U.S. Republican Primary

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:55 pm UTC

Mitt won by 8 votes.

Seraph
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Seraph » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

Mitt may have gotten the most votes, but I would say that Santorum is really the "winner" in Iowa. He basically went from politically dead to viable candidate in a day. In addition there is a good chance of Perry and Bachmann dropping out, and a good number of their supporters are likely to go to Santorum. If he's managed to learn anything from the other guys and has a defense prepared when the Romney PACs start hunting for him he might stand a chance.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Speaking of ignorant predictions of the future, I read that Obama has about even odds to win, and the dem's are about to lose the senate. But, I haven't read any predictors on the House, who's projected to win it?
Intrade has 70% on Republican control of the House, 78% on Republican control of the Senate, and 46% on Republican control of the Presidency.

Seraph wrote:Mitt may have gotten the most votes, but I would say that Santorum is really the "winner" in Iowa. He basically went from politically dead to viable candidate in a day.
Santorum is Huckabee v 2.0; except Huckabee did better in Iowa (34%) and still did worse than Romney over the whole country. I think the Republican race is mostly settled.

[edit]Perry is "reassessing" his campaign. Put it down, Rick.

Also, remember that time Gingrich vowed to run a positive campaign? I remember that time.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

Seraph wrote:Mitt may have gotten the most votes, but I would say that Santorum is really the "winner" in Iowa. He basically went from politically dead to viable candidate in a day. In addition there is a good chance of Perry and Bachmann dropping out, and a good number of their supporters are likely to go to Santorum. If he's managed to learn anything from the other guys and has a defense prepared when the Romney PACs start hunting for him he might stand a chance.


To use a sports analogy, Santorum won the tie breaker at the end of the season that gives him the lowest seed in the playoffs. It's great for him over the next few weeks in the sense that the alternative was going home like Perry and Bachmann will. But he doesn't have a lot of money, virtually no organizational structure outside Iowa, and is still polling poorly in the next few states. So he's going to have to spend 24 hours a day doing retail politics and another 24 hours a day fundraising to keep from losing to Gingrich for next man out (counting Huntsman as having already scheduled his concession speech for the day after New Hampshire).

I think it's going to be an awfully hard road. Santorum didn't win Iowa (much less winning it decisively), and will never have a more evangelical or attentive audience. He'll need to be much more successful pitching himself to South Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona conservative voters while essentially giving up Florida and Michigan until he becomes proven. I can't see it happening.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mich ... 24564.html


Bachmann's out.

I'm actually pretty suprised. She seemed like the type to cling on for dear life.

5 to go.

_____

Honestly, I think Iowa pretty much narrowed it down to Romney and Santorum as the two main contenders and Paul the underdog who may or may not catch up.

Bachmann's gone. Perry had his moment of "He'll definately be President" and now he's done. Cain was sort of an interest, but he was brought down. Gingrich had his day, but he was ultimately doomed. It's down to three people which have honest chances at the polls.

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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:05 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
Seraph wrote:Mitt may have gotten the most votes, but I would say that Santorum is really the "winner" in Iowa. He basically went from politically dead to viable candidate in a day. In addition there is a good chance of Perry and Bachmann dropping out, and a good number of their supporters are likely to go to Santorum. If he's managed to learn anything from the other guys and has a defense prepared when the Romney PACs start hunting for him he might stand a chance.


To use a sports analogy, Santorum won the tie breaker at the end of the season that gives him the lowest seed in the playoffs. It's great for him over the next few weeks in the sense that the alternative was going home like Perry and Bachmann will. But he doesn't have a lot of money, virtually no organizational structure outside Iowa, and is still polling poorly in the next few states. So he's going to have to spend 24 hours a day doing retail politics and another 24 hours a day fundraising to keep from losing to Gingrich for next man out (counting Huntsman as having already scheduled his concession speech for the day after New Hampshire).

I think it's going to be an awfully hard road. Santorum didn't win Iowa (much less winning it decisively), and will never have a more evangelical or attentive audience. He'll need to be much more successful pitching himself to South Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona conservative voters while essentially giving up Florida and Michigan until he becomes proven. I can't see it happening.


So Santorum is the Broncos? TEEEEBOOOWWWWWWWWW!!!!

If the GOP controls the house and the senate it's going to be a long four years. I fail to see the wisdom in trying to fix the country by voting in the people who broke it in the first place.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

The Dems won control of the House and Senate in 2006, so arguably they were in control when the economy tanked 2 years later. Keep in mind that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was done with overwhelming support even among Democrats.

To use the driving metaphor that was brought up in the 2008 election, both the Dems and Repubs had their feet on the gas and were fighting over the wheel. So you can't blame just one party.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3997
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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Honestly, I think Iowa pretty much narrowed it down to Romney and Santorum as the two main contenders and Paul the underdog who may or may not catch up.


Actually there was a brief report on News Hour (PBS) about the 'predictive' qualities of the Iowa Caucuses, and you're just about right on the money. They said that nobody who had placed lower than third in Iowa has ever gotten the Republican nomination, but that of the top three there was no way to predict based on the Iowa results.

Now whether the "Top Three" phenomena is a self-fulfilling prophecy or not may be up for debate. (IE: anyone that didn't get in the top three drops out of the race because they didn't get in the top three...)
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
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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:21 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The Dems won control of the House and Senate in 2006, so arguably they were in control when the economy tanked 2 years later. Keep in mind that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was done with overwhelming support even among Democrats.

To use the driving metaphor that was brought up in the 2008 election, both the Dems and Repubs had their feet on the gas and were fighting over the wheel. So you can't blame just one party.


Both good points. Maybe if we elect fewer people like Ben Nelson we'd have a chance to actually make something happen in this country.

My opinion, tho' it sort of weaken the point of my previous post, is that we started on a downward trajectory years before 2006 (about 26 to be precise).
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

No, we had growth in the 80s, followed by a boom in the 90s coinciding with computers. Arguably because of Reagan or Clinton, but my view is that was when the Baby-Boomers were most productive. If you are going to claim that Reagan's reforms* crippled the country, I'm going to counter that FDR's improper design of Social Security was just as bad, as was LBJ's Great Society. Feel free to argue how the spiral began in the 1700s due to poorly thought-out constitutional laws.

*Aside from his abysmal foreign policy, the main issue I have with Reagan is the elimination of mental health hospitals. Yes, I know that only a decade prior the hospitals would make Nurse Ratchet look like Mother Theresa, but still.

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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No, we had growth in the 80s, followed by a boom in the 90s coinciding with computers. Arguably because of Reagan or Clinton, but my view is that was when the Baby-Boomers were most productive. If you are going to claim that Reagan's reforms* crippled the country, I'm going to counter that FDR's improper design of Social Security was just as bad, as was LBJ's Great Society. Feel free to argue how the spiral began in the 1700s due to poorly thought-out constitutional laws.

*Aside from his abysmal foreign policy, the main issue I have with Reagan is the elimination of mental health hospitals. Yes, I know that only a decade prior the hospitals would make Nurse Ratchet look like Mother Theresa, but still.


I have three big problems with Reagan other than those that you mentioned (the mental hospitals was pretty shitty as was his general approach to foreign policy).

1. The Iran-Contra affair and the resulting non-investigation (sure they got Ollie North but who cares). We're starting to see the problem with the expansion in Executive power that he started with that program.
2. The legitimizing of Supply-Side Economic policy. Like you said, there was growth and then a boom. People look to that era and say "hey, that trickle down stuff shore was smart." It isn't, it wasn't but it's been mythologized as such because of that period of growth. Bush II's giant economy crippling tax cuts were a direct result of Supply-side thinking.
3. The expansion of the military industrial complex. We have a wonderfully large military. It's too large. Also, why did we build so freaking many nukes?

Another, smaller problem, I have with Reagan is his defunding of alternative energy research.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3997
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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:11 pm UTC

Garm wrote:2. The legitimizing of Supply-Side Economic policy. Like you said, there was growth and then a boom. People look to that era and say "hey, that trickle down stuff shore was smart." It isn't, it wasn't but it's been mythologized as such because of that period of growth. Bush II's giant economy crippling tax cuts were a direct result of Supply-side thinking.


More than this though is the myth that Regan only cut taxes. When he made his famous tax cuts things suddenly took a turn for the worse and he signed bills that raised a number of those taxes, quietly of course, but he still signed in to law one of the largest tax increases in peacetime. Bush Sr. did much the same thing, but being elected with the infamous "Read My Lips" slogan it was the deathknell for his re-election chances to have made that correction. BushII learned from that only that raising taxes would harm his re-election chances so even when the tax cuts were starting to pose problems for the government and the economy he still refused to sign laws to raise those taxes again because it wasn't politically expedient.

Frontline: Ten Trillion and Counting

The Republicans have made a mythology of Regan's tax cutting, completely ignoring the tax increases Regan signed in to law.
(In the Frontline episode there's a bit with Gingrich perpetuating that myth right after the bit detailing Regan's tax increases.)
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:51 pm UTC

Garm wrote:1. The Iran-Contra affair and the resulting non-investigation (sure they got Ollie North but who cares). We're starting to see the problem with the expansion in Executive power that he started with that program.


Aside from already mentioning foreign policy,

1) Starting to? Where have you been this past decade?

2) The Iran-Iraq war as close to evil vs evil as you could get. On one side, a genocidal dictator with forced conscription. On the other side, don't click here. Just don't. Reagan doing any arms deal with either side was just wrong. He couldn't have just sold the weapons to South Africa instead?

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

Garm wrote:We're starting to see the problem with the expansion in Executive power that he started with that program.
Wat. You realize executive power has been growing steadily since at least Roosevelt (the first one), right?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:07 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Garm wrote:We're starting to see the problem with the expansion in Executive power that he started with that program.
Wat. You realize executive power has been growing steadily since at least Roosevelt (the first one), right?


The Louisiana Purchase was made in an extra-constitutional fashion by abuse of the power of the Executive branch so I guess it's all about how you slice it. Buying large chunks of land is, I guess, what I consider for the betterment of the country. Waging proxy wars through gun smuggling and drug money isn't something I want my presidency to be doing. I'll have to think about this some more. My general opinion, however, is that a bit less power in our Executive branch would be a good thing. Congress has really given a lot up to the presidency in recent years, more so than in the bulk of the twentieth century.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:08 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:They said that nobody who had placed lower than third in Iowa has ever gotten the Republican nomination...

2008 Iowa Caucuses: Mike Huckabee (34.36%), Mitt Romney (25.19%), Fred Thompson (13.39%), John McCain (13.03%)

Beyond that, their statement is true.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:43 pm UTC

McCain skipped campaigning in Iowa because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies though. It wasn't like he was trying there.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:15 pm UTC

The breed of "centrist" (read: hyper-corporatist) Democrat that supported Gramm-Leach-Bliely has all but gone extinct. And there's a reason for it. The Blue Dogs who refused to support a stimulus measure big enough to fill the 1.2 trillion dollar hole that we thought we were in were made considerably more vulnerable than they otherwise would have been when the half-measure they passed failed to fill the over 2 trillion dollar hole we were actually in.

Saying that a problem is the fault of "democrats" or "republicans" as if either body is a monolith (they aren't) is kind of silly. If you take the long view of history, more Democrats than Republicans are responsible for the high unemployment rate among American blacks. And yet, given the current makeup of the two parties, if, based on that, you blamed the current struggles of minorities on the current Democratic Party, you'd be an idiot.

The financial crisis was the result of the moronic idea that businesses will behave in a way that is beneficial to the public if left to their own devices. Somehow, the gutting of regulation and pathetic detente between regulators and industry made them less likely to further their own damn interests.

Speaking of shitty economic theory, did anyone hear the Ronpaul's "I came in third" speech? I wonder if there's a chance that his "we are all Austrians now" wouldn't be wall-to-wall on Fox News if a Democrat had said it.
Last edited by EsotericWombat on Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:19 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Saying that a problem is the fault of "democrats" or "republicans" as if either body is a monolith (they aren't) is kind of silly. If you take the long view of history, more Democrats than Republicans are responsible for the high unemployment rate among American blacks. And yet, given the current makeup of the two parties, if, based on that, you blamed the current struggles of minorities on the current Democratic Party, you'd be an idiot.


That's highly debatable; many people will argue that welfare programs create poverty.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

And those people are morons. At best you could argue that the welfare trap perpetuates poverty, which is far from the same thing as causing it.

The welfare trap isn't an inevitability, it's a side-effect of existing welfare programs. And considering that there is less income mobility in the United States than in countries with more robust welfare states, the data doesn't support the assertion that more welfare=more poverty.
Image

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:02 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:And those people are morons. At best you could argue that the welfare trap perpetuates poverty, which is far from the same thing as causing it.


Welfare trap = longer time in poverty = more children born into poverty = more poor people = more poverty. Ergo, the welfare trap creates poverty. Now add in the idea that child benefits increase the number of poor children born...

Of course, using that logic you could argue that killing the poor reduces poverty.



Perhaps it has something to do with jobs requiring college degrees instead of high school diplomas?



Anyway, what I really want is the Negative Income Tax.

jareds
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jareds » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:The breed of "centrist" (read: hyper-corporatist) Democrat that supported Gramm-Leach-Bliely has all but gone extinct.

This appears to be something you just made up. The bill passed 362-57 in the House and 90-8 in the Senate. The Democratic Party has not undergone the dramatic turnover or leftward shift since 1999 that your claim would imply; Senators such as Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, and Sarbanes are not generally regarded as "hyper-corporatist" by anyone really; Bill Clinton (who signed the bill) is still highly regarded and easily electable; etc.

Certainly Blue Dogs suffered badly in the House in 2010, but the point is that the bill passed overwhelmingly, not by a slim coalition solely of Republicans and Blue Dogs.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Adacore » Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:48 am UTC

I wonder if Obama's army size reduction announcement hurts Paul's primary bid, as he'll now be appearing to agree with Obama, which probably won't go down well with the GOP voters. Not that he has much of a chance anyway, of course.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:16 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:And yet, given the current makeup of the two parties, if, based on that, you blamed the current struggles of minorities on the current Democratic Party, you'd be an idiot.
Eh. It seems to me that Democrats benefit from keeping minorities as captive voters, and so it seems to me like perceiving the racial bloc's struggles as "their" struggles could be blamed on the Democratic Party. (When someone claims that the main issue Hispanics care about is immigration, instead of the sensible trio of jobs, health care, and education, you should not take them seriously.)
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:20 am UTC

Adacore wrote:I wonder if Obama's army size reduction announcement hurts Paul's primary bid, as he'll now be appearing to agree with Obama, which probably won't go down well with the GOP voters. Not that he has much of a chance anyway, of course.

the Ronpaul voters aren't typical GOP voters. They have 3 traits: Young, independent(instead of conservative or liberal), and rabidly devoted to Paul's libertarian ideals. A general assumption is that they won't vote at all for a typical republican candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/po ... f=politics
Read this, it should inform you some more.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

jareds: I misspoke. I didn't mean to say that it's different because we're dealing with all different people-- though the makeup has changed significantly. What I meant to say is that the political forces that lead to those votes-- the Republican Revolution, a more empowered Blue Dog caucus, the DLC and the Clinton bully pulpit-- no longer exist. The DLC in particular was weakened after Hillary Clinton's collapse in the primaries, and evaporated last year. Its last chairman Harold Ford Jr took a leave of absence from Merryl Lynch and moved to New York (he'd been a Representative from Tennessee) to float his candidacy for the Senate on a platform of "let's not be so hard on Wall Street and the big banks." He was pretty much laughed off the stage, and after a little less than a year of not doing or saying very much at all, the DLC closed its doors.

I would similarly suggest that there are plenty of unanimous Republican caucus votes from this Congress that are more Tea Party products than anything that will reflect a Republican Party of say, 2016.

In any case, the point still stands that the financial collapse was caused by a particularly bad idea that has been fully embraced by the current Republican Party and not by the Democratic Party.
Image

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:20 am UTC

I haven't actually watched any of the debates (since I won't be voting in the republican primaries), but one thing I've noticed every time I read about them: everyone is afraid to attack Romney on stage. Why are they so terrified of him? He's known as comparatively a good debater, but it seems to me that the reason none of them have managed to go past Romney is because none of them (with brief exceptions by Perry- who, aside from his own separate, yet horrible, debate gaffes, could very well be the frontrunner right now) are willing to say to his face what they say about him on the campaign trail. They call him a flip flopper, a liar, a false conservative, and so on, every chance they get, but then they see him and they're all cordial and polite. It makes them look weak, especially in a party that seems to have a base that responds better to attacks.

I wonder if Obama will do the same in the presidential debates? I don't remember him as a good or a bad debater, more someone who is sufficiently competent at redirecting a question back to whatever he wanted to say anyway. A Romney-Obama debate would quite possibly be the worst debate (for substance) imaginable.

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 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

Looks like Mittens didn't actually win after all: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/06/appanoose-county-gop-chairman-im-confident-the-results-are-accurate/

Mitt Romney received 20 fewer votes than are reported from a Moulton precinct in numbers posted by the Republican Party of Iowa, the Appanoose County GOP chairman said today.


But nobody seems to care:
Santorum, who for months remained in the single digits in polls, wildly beat expectations, and that is the real story, Goldford said. The caucuses don’t result in an actual election, so there’s no additional harm done in terms of having to eject a candidate from a position, Goldford noted.


Since Romney is the candidate favored by the Republican establishment we won't hear any cries of "ZOMG VOTER FRAUDZ DUDEZ! ACORN IS VOTING WITH POOR PEOPLEZ!"
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ibid » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

Or for a less "assume everyone involved is the definition of evil" version, we could assume that nobody is making a big deal of it because fighting a clean primary while your opponent gets to sit back and build his case with no opposition is hard enough, and it would be nigh impossible for the Republican candidate to even put up a fight in the general if the primary is marred by a massive fight over vote counts.
Ibid: Most prolific author in academia

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:54 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Since Romney is the candidate favored by the Republican establishment we won't hear any cries of "ZOMG VOTER FRAUDZ DUDEZ! ACORN IS VOTING WITH POOR PEOPLEZ!"
Well, there's also the issue that the practical outcome will not change, as Iowa allocates delegates on a proportional basis. It's hard to get worked up over a typo that only affects bragging rights.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

So it's almost like you're saying that the implications of the GOP's terrible electoral practice in Iowa are nil, so it isn't important... Interesting.
Image

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ibid » Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:50 pm UTC

Yeah, see I know that was supposed to be sarcastic, but yes that is exactly what we are saying.

Thing is, remember the old adage "Pick your battles"? If it's completely and utterly irrelevant, and would just create a massive charlie foxtrot to fix, why fix it?
Ibid: Most prolific author in academia

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:58 pm UTC

It might be worth making sure that vote counts are accurate when problems come up in smaller elections so that those problems will also be fixed when larger elections come around.

Unrelated, I was pretty unimpressed that Romney (who has a JD) didn't know what Griswold v. Connecticut was, and then suddenly remembered that he believed it was incorrectly decided when he realized that it was part of the precedent for Roe v. Wade.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:15 pm UTC

The thing is, there's a political party that has utterly rejected that line of argument, and has in the name of "integrity of the ballot," sought to disenfranchise millions of voters, despite fact that the type of fraud they've been fearmongering is rarer than a lethal lightning strike. But when they run their own elections, they're terrible at it.

If the mystical purity that Republicans expect at the ballot box was actually more important than the actual probability of election outcomes being effected by its supposed lack of purity, Republicans would be eager to get their own house in order. But that's not what it was ever about. It was always about suppressing the poor vote, the black vote, and the youth vote.
Image

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:The thing is, there's a political party that has utterly rejected that line of argument, and has in the name of "integrity of the ballot," sought to disenfranchise millions of voters, despite fact that the type of fraud they've been fearmongering is rarer than a lethal lightning strike. But when they run their own elections, they're terrible at it.

If the mystical purity that Republicans expect at the ballot box was actually more important than the actual probability of election outcomes being effected by its supposed lack of purity, Republicans would be eager to get their own house in order. But that's not what it was ever about. It was always about suppressing the poor vote, the black vote, and the youth vote.

I could counter that since normal elections are winner-take-all, and not proportional, they have a valid enough reason to complain about "fraud" in national elections. Disenfranchising democratic voters is just icing on the cake.

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ibid » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:02 pm UTC

See, I understand from a purely philosophical point of view that we should fix it, and I understand the importance of respecting the democratic process, but in this case it really, really has no effect. We did the part that would be applicable to the general election (that is, it was monitored and the error caught), and the next step (taking the crown from Romney and having a massive shit-fit) is the part that I was refferring to as completely and utterly irrelevant.

Honestly I'll admit that I'm reacting less to it being brought up, and more to the way you're trying to spin it off into a "look the Republicans suck" direction. Yeah, they miscounted by a tiny margin, which in this case happened to be significant for bragging rights. It was caught, and changes absolutely nothing about the results in a systematic way, so leave it to Santorum and Romney to decide whether they care about bragging rights.
Ibid: Most prolific author in academia

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:56 am UTC

Ibid wrote:the next step (taking the crown from Romney and having a massive shit-fit) is the part that I was refferring to as completely and utterly irrelevant.
See, this is the part I don't understand. What crown? Romney and Santorum will get the same number of Iowa delegates now as they would under the inaccurate numbers. It looks like the Iowa GOP is using the new, corrected numbers, not the old, misreported numbers. What more could they do?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

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

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Adacore » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Yeah, as much as I'm loathe to say it, this particular issue is something the Iowa Republicans have got right. The representation is largely proportional, so tiny potential errors of 20 or so votes that change the 'winner' don't have huge impacts on the result. Imagine if this happened in a state like Florida, where potentially there could be 57 delegates on the line because of a small error. That could easily turn into a legal bloodbath.

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

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:53 am UTC

If Santorum had won outright, any headlines that Romney got would have been Santorum's, and he would have spoken last at the end of the night. This change in events would have been far more significant than any difference than has even been (fraudulently) alleged to have been made by the ACORN bogeymen the GOP has been chasing when suppressing the vote.

And it doesn't really matter that the 25 delegates don't get apportioned differently based on which candidate came out on top. Those 25 delegates are almost completely irrelevant. Iowa has never been about anything other than bragging rights.

Ibid wrote:Honestly I'll admit that I'm reacting less to it being brought up, and more to the way you're trying to spin it off into a "look the Republicans suck" direction.


This isn't spin. The GOP's assault on voting rights is the most important political story of this year. It's more important than the Iowa caucuses, and more important than the 2012 primary. And if they actually believed in the reasons they said they were doing it, then they wouldn't have handled Iowa so incompetently. And the final count isn't the only thing about last night that screams incompetence.
Image

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

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:41 am UTC

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


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests