?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:01 pm UTC

Oh, I was referring to his possible 2nd term that you said he would do better in. These problems don't go away, and most presidents simply resort to executive power when leaning on the legislative branch fails to accomplish much. I'm basing my opinion based on the "throw the bums out" attitude of voters. Who's in power right now? Republicans in the house, Dems in the senate, and Obama. If they throw the incumbents out, then the House and senate switch ownership, which still leads to gridlock. Really, I'm saying that so long as democrats can't unify, it'll continue to take super-majorities just to accomplish what a simple majority did 20 years ago. This is just to stop the watering down by the conservative democrats.

What I'm saying is that Obama doesn't have a good control over the democrats in Congress, much less republicans in Congress. If a president can't control congress, than he won't achieve as much during his term. This remains true in his 2nd term. Now if you're right, and Obama will do just fine if he gets reelected.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:25 pm UTC

Ah, that makes sense, yeah. I do think his (potential) 2nd term will go better, just because he's being forced to fight more, and has obviously started to develop a better working relationship with Reid. Pelosi seems to be a bit bitter about being left out this time around, but she also seemed to be a rather competent whip, who knows how to get the votes she wants, so I doubt she'd be an impediment to Obama in a 2nd term if the democrats make sufficient gains to be decisive again in the house.

Democrats will always have an issue unifying, I think- they're a "big tent" party. Far more Americans self identify as conservative than as liberal, so the more liberal party is always going to have majorities with lots of moderate members until that changes. The senate will, if democrats are lucky, be barely held by them, so Obama is going to, in all likelihood, deal with more grid lock next time around. But he'll be less threatened by the danger of a government shutdown in those cases, so he can fight them much more aggressively over budgets. He'll also have the Bush tax cuts expiring and the automatic defense cuts working to his advantage- the republicans won't be able to get a veto-proof majority, so he can just let those happen or trade them for exactly what he wants. I worry he'll want to trade them for something, but at the very least he'll be able to ensure he gets what he wants for them, instead of now where he's been getting 10% of what he wants and the republicans get a nice gift basket.

Basically, I think between finding his backbone lately, developing a better understanding of congress, and the fact that he won't need to worry about another reelection, if he gets a 2nd term he'll do far better. The problems won't go away, but his manner and ability to handle them will (and has) improve, I think.

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:21 pm UTC

What's the point of having that chart as a bubble graph? Does the size of the circle denote the perceived influence of the person? I need some context!

Tongue in cheek I'd rather see this graph as a vector field. Everyone starts at the center of their circle trends right. The length of their vector is how hard they pander to the base. So Romney's line would be very long (since he's been pandering as hard as anyone) but would actually be a tree with multiple branches connecting to the origin. Newt's graph would be relatively short. Huntsman and Paul's graphs would be more easily mapped in the z-axis but this is only a 2D graph.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:32 pm UTC

Eh, it's a pretty useless graph anyway. Insider vs outsider isn't a useful metric and any idiot who puts the Ronpaul on the moderate side of the moderate vs conservative axis isn't worth listening to.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:56 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Eh, it's a pretty useless graph anyway. Insider vs outsider isn't a useful metric and any idiot who puts the Ronpaul on the moderate side of the moderate vs conservative axis isn't worth listening to.


Agreed. I was more just trying to figure out how wrong this person was. The presentation of data can elucidate or obfuscate. The circles look like they were tossed in because someone saw a bubble graph once and said "boy that's neat."
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:00 pm UTC

Yeah I can't figure what's supposed to be represented by circle size or color.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:19 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Eh, it's a pretty useless graph anyway. Insider vs outsider isn't a useful metric and any idiot who puts the Ronpaul on the moderate side of the moderate vs conservative axis isn't worth listening to.


He's neither Moderate nor Conservative; he's a Radical with views of both the far left and the far right.

He wants to end the War on Drugs and end government interference in private life, which is 'far left' in the US. He wants a Laissez-Faire free market, which is both radical and 'far right' (and foolish).

I do get frustrated with the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" and how they are used. A Liberal is someone who believes in open discourse and personal freedom; neither of which is a priority of either major political party. A Conservative isn't even on the same spectrum as Liberal; a Conservative is someone who only slowly accepts change and tries to minimize risk. The Moderate says "if it ain't broke don't fix it", the Conservative "it works while broken, so don't fix it", the Progressive "we can repair and improve it", the Radical "doesn't matter, replace it", and the Regressive "let's just do what we did before we had it".
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:31 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:29 pm UTC

the Ronpaul doesn't oppose government interference in private life. He consistently supports anti-choice legislation and opposed the ruling in Lawrence.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

Government interference is more than just pro or anti-abortion, though that is a big issue. It's things like the government deciding what your child learns at school, whether or not your child is required to go to school, what drugs you are allowed to take, what modifications you can do to yourself, whether or not insanity is a crime that must be punished, how you can raise your children, who decides how many children you can have, the standards of care in medicine, what types of contracts you may enter into, and so forth.

Note that I don't opposed all types of government interference, obviously given that list.

It's sort of like how being "right-wing" is more than just "gun-rights". It's possible to have someone in favor of strict gun control yet demand an hour a day in school dedicated to praying to Jesus.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
He wants to end the War on Drugs and end government interference in private life, which is 'far left' in the US.



netcrusher88 wrote:the Ronpaul doesn't oppose government interference in private life. He consistently supports anti-choice legislation and opposed the ruling in Lawrence.



CorruptUser wrote:Government interference is more than just pro or anti-abortion, though that is a big issue. It's things like the government deciding what your child learns at school, whether or not your child is required to go to school, what drugs you are allowed to take, what modifications you can do to yourself, whether or not insanity is a crime that must be punished, how you can raise your children, who decides how many children you can have, the standards of care in medicine, what types of contracts you may enter into, and so forth.

Note that I don't opposed all types of government interference, obviously given that list.

It's sort of like how being "right-wing" is more than just "gun-rights". It's possible to have someone in favor of strict gun control yet demand an hour a day in school dedicated to praying to Jesus.


Except you didn't say "he's generally against government interference" or even "he's against government interference." You said he wants to end it, which is clearly not true. He wants to end government interference he dislikes, which happens to be the same as every other politician.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:11 pm UTC

Ok, fine, he generally wants to end government interference in personal matters, in the things he doesn't like. But would you disagree that the areas where he wants to end government interference in private life are much larger than the areas that other politicians wants to end interference in private life?

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:22 pm UTC

You guys criticizing the chart there set me on a long hunt to find the article it was originally from, because I knew I read it. Well, after a while, here it is. Silver explain's his reasoning for mapping the candidates along an insider-outsider axis, and moderate, I believe, is meant more as in relation to the republican primary electorate. Paul isn't a true moderate, but within the republican base, he's probably seen as most similar to one due to some of his less war-monger like positions, among other things. The article overall was on whether or not there was room (in February of 2011) for more republican candidates to draw strength from in the primaries. Circle sizes are, to quote:
Nate Silver wrote:[...] the area of each candidate’s circle is proportional to their perceived likelihood of winning the nomination, according to the Intrade betting market.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:58 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
folkhero wrote:You are using the words "liberal," "centrist," and "conservative," as though their is some objective spectrum which people can be placed on, not things that are relative to each other for a given group of people.

Are you just nitpicking since Europe's most conservative politician would be considered a liberal here, therefore me labeling politicians for the US is completely invalid? :roll:

If you didn't consider the rest of the world, then what exactly is your point? You don't think it's possible to reliably place people on a political spectrum?


Obviously you can put people on a spectrum, although a one dimensional spectrum tend to be simple minded and tend to lead to more tribalist, "us vs. them," thinking. My point is that where you put moderate on that spectrum tends to say more about you than it does the people you are trying to place. Any attempt of an objective placement of moderate on you spectrum requires a well defined universe of people's opinions that you use as a base of comparisons.

I'm nitpicking that you didn't define your universe of people, when talking about U.S. politicians, my was assumption that "moderate" would mean moderate compared to the American public, or American voters. If you were talking about the rest of the world, you have to consider more than just Europe and North America; for example the mainstream Republican positions on gender and homosexuality may be considered downright liberal in China, India, and much of Africa and the Arab world. Similarly, on first amendment issues Republicans are left of center of very large segments of the world. Sure if you look at the universe of North Americans and Europeans, then your assessment of Republicans being far left and Obama being not very liberal is accurate, but I just find it funny that you used that particular universe and did't even feel the need to specify.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:14 am UTC

Also, there are some hyper-Christian, nativist, anti-Islamic, pro-gun, and otherwise arch-conservatives in Europe that would make most American conservatives cringe. Geert Wilders, anyone? Or how about the Swiss? Keep in mind that the Swiss, until the 1980s, still had the policies of forced sterilizations for women with poor morals (i.e., any woman reporting a rape). Sweden ended theirs in 1976.

The US really isn't that much different than Europe, at least when it comes to the extremists.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:23 am UTC

As long as we're defining our universe as the American public, than we shouldn't have a problem defining moderate, conservative and liberal using previous decades( or presidential terms) as a reference year.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:42 pm UTC

I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:48 pm UTC

Much like Rick Perry's gay campaign staffer proves he's not homophobic, I guess.

"I have friends who are [minority]" argument. And a whole bunch of straw man.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:06 am UTC

I think the analysis for Paul is pretty simple here. In option (1) he did write the works- in which case he has, at the very least, been quite racist in his manner of thinking, and refused to admit to something that he wrote. In the other option, option (2), he allowed people that aren't him to write things and attach his name to it with no oversight, and was able to remain unaware, for possibly over a decade, of their using that option to write racist things and is also unwilling to repudiate them for doing so.

I don't see how other option speaks well of him. As for the link, you can be racist in some ways and still not racist in others- it's part of why racism is so hard to eliminate. No one will tell themselves "yep, I'm racist". So he can practice medicine in ways that aren't racist, and allow black people to be part of photo-ops for him, and still legislate or intend to govern in a racist manner, or practice other acts of racism. Racism isn't something where you can do 1 racist act and 1 non-racist act and come out "racism neutral"- you still performed the racist act.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:28 am UTC

sardia wrote:As long as we're defining our universe as the American public

Wait, that isn’t the whole universe?
wee free kings

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:07 am UTC

I've probably written more racist lines in this forum than Paul has in his entire career, assuming he actually did write them as opposed to rubber-stamp them.

The options are he said/wrote a few racist things out of millions of things he said/wrote, or that someone else wrote them under his name and he didn't notice. They were pretty bad, but they weren't exactly the racist/homophobic rants of Louis Farrakhan.

You search anyone's works long enough, and you'll eventually find something.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:33 am UTC

I don't think that's a particularly valid comparison, take one of Obama's remarks mentioned in the snopes article:
Obama's Book wrote:When people who don't know me well, black or white, discover my background (and it is usually a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split-second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some telltale sign.


And then take what one example of what Paul said (PDF):
R. Paul's Newsletter 1993 wrote:We are all the same under the skin, the argument goes. Whatever the truth of the assertion, it is an empirical fact that, in a mixed-economy democracy, nearly every racial and ethnic group votes its group interest except the white population.

One of those is personal reflections after experiencing racism first hand. The other is a racist analysis of the declining white population majority in the US while also being unwilling to accept that we're "all the same under the skin". They aren't really comparable. Obama's passage is easier to take out of context, I suppose, but Paul's (newsletter's) isn't reduced in racism by reading the rest of the section it's in. All of the examples for Obama on the snopes page are either destroyed when taken in context, shown to not actually be said by him, or deliberately adjusted versions of what he said in order to sound racist. All of the newsletters I have looked at in more detail to get the context for did not have the racism diminished by reading the rest of the section. Also, as an aside- from reading the rest of the relevant text in the newsletter to make sure that I didn't feel they were being take out of context- WOW, they make such flying, leaping jumps of logic to reach the conclusions supporting his policies.

You can't just brush it off as something someone else wrote and he didn't notice, as they were part of his staff, and writing it at his behest. If he isn't competent enough to handle his own staff over a course of several (at least five, possibly more depending on what you count as the start point) years, then why would he be competent enough to handle the executive office? One of the most important tasks for handling such a position would require being able to handle people under you, and this certainly shows a potential failing at that. He's also shown zero disagreement with the actual written passages- he always states he didn't write them, but never that he disagrees with them, and since they were published in his name by his staff to his supporters, there is at least some level of implicit endorsement of what was written.

So, again, we're stuck with someone who either makes racist comments and refuses to admit as such, or allows people working for them, writing things in their name, to make racist comments with no repudiation or oversight. Neither speak well of him.
-------------------------

Found an interesting analysis of the current situation, showing how, despite all the events currently conspiring to allow Romney to win, he's still quite vulnerable to losing the nomination. Seems that the basic gist of it is what everyone else thinks, but perhaps analyzed a bit better: Romney has all the numbers and conditions such that he could very well lose, but the problem is there's nobody presenting a plausible scenario of being able to win themselves.

Full article spoilered below:
Spoiler:
How Can Romney Lose?
By NATE SILVER
The conventional wisdom on the Republican nomination race has once again shifted. In the span of just two weeks, Mitt Romney has gone from seeming quite vulnerable to the near-inevitable Republican nominee. The odds attributed to Mr. Romney winning the nomination at the betting market Intrade, which closed at a low of 42 percent on Dec. 13, had shot up to 72 percent as of Monday night.

I don’t know that Mr. Romney’s stock is mispriced — if anything, it might be a little cheap. It’s not that Mr. Romney is all that strong a candidate. But for him to fail to win the nomination, someone else has to, and it’s hard to see who that is.

Newt Gingrich has been moving backward in the polls and would have a lot of hurdles to overcome even if he rebounded. the Ronpaul’s numbers have been moving upward, but he’s arguably more helpful than harmful to Mr. Romney and has little chance to win the nomination once the field is winnowed down.

Jon M. Huntsman Jr. has more upside than some of the other Republican candidates, and his polling has improved in New Hampshire. But he’d look a lot more dangerous if he were polling at 21 percent there rather than 12 percent.

Rick Perry is in something of a parallel position in Iowa. He’s someone who could look wholly different to voters with a strong finish there. But for now he’s stuck splitting the evangelical vote with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum and hasn’t been able to build up much momentum.

Meanwhile, little things are helping Mr. Romney around the margin. Few of the other campaigns have launched a prolonged attack against him (although it appears that Mr. Gingrich, reneging on a pledge to run a positive campaign, may give it a late effort). All of Mr. Romney’s competitors except Mr. Paul failed to qualify for the ballot in Virginia. Mr. Romney continues to add to his pile of endorsements. Even something like President Obama’s modestly improved approval ratings could play favorably for Mr. Romney if they remind Republican voters that an incumbent president is never easy to defeat and that there is a premium on nominating an electable, mainstream candidate like Mr. Romney.

Still, Mr. Romney’s numbers are not those of a traditional frontrunner. He’s at only about 25 percent in national polls, which is improved from two weeks ago but only barely. He’s still an underdog to win Iowa. His favorability ratings with Republican voters are adequate but not more than that. A lot of Republican voters remain dissatisfied with their choices. Usually, those numbers improve as the actual voting draws nearer, but if anything they’ve been getting worse lately.

This disconnect between expectations and performance is potentially quite dangerous to Mr. Romney. Consider Iowa, for instance. Mr. Romney currently projects to about 22 percent of the vote there, but the history of Iowa is one of volatile polling right up to the last minute — and sometimes huge surprises on election night. Our state-by-state forecasts, which account for this uncertainty, say that Mr. Romney could finish with as much as 36 percent of the vote in Iowa, but also as little as 8 percent, which could drop him all the way down to fifth or sixth place.

That such scenarios are plausible does not mean they are likely. But there is not all that much margin separating the candidates, and Republicans with Mr. Romney’s profile have historically underachieved their polls on caucus night.

Meanwhile, expectations seem to have gotten a little ahead of themselves. “I don’t see any scenario where we’re not the nominee,” one of Mr. Romney’s strategists told New York magazine’s John Heilemann.

Actually, the scenario is pretty easy to articulate. As I frequently remind our readers, the momentum that candidates get out of the early states has historically had as much to do with expectations as the actual results. Even a third-place finish in Iowa, much less something worse, might now be viewed as disappointing for Mr. Romney, increasing the risk of either a loss in New Hampshire or a close call that made Mr. Romney vulnerable heading into South Carolina and Florida.

My view is that the probability of these scenarios is higher than is generally acknowledged. Both the news media and the campaigns are always surprised when things don’t go according to the polls in the early voting states, even though a quick glance at the historical ledger would remind them that this sort of thing happens all the time.

So why am I nevertheless fairly bullish on Mr. Romney’s campaign? Well, there’s still that issue of one of the other candidates actually having to defeat him. One of the more likely scenarios is that Mr. Romney does take some bruises in the early states, whether at the expense of Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Perry, Mr. Huntsman or even Mr. Paul. But then the other candidate runs out of steam. Mr. Romney recovers and wins, perhaps after a strong performance in Michigan on Feb. 28, on Super Tuesday.

Even candidates as strong as George W. Bush, who was in an absolutely dominant position in the Republican primary in 2000, normally lose a few states. The advantage of winning the prevoting phase of the nomination process known as the invisible primary is that you can give up a touchdown or two and then still come back to win the game in overtime.

But if expectations get too far ahead of themselves, Mr. Romney might be only one Howard Dean scream or one Ed Muskie teardrop from becoming genuinely vulnerable. Mr. Romney would be wise to ensure that he keeps them in check.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:13 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:And then take what one example of what Paul said (PDF):
R. Paul's Newsletter 1993 wrote:We are all the same under the skin, the argument goes. Whatever the truth of the assertion, it is an empirical fact that, in a mixed-economy democracy, nearly every racial and ethnic group votes its group interest except the white population.


I'd like to know what evidence he uses to determine that as an empirical fact. Also, "White" is a bit too broad to be an ethnicity. It'd be like lumping Saudis in with Koreans as the ethnic group known as "Asian".

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:36 am UTC

I have a question- what exactly is Newt Gingrich's reputation for "moderation" and "reaching across the aisle" based on? Everyone I know who supports him talks about him like he's some amazing consensus-builder, but all I hear when he talks is another hawkish, fear-mongering, Bible-thumping reactionary who hates poor people, minorities, and anyone who isn't Protestant, except now with an extra dose of sociopathy and a sprinkle of faux-intellectualism. Am I missing something here?

CorruptUser wrote:I'd like to know what evidence he uses to determine that as an empirical fact. Also, "White" is a bit too broad to be an ethnicity. It'd be like lumping Saudis in with Koreans as the ethnic group known as "Asian".

"White" as used in the U.S. census already lumps Saudis in with Irishmen, Estonians and Pashtuns (though I think "Asian" does lump the Turks in with Koreans. It certainly lumps them in with Dravidian Indians). They really are absurdly vague and only useful for making the broadest of generalizations.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:57 am UTC

IcedT wrote:...all I hear when he [Newt Gingrich] talks is another hawkish, fear-mongering, Bible-thumping reactionary who hates poor people, minorities, and anyone who isn't WASProtestant, except now with an extra dose of sociopathy, less family values than ever, and a sprinkle of faux-intellectualism. Am I missing something here?

Bolding is my edits. He isn't a complete idiot in my opinion, but if he actually wants to get farther than the first few states he might want to learn to tone down some of the things that come out of his mouth. Seems like his PR manager might be doing a lot of talking to him.

Anyway, 3-wives-two-divorces-plus-infidelity doesn't seem like someone who'll really be embraced by the evangelical Family people. I mean, really? With all this stuff coming out about how the first divorce was in fact on his insistence? Ew.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:37 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Much like Rick Perry's gay campaign staffer proves he's not homophobic, I guess.

"I have friends who are [minority]" argument. And a whole bunch of straw man.
Yes, decades of free service to needy people regardless of race is very similar to having a few minority friends.

I linked it primarily because the first line amused me, but the end (Paul has written and said a lot of things, and these vaguely linked articles are the only evidence of racism on his part) is worthwhile.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:07 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You search anyone's works long enough, and you'll eventually find something.
That link lists of a bunch of quotes sent as an email forward that make Obama look pretty racist. And then the quotes are fixed, since some had been altered. And then put back into context, in which Obama tends to be referring to an event from his past involving race, making not actually the racist proclamation you'd think from reading the quote without that context.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Nordic Einar » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:14 am UTC

Srsly. Distinguished mixed-race man candidly discusses hardships growing up bi-racial in a nation that's anti-black; discusses privilege and disfranchisement honestly.

Those quotes seem pretty... even handed considering the hardships PoC face in this country.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:26 pm UTC

Which is why I linked to Snopes and not just cut&paste the chainmail rubbish. Dig long enough, you can find something when taken out of context sounds awful. A few careless edits, and whoops, a reasonable observation is now unbridled racism.

Hell, my main issue with the Paul quote about 'nonwhites' voting their interests is that he (or the author) claims 'whites' don't vote their interests.

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Aikanaro » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:41 pm UTC

I used to just feel contempt and amusement for Perry, now I actively despise the man.

(Trigger warning for discussion of rape?)

Spoiler:
MSNBC.com wrote:'Transformation': Perry now opposes all abortion, even in rape or incest cases
By NBC's Carrie Dann



OSCEOLA, Iowa -- In what the Texas governor calls a "transformation," Rick Perry on Tuesday said that he has reversed his acceptance of abortion in some severe circumstances, saying that he now opposes the procedure even in cases of rape and incest.

Perry said the change came after seeing the "Gift of Life" film produced by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He told an audience of Iowans at Clark Electric Co-op in Osceola that he was moved by the story of a woman who introduced the film during a screening earlier this month in Des Moines.

"She said, 'I am the product of rape.' And she said 'my life has worth,'" Perry said of his exchange with the woman. "It was a powerful moment."

The Texas governor made the statement in response to a question from Joshua Verwers, a pastor at Full Faith Christian Center in Chariton, who noted that Perry had recently signed a stringent Personhood USA pledge that urges signatories to oppose abortion "without exception and without compromise."

Candidates Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the Ronpaul have also signed the pledge.

Verwers said after the event that he was initially skeptical of Perry's flip on the position but that the governor's answer was "too perfect" and "sincere" to have come from anywhere but Perry's own heart.

"I do believe it was a sincere answer and that he has converted his position and that he would support personhood," the pastor told reporters.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:02 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:
IcedT wrote:...all I hear when he [Newt Gingrich] talks is another hawkish, fear-mongering, Bible-thumping reactionary who hates poor people, minorities, and anyone who isn't WASProtestant, except now with an extra dose of sociopathy, less family values than ever, and a sprinkle of faux-intellectualism. Am I missing something here?

Bolding is my edits. He isn't a complete idiot in my opinion, but if he actually wants to get farther than the first few states he might want to learn to tone down some of the things that come out of his mouth. Seems like his PR manager might be doing a lot of talking to him.

Anyway, 3-wives-two-divorces-plus-infidelity doesn't seem like someone who'll really be embraced by the evangelical Family people. I mean, really? With all this stuff coming out about how the first divorce was in fact on his insistence? Ew.

Newt is actually Catholic. Notionally, at least.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:52 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hell, my main issue with the Paul quote about 'nonwhites' voting their interests is that he (or the author) claims 'whites' don't vote their interests.
So, this is actually a pretty correct description of party politics in America, if you interpret it as something like "80% of nonwhites vote their racial interest, 30% of whites vote their racial interest" rather than 100%/0%. Support for, say, affirmative action that benefits blacks over whites over Asians has massive support among blacks and massive opposition among Asians. The significant support among whites is not because it gives them a leg up over Asians, but because it benefits blacks- that is, a large segment of whites is voting along their ideological interests and counter to their racial interests. [edit] And the whites that do oppose affirmative action tend to oppose it on grounds of fairness- 'we shouldn't judge by race'- rather than because it hurts them as a racial bloc(at many elite colleges, reducing the pressure from Asians benefits white students more than adding the pressure of black students hurts them). For many whites, race is simply not there to the degree it is for minorities, and so it's unsurprising whites generally don't form a racial bloc.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jave D » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I've probably written more racist lines in this forum than Paul has in his entire career, assuming he actually did write them as opposed to rubber-stamp them.

The options are he said/wrote a few racist things out of millions of things he said/wrote, or that someone else wrote them under his name and he didn't notice. They were pretty bad, but they weren't exactly the racist/homophobic rants of Louis Farrakhan.


I don't measure racism in terms of the ratio of racist-shit-said to non-racist-shit-said. Racist shit is racist shit. Otherwise one could say billions of things and 'only' once mention the gay-black-conspiracy-to-kill-white-America and then hey, that wouldn't be as bad as if that was the only thing one said.

You search anyone's works long enough, and you'll eventually find something.


Looking through the Ronpaul's newsletters, you don't have to search long or hard to find seriously objectionable content.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:52 pm UTC

So everyone will hee and haw over a few ghostwritten racist needles in haystacks of newsletters. Meanwhile they will vote for one of the Republican candidates, or the current President who will gleefully continuing the war on drugs which has been ravaging black communities for years. They will vote for a candidate who will gladly drop bombs on foreign people and fiercely defend the right of the executive to do so without oversight. At least they won't be voting for a racist though.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

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 » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:01 pm UTC

So, Gary Johnson is OFFICIALLY going for the Libertarian Party nomination now. Signed the paperwork this morning on live internet feed from the capitol of NM. At least it's no longer (however obvious) speculation.

edit: link! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... omination/
Last edited by The Reaper on Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Griffin » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

Welp, screw the repub nominations, looks like I'm going Libertarian this year for the first time.
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.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jave D » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:46 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:So everyone will hee and haw over a few ghostwritten racist needles in haystacks of newsletters. Meanwhile they will vote for one of the Republican candidates, or the current President who will gleefully continuing the war on drugs which has been ravaging black communities for years. They will vote for a candidate who will gladly drop bombs on foreign people and fiercely defend the right of the executive to do so without oversight. At least they won't be voting for a racist though.


"Haystacks of newsletters." Again, this seems to be an argument that "if I say one million things and only a thousand of them are paranoid, racist trash, it's not that bad." That doesn't work. "Ghostwritten" doesn't cut it either; it's the the Ronpaul NEWSLETTER, are we to assume he simply had no idea of what was being published in his own newsletter, month after month, year after year? If that's the case, what kind of incompetence would he overlook in his potential administration, year after year? Maybe we'd have "ghostwritten" bombs and a "ghostwritten" war on drugs but hey - at least he wouldn't be "gleeful" about it. Is that better?

Frankly, considering what many of those "few" articles have to say about drugs and drug users, I have doubts that a President Paul would gleefully end the war on drugs and enable the free-drug utopia many of his supporters seem to believe he would usher in.

As for ravaging black communities, I think it goes without saying that a racist white right-wing president is not going to be some sort of savior to them. Or maybe it doesn't go without saying. Maybe you should look more into those racist needles and see for yourself.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:44 pm UTC

I love this bullshit about Paul having any considerable impact on ceasing the war on drugs. As if he could simply vote for all of Congress and get the initiative, wholly rejected by the Republican party and at least a third of Democrats, any traction.

I love when "my underlings, whom I endorsed and evangelized under my name for years a bunch of vile homophobia and racism, are what you should pay attention to instead of the end result" gets thrown out by Paul sympathizers. Because smugly condemning gay men dying of AIDS is just an unpleasant view to take, but it doesn't matter because straight people have been doing so for years until some of theirs started dying of AIDS too and then people gave a shit for the first time.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

Could someone provide examples of Paul's bigotry outside of his newsletters? Not that I'm saying he isn't homophic or racist, just whether he has acted on those biases.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests