xkcd

by **Lucrece** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

Young, charismatic, Latino, and a nutty Christian fundamentalist with a made-up story about parents escaping communism from Cuba that has been exposed as embellishment at best. Rubio has no chance at a general election once the conservative blogger shine wears off and the general public gets to dig up on him.

Christie will eclipse Rubio.

by **omgryebread** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:33 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Young, charismatic, Latino, and a nutty Christian fundamentalist with a made-up story about parents escaping communism from Cuba that has been exposed as embellishment at best. Rubio has no chance at a general election once the conservative blogger shine wears off and the general public gets to dig up on him.

Christie will eclipse Rubio.

Not sure what about those characteristics would push away Republican primary voters, other than Latino. It's possible a decent enough amount can overlook that. The made-up story doesn't mean much, honesty doesn't seem a very important value for "values voters."

I agree Christie will eclipse him though. My current prediction for 2016 general is Chris Christie vs. Maryland's Martin O'Malley.

by **sardia** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

Why Christie? Just curious. I heard Rubio's speeches, he's charismatic, from an important state, has ties to Hispanic community, and a tea party darling.

by **BlueLabel** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:21 am UTC

My point is that it seems counterproductive for the party leadership to institute politically damaging rules. Especially ahead of what they cast as "the most important election of our generation". Maybe this wouldn't be the case if the GOP had a stronger slate of candidates.

by **Garm** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:58 am UTC

BlueLabel wrote:My point is that it seems counterproductive for the party leadership to institute politically damaging rules. Especially ahead of what they cast as "the most important election of our generation". Maybe this wouldn't be the case if the GOP had a stronger slate of candidates.

The base has been so crazy for so long that no one who should actually be president has a shot of winning.

Rubio may be Latino but as Lucrece pointed out, he's aligned himself with the Cubans from Southern Florida. That alienates him from most of the rest of the Latino community so it would probably be a net negative.

by **Lucrece** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:00 am UTC

Yeah, I don't think people are really grasping how different Cubans are on average in idiosyncracy to the Mexican/Central American Latino community as a whole.

Cubans in the US are exiles from a communist regime, and so they're very paranoid and reactionary to all things willing to associate themselves with "left". They're socially conservative (as are Latino groups, particularly the rising tide of evangelicals displacing the Catholic generation), and economically it's all "Capitalism is great and the source of liberty and the US is like the best country in the world!!!1111"

by **Bharrata** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:03 am UTC

Don't forget that Rubio's sister is married to a former drug lord:

Rubio’s fight with Univision began in early July, when Gerardo Reyes, the chief of the network’s investigative unit, called Rubio’s older sister, Barbara Cicilia. Reyes said he had learned that, more than two decades earlier, her husband, Orlando Cicilia, had been convicted as part of a drug-trafficking ring that paid off cops and sold cocaine by the kilo. Other members of the ring had murdered and dismembered a government informer. Barbara said that her husband had never been arrested, and hung up the phone.

But, as Reyes knew, in 1989 a jury had found Cicilia guilty of possessing large quantities of cocaine and marijuana and of travelling to several states to sell and deliver drugs. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. After he was paroled, in 2000, Rubio’s parents went to live with the Cicilias, in their new home; Rubio’s father died in 2010, but his mother still lives there. Cicilia has not been actively engaged in Rubio’s political campaigns, but the night Rubio was elected speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, in November, 2006, he joined the family on the stage. When Rubio ran for the Senate, in 2010, Cicilia’s teen-age son was his travel aide. Orlando Cicilia was on the stage again when Rubio declared victory.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/09/120109fa_fact_auletta

I'm not sure that would go over well in a general election for the first Latino President with a shot at winning.

by **sardia** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

BlueLabel wrote:My point is that it seems counterproductive for the party leadership to institute politically damaging rules. Especially ahead of what they cast as "the most important election of our generation". Maybe this wouldn't be the case if the GOP had a stronger slate of candidates.

You know what would really strengthen the primary? If we just reduce it down to 10 guys in a room, they all vote over and over again until they declare a winner. Then the GOP can take all the money they saved from not spending on primaries, and use it in the general election. Who needs voting at all? I mean, the general election is the only one that counts right? Who cares if people in a winner-take-all vote don't get represented?

Democracy isn't about being productive, if you wanted that, you'd head to the nearest dictatorship. Those countries get shit done fast. Now if you wanted to reason out, slowly but surely what you wanted, then come have a seat here. It won't be fast or clean, but you'll have a voice in government. In summary: Proportional voting is an attempt to better represent what the voters want.

by **Ghostbear** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

Proportional primaries might also help the party in the long run, even if they hurt in the short term. This one has exposed a lot of weaknesses in Romney, but most of those would have came about anyway. Presumably, going forward they might get stronger candidates instead of people like Romney. People that will be strengthened with the trial by fire of the primaries, instead of ground down by the endless slog. Obama was made stronger by the 2008 nomination fight; they would want to encourage more candidates that work like that, instead of people that can dominate early and hope to just end it right away.

by **Garm** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:20 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Yeah, I don't think people are really grasping how different Cubans are on average in idiosyncracy to the Mexican/Central American Latino community as a whole.

Cubans in the US are exiles from a communist regime, and so they're very paranoid and reactionary to all things willing to associate themselves with "left". They're socially conservative (as are Latino groups, particularly the rising tide of evangelicals displacing the Catholic generation), and economically it's all "Capitalism is great and the source of liberty and the US is like the best country in the world!!!1111"

Not just that but when people start screaming about illegals and immigration, building a fence across the border, or troops who will shoot border crossers, they're not talking about Cubans. The Cubans who manage to immigrate across are generally welcomed with open arms (especially if they're left-handed relief pitchers).

by **lutzj** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:05 am UTC

So, polls are closed in Alabama and Mississippi (I always love typing "Mississippi" for some reason... mississippi mississippi), and with around 100,000-200,000 votes tallied so far for each state it seems like a close three-way race between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (who has a slight edge in both states). Hawaii hasn't finished voting yet but nobody has been campaigning much there and I'd expect a fairly safe win for Romney, which will take some of the sting out of the night should he lose both Alabama and Mississippi.

edit: Santorum's now looking even better in Alabama and will probably take that state.

by **Ghostbear** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:19 am UTC

Yep. Santorum is outperforming his polling in both states so far as well, I believe.

If Santorum wins both I think it'll close the lid on any chances Romney has to end the nomination fight early. Not that Romney won't be the nominee; the delegate math is so crazy in Romney's favor that it'd take a miracle (from their perspective) for the others to win.

by **lutzj** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:24 am UTC

The current take in Mississippi (with about 75% reporting) is about 68k votes for Santorum, 66k for Gingrich, 63k for Romney, and 9k for Paul. Romney's best hope there is probably that Gingrich wins and takes some of the wind out of Santorum's campaign.

edit: poops, Santorum's going to win narrowly in both states. He's getting 13 delegates in Alabama (plus one non-primary delegate) and Romney/Gingrich each take 6; these proportional primaries made it harder for Romney to win quickly, but now it seems like they're insulating his lead somewhat.

by **Ghostbear** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:54 am UTC

From what I can tell, both states are getting called for Santorum. Alabama was a close but solid win, while Mississippi is going to be a narrow one.

by **Qaanol** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:23 am UTC

lutzj wrote:it seems like a close three-way <garbled> between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (who has a slight <garbled> in both <garbled>)

That’s how I read it.

by **Lucrece** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:42 am UTC

by **Giant Speck** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:29 am UTC

I didn't know she had a Twitter account!

by **folkhero** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:54 am UTC

I guess Newt is promising $2.50 gallons of gas. This seems like an act of desperation, perhaps a last gasp for his campaign. I mean, a Republican wants to, through sheer force of political power, wrestle down the the free market and pin a price on gasoline?

by **lutzj** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:50 am UTC

folkhero wrote:I guess Newt is promising $2.50 gallons of gas. This seems like an act of desperation, perhaps a last gasp for his campaign. I mean, a Republican wants to, through sheer force of political power, wrestle down the the free market and pin a price on gasoline?

I read somewhere he'd have to either implement insanely high subsidies or get the price of crude oil from ~$130/barrel to ~$50/barrel. Not likely.

by **Dauric** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
folkhero wrote:I guess Newt is promising $2.50 gallons of gas. This seems like an act of desperation, perhaps a last gasp for his campaign. I mean, a Republican wants to, through sheer force of political power, wrestle down the the free market and pin a price on gasoline?

I read somewhere he'd have to either implement insanely high subsidies or get the price of crude oil from ~$130/barrel to ~$50/barrel. Not likely.

If it's a last gasp for his campaign then his campaign has been having it's last gasp for most of the year. Newt's delusions about energy prices have been one of his primary talking points since the beginning. We can only be thankful that the conservative voters as a whole haven't been buying shares in Newt's hypothetical gas stations.

... of course that hasn't stopped social conservatives from voting for Santorum's theocracy...

by **lutzj** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

And now Santorum vows to "vigorously" crack down on online porn.

vigorously

by **jestingrabbit** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:21 pm UTC

He's lost the women's vote, now its time to lose the men's.

by **RealityRefurbished** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:44 am UTC

lutzj wrote:And now Santorum vows to vigorously crack down on online porn.

I'm sorry, but this man sounds like the kind of conservative caricature not even Stewart and Colbert could come up with. The fact that he's actually doing well baffles my mind.

Either way, I hope he wins the republican primary. While Romney stands a chance against Obama, Santorum has alienated moderates and liberals alike. His target demographic may be large, but it's not enough to get him into the Oval Office. If he were to be selected as the republican candidate, the Donkeys will take the White House once again.

by **jakovasaur** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:49 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:And now Santorum vows to "vigorously" crack down on online porn.

That thread in SB, "What would it take for you to fight for your liberty?" This is the answer right here.

by **Dark567** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:59 pm UTC

The Daily Caller wrote:“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,”

Wait. Really?

by **Qaanol** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing that people who have access to pornography are significantly less likely to commit rape.

Mr. Santorum wants to eliminate a non-harmful outlet for sexual fantasy. He also wants to reward rapists with extra offspring by forcing women they impregnate to carry the rapist’s child to term.

Just sayin’.

by **jestingrabbit** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing that people who have access to pornography are significantly less likely to commit rape.

The literature on that is pretty mixed. I offer the following to support the claim "violent pornography increases the rape proclivity of the viewer."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 94.9967974

That said, I'd expect that a consumerist culture probably increases theft proclivity. Are we going to ban advertisements too? Or ban minute hands on clocks so that people don't speed to be on time?

Not that any of this has to do with Santorum's real or stated reasons for wanting this: he's all about imposing his religious morality on others.

by **Diadem** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:01 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
Qaanol wrote:There is a substantial body of scientific evidence showing that people who have access to pornography are significantly less likely to commit rape.

The literature on that is pretty mixed. I offer the following to support the claim "violent pornography increases the rape proclivity of the viewer."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 94.9967974

I can't help but notice that Qaanol is talking about 'porn' and you are talking about 'violent porn'. I've seen studies like you are linking before. But I've never heard of any studies linking ordinary porn to a proclivity [Thank you for teaching me a new word!] for rape.

by **jestingrabbit** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I can't help but notice that Qaanol is talking about 'porn' and you are talking about 'violent porn'. I've seen studies like you are linking before. But I've never heard of any studies linking ordinary porn to a proclivity [Thank you for teaching me a new word!] for rape.

Sure, but violent porn is a subset of porn. And if someone is going to say porn decreases rape proclivity I think its fair to point out that that's not true of all porn.

by **Qaanol** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:08 pm UTC

Are you contending that, “Persons who are interested in violent porn and have access to violent porn, are more likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in violent porn but do not have access to violent porn”?

I am stating I have read studies that posit, “Persons who are interested in porn and have access to porn, are less likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in porn but do not have access to porn.”

So, mind the difference between “People who X are more likely to Y than people who do not X”, and “People who want to X are more likely to Y if they do X, than they themselves would be if they were unable to X”.

by **jestingrabbit** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:51 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:Are you contending that, “Persons who are interested in violent porn and have access to violent porn, are more likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in violent porn but do not have access to violent porn”?

No. Neither I, nor the article I linked, make that claim.

I am stating I have read studies that posit, “Persons who are interested in porn and have access to porn, are less likely to commit rape than persons who are interested in porn but do not have access to porn.”

Which studies?

by **sardia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:44 am UTC

Welcome to my home state:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -illinois/
It's a Coastal liberal state trapped in a Midwesterners conservative body. Or as the article puts it more articulately: Chicago vs the rest of the state. The primary is tuesday, so in a couple days. In addition, polls put Santorum and Romney neck and neck. Romney has an edge in Chicago + suburbs, while Santorum is favored in the less densely populated south.

by **Lucrece** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:58 am UTC

You just described California as well.

by **lutzj** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:56 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:You just described California as well.

Don't forget New York, New Jersey, and most of New England. Progressive city/conservative countryside has been a strong theme in American politics since World War II.

by **Radical_Initiator** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:while Santorum is favored in the less densely populated south.

Don't remind me. The political situation in southern Illinois is one of the things I hate most about my home area. Though I wouldn't necessarily count out the idea that some southern Illinois voters vote conservative to spite Chicago's mindset that the state is Chicago + whatever. Again, probably similar to other states in the same situation.

by **LtNOWIS** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:46 pm UTC

It's absolutely outrageous that Santorum would continue the policies of every president in my lifetime, including Obama.

by **sardia** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:10 pm UTC

On a side note, what was that link, and why is it related to this thread?

lutzj wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You just described California as well.

Don't forget New York, New Jersey, and most of New England. Progressive city/conservative countryside has been a strong theme in American politics since World War II.

I know about that theme. Do other states have power emanate from one big city, and the rest of the state is forced to follow? The actual demographics are more complicated than that (Democrats are clustered around Chicago, the quad cities area in the north west, St. Louis, and the universities. The rest is republican.) But everyone considers Chicago the gorilla in the room. I would think New York has this dynamic with the NYC vs the rest of the state, but California?

by **CorruptUser** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

Ugh, NYC is hated (politically) by the rest of the state. Everyone in upstate has to pay high taxes to subsidize NYC's programs. Of course, NYC complains that its high taxes are being used to support the rest of the state. Someone call Professor Hawking, because there's a black hole somewhere...

by **LtNOWIS** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:54 am UTC

sardia wrote:On a side note, what was that link, and why is it related to this thread?

A lot of people, not just here, were pretty shocked that Santorum has said he'll enforce federal obscenity laws against pornography. I was pointing out that President Obama (and his predecessors) have also tried people for violating those laws, so it's not very shocking.

by **Ghostbear** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:32 am UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:A lot of people, not just here, were pretty shocked that Santorum has said he'll enforce federal obscenity laws against pornography. I was pointing out that President Obama (and his predecessors) have also tried people for violating those laws, so it's not very shocking.

There is a difference of scale in those two cases however. Not saying that Obama should get a pass for this- he shouldn't- but Santorum's proposal is far more reaching. By his statement, he wants to remove all hardcore porn from the internet:

If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”

The example given for the Obama administration is one focused on a much more niche and controversial part of pornography- scatology and bestiality according to the article- and doesn't indicate a desire to remove all hardcore porn from the US. They're similar problems, but Santorum is proposing something on a significantly larger scale.

Who is online