U.S. Republican Primary

[Xeio]

That's been going on a while actually, Santorum (and Gingrich* for that matter) has been facing calls to drop out for at least a couple weeks now (since around the Illiniois primary).

Can't speak much for the ads though, the only Obama ads have been on Hulu/youtube and they're all pro-current president ads, I don't recall seeing any addressing Romney yet. Then again TV is probably another ballpark (PA primaries coming up soon, so I'm sure if I had cable I would be seeing a deluge about in the next week or two).

*I accidentally typed Gingrinch the first time.

[Роберт]

As far as I can tell, two things have changed.
1. Santorum has started facing calls to drop out of the race for the sake of party unity (he said no)
2. Obama's re-election campaign has started talking about Romney specifically, rather than the Republican party as a whole.

Neither of those are new this month.

[Adacore]

Yeah, Romney has been statistically near-certain to win since super Tuesday, basically.

[sardia]

Yeah, Romney has been statistically near-certain to win since super Tuesday, basically.

This fact wasn't as important to Santorum because he has outperformed recent polls during super Tuesday. The statistical likelihood of it happening depended on Santorum performing as expected, not overperforming. Now, Santorum is doing so bad that he is underperforming his polls, and losing states by large margins. In addition, he isn't winning by large margins states that he should have won.

[Ghostbear]

Now, Santorum is doing so bad that he is underperforming his polls, and losing states by large margins.

That actually isn't true. Santorum is still over-performing his poll numbers. The problem is just that the poll numbers put him further behind than he can make up with his over-performance; it doesn't matter if you outdo your polling numbers by 5 points, if you were behind by 15.

I'm sticking with my explanation for why this is "the end" that I already posted above though: this was the 100% absolute last chance Santorum had to change the dynamics of the race such that he had some plausibly non-miracle based path to the nomination. He lost his chance at winning outright long ago, then he lost his chance to win a plurality of delegates, then he lost his chance to prevent Romney from getting a plurality, and now he's lost his chance to prevent Romney from winning a majority. There is reasonable path that Santorum can take to win the nomination now.

[Proginoskes]

Better than a bigoted extremist

Not if you want the Democrats to win again. Romney would have a better chance against Obama than Santorum would.

[sourmìlk]

True, but I'm still pretty confident that Romney can't win. All else being equal, Americans elect incumbents 70% of the time. And considering that the economy is getting better and that the republican party is self-destructing hard, I really don't see Romney winning.

[Ghostbear]

I'd agree that Obama is a favorite to win, I think you're basing your analysis on overfitting prior data points. I mean, before 2008, the winner of Missouri had become the president in every election since 1956 (and in all but one election since 1904). Don't base your analysis on what Americans have done in the past: base it on what Americans are going to do now.

[jules.LT]

For those of us that didn't follow the primary, what does this Romney guy stand for nowadays?
What I'm getting so far is that he's changed his mind a lot, and mostly towards christian extremist positions.

[Malice]

For those of us that didn't follow the primary, what does this Romney guy stand for nowadays?
What I'm getting so far is that he's changed his mind a lot, and mostly towards christian extremist positions.

Romney stands for Romney. He'll say whatever he needs to to become president. In general he's for the plutocracy. He's running mostly on economic issues, not social issues, and on those he's endorsed the Ryan budget (tax cuts for the rich not quite paid for by cuts to the social safety net). He's perceived as being out of touch with the common man, as being robotic and fake, and as somebody you wouldn't want to have a beer with (if only because Mormons don't drink). He's "electable" but his base is unenthusiastic, particularly after a long, drawn-out primary season that got very ugly at times.

Look for him to tack back to the middle in the general but with mixed results given the flip-flopping perceptions. There'll be several ridiculous gaffes and at least one ad from his SuperPAC with racist undertones; Republicans will reluctantly gather around him but the Democrats will win the enthusiasm gap this go-around. Both Romney and Obama will have trouble picking up moderates, but tie goes to the incumbent. If Romney wins, it'll be very close, Bush 3, bad for anti-corporatists, bad for the economy (especially with the Republican Senate sneaking in under his coattails), and 60% chance of war with Iran (but at least he'll get credit for presiding over the tail end of the recovery). But he won't win.

[Garm]

All indications point to Romney being under the senate's coattails and not the other way around. That's what I'm really afraid of. He's such a mess with his positions that he's just going to be a rubber stamp for all the crazy shit that Paul Ryan proposes. If Romney gets elected we're screwed.

[Dark567]

All indications point to Romney being under the senate's coattails and not the other way around. That's what I'm really afraid of. He's such a mess with his positions that he's just going to be a rubber stamp for all the crazy shit that Paul Ryan proposes. If Romney gets elected we're screwed.

I mean... More screwed than any other Republican candidate? I would prefer him over any of the others.

[Princess Marzipan]

We're screwed eventually anyway. If a Republican doesn't win this year, one'll win eventually.

[LaserGuy]

For those of us that didn't follow the primary, what does this Romney guy stand for nowadays?
What I'm getting so far is that he's changed his mind a lot, and mostly towards christian extremist positions.

I'd suggest reading this:

Also, too: here's this truly awesome article about Romney's positions that deserves reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opini ... omney.html

[Dark567]

We're screwed eventually anyway. If a Republican doesn't win this year, one'll win eventually.

I mean... I think screwed is a bit harsh. Honestly I think we over estimate the power a president has over our everyday lives.

[Diadem]

We're screwed eventually anyway. If a Republican doesn't win this year, one'll win eventually.

I mean... I think screwed is a bit harsh. Honestly I think we over estimate the power a president has over our everyday lives.

The president alone? Perhaps not that much.

But you already have a conservative parliament, a conservative scotus, many completely conservative state governments. Add a conservative president, and many states will become unlivable for a great many people.

Though I really shouldn't be saying 'conservative' in the above. I should say "right wing fundamentalist". These guys are further removed from conservatism than the average socialist.

[CorruptUser]

If you want to get technical, the way conservatism is used in American politics is not the same as actual conservatism. A conservative is on the spectrum of a radical; it is not on the 'left-right' spectrum at all, but rather how about how cautious one should be about implementing change.

Moderate: this watch isn't broken so don't fix it
Conservative: the watch works while broken so don't fix it
Progressive: the watch isn't broken but I think I can improve it
Radical: replace the watch entirely regardless of whether or not it works
Regressive: we should be using sundials instead

The Founding Fathers were radicals, replacing the old system of Monarchy with something that had never been done before on a large scale, quasi-Democracy where all rich white men were citizens. A few decades later, the people that wanted only rich white men to be citizens were the conservatives, and the people that wanted all white men to be citizens were the radicals. Then the all white men were the conservatives, and the all men were radicals. Then all men were conservatives, and all people were radicals...

It's the same thing with 'liberal'. Liberalism is about free expression and exchange of ideas, education, freedom, and so forth. It is not about the 'social justice' movement. You know who were true Liberals? Most of the founding fathers. And today they would be practically regressives. Arch-conservative liberals.

[Lucrece]

By the time a conservative president gets elected SCOTUS might have seen liberal replacements tilting the court another way, and he may face the situation that Obama faces with split houses.

I think the real way in which we're screwed is that the policy has become "obstruct everything unless it comes from your party, because if the other party does good it'll get attributed to them and help in re-election". Government will stagnate except for in those rare occassions in which one party presence is overwhelming.

[Garm]

Corey Robin argues, rather convincingly, that Conservatism is borne out of reaction to the policies of the left.

George Nash, author of The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945 defines Conservatism by the following:

"...resistance to certain forces perceived to be leftist, revolutionary, and profoundly subversive of what conservatives at the time deemed worth cherishing, defending, and perhaps dying for.

Currently it seems that what has been deemed cherishing and defending can be summed up by "Rich People." It's not a facet of society that we're trying to hang on to. It's not a hankering toward a simpler time. It's pretty much all about rich people.

Nash also warns not to confuse Conservatives with the Radical Right so take that for what it's worth. I think we currently have a bunch of radicals who have claimed the mantle of conservatism.

I balk at your classification of the various veins of political thought. I understand your model is crude but Progressives aren't looking to fix a system that isn't broken, they're acknowledging that problems exist where others will not. Sure, sometimes you get some shitty shit that comes out of that were someone does try to fix something that's working fine (I think AAAHHHH THUMPY WOOBLE HARRRRRPINK!! grew out of one of these mischaracterizations) but you can't seriously think that our society is ticking along just fine. Or do you?

[Diadem]

If you want to get technical, the way conservatism is used in American politics is not the same as actual conservatism. A conservative is on the spectrum of a radical; it is not on the 'left-right' spectrum at all, but rather how about how cautious one should be about implementing change.

Moderate: this watch isn't broken so don't fix it
Conservative: the watch works while broken so don't fix it
Progressive: the watch isn't broken but I think I can improve it
Radical: replace the watch entirely regardless of whether or not it works
Regressive: we should be using sundials instead

It's more complicated than that. Conservative means the same thing the deep south of the US as it does in, say, Sweden. But in the deep south of the US, they want to keep (almost) everything as it is, while in Sweden they want to change things. And conservatives in, say, Egypt, are very different from their US counterparts in some ways (they have a very different religion for example), yet they are clearly recognizable as related political movements.

I think you can compare it with the compass directions. Imagine you're somewhere in Alaska, and you have a friend in Scandinavia. Both of you are pointing south. So clearly, you both have the same position, right? Yes. But you're also pointing directly away from each other! Meanwhile your other friend in Hawaii is pointing to the north, which is the opposite direction from you, yet you are pointing towards the same point.

Imagine politics as the northern hemisphere (not a full globe, for this analogy to make sense). You are standing in your current society pointing towards what you want society to look like. South corresponds to conservatism, north to progressivism. This means that regardless of where you are, progressives all have roughly similar goals (the further north you go the more the closer together you get), conservatives can have radically different goals. Yet they are clearly recognizable as a group. And where they want to go is clear based on where they are, so that given a random society you can always tell which positions are conservative and which are progressive. And sometimes more moderate conservatives will be pointing north, if they happen to be very far to the south already. This doesn't make them progressive though.

I'll be the first to admit that this analogy has many flaws. But I think it's a good explanation of why conservatives are clearly one group while sometimes wanting different things, and sometimes wanting things to change in different directions.

[CorruptUser]

I balk at your classification of the various veins of political thought. I understand your model is crude but Progressives aren't looking to fix a system that isn't broken, they're acknowledging that problems exist where others will not. Sure, sometimes you get some shitty shit that comes out of that were someone does try to fix something that's working fine (I think AAAHHHH THUMPY WOOBLE HARRRRRPINK!! grew out of one of these mischaracterizations) but you can't seriously think that our society is ticking along just fine. Or do you?

The system we have now is clearly broken, so a person doesn't have to be progressive to want to fix. Hell, it may very well be broken enough that even conservatives admit it needs to be fixed.

Again, my view of conservatism is on the spectrum of "how much should we change how fast". It's just as possible to have conservative Communists (the Communist party of Russia was VERY conservative post-Stalin, and it was a progressive/radical (Gorbachev) that ended it) as it is to have conservative Monarchists or conservative Capitalists.

Progressives and radicals are not always evil or a bad thing. Just that radicals often have ideas with little basis in reality as to how their proposals will actually work (e.g., Anarcho-Capitalists, etc), and while progressives want to improve things what they implement may not always be worth the cost or it may even be a detriment. Likewise, conservatives are not always bad; sometimes the way things are done are done for good reasons, though they can cause a kludge of a system to last for too long.

Let's take an example. Country D is run by a dictatorship. Other countries are thinking about what to do. Sanctions take a long time to work, and they tend to hurt innocent civilians more than the rulers. Invasion could work, but a lot more people will die in the process. Or you could do nothing so as to not hurt the civilians now, and just hope that eventually things will get better. If you say 'invade and liberate', you are either a radical or progressive. If you say 'sanction', you are a moderate. If you say 'ignore', you are a conservative. Think about how many parts of the 'left' will complain that we aren't invading genocidal dictatorships (Sudan), that we are invading (Iraq), that we aren't/weren't sanctioning (South Africa), that we are sanctioning (Cuba, Burma), etc. This doesn't mean that all those people aren't necessarily in agreement that dictatorships shouldn't exist.

[folkhero]

There is also, what I think is an interesting wrinkle in the consumption habits of progressives. Your stereotypical progressive eschews and despises big box stores like Walmart because of the economic change they bring, edging out small 'mom-and-pop' stores that are more traditional. They prefer organic foods that are 'natural' and made without 'chemicals' which they so despise. They don't trust genetically modifies foods despite the billions of people that rely on them. Environmental protection is generally thought of as a progressive cause, but the desire to not see environment not be changed my human industry is a fundamentally conservative, or even regressive one. Really though, "conservative," "liberal," "progressive," and the like have gotten so far from their original meanings that it is probably safe to ignore where they come from.

[Lucrece]

Those words mean what the people that use them to identify themselves and others with want them to mean. The whole "invade Islamic theocracies and spread democracy" would seem radical, and yet here we are with so many conservatives claiming it a conservative position.

[Garm]

Apparently it's now the position of some Conservatives to damage the environment by driving Hummers and such. I'd call that a reactionary position to a stance articulated by leftists. It's amazing how many people are motivated by the reason "it'll piss off a 'liberal.'"

[lutzj]

Apparently it's now the position of some Conservatives to damage the environment by driving Hummers and such. I'd call that a reactionary position to a stance articulated by leftists. It's amazing how many people are motivated by the reason "it'll piss off a 'liberal.'"

Maybe it's an extremely reactionary response to the creation of fossil fuels millions of years ago. The Carboniferous Period depleted our atmosphere of its natural CO2, dammit!

[Jonesthe Spy]

Progressives and radicals are not always evil or a bad thing... Likewise, conservatives are not always bad

Reactionaries, on the other hand, are always bad, and the current GOP is pretty much just a mix of kinda-reactionary and extremely-reactionary.

[CorruptUser]

Reactionaries are not truly on the conservative/radical spectrum, though they might be similar to conservatives. Reactionaries are not always in and of themselves inherently a bad thing; sometimes the people in charge are doing something abhorrent, and the reactionary is the one who most adamantly refuses to go along. Reactionaries are only "bad" when they are reacting to what you have declared to be best.

Both the OWS and the Tea Party movements are "reactionary". The Tea Party started as a reaction to the perceived wasteful spending of late term Bush and early term Obama; the perception was that trillions had been spent/loaned to the very people whose incompetence/malice caused the economy to collapse in the first place. Then it got hijacked by Evangelicals. The OWS was started for similar reasons; with the exception of the CEO of GM being forced to resign there was practically no justice whatsoever for the economic crisis. And of course, the OWS protest got hijacked by all the various groups that are always protesting (or at least that's how it came across in the news).

OT

Spoiler:

I'm sure there is a Newtonian law about actions and reactions, but I'm not a poli-sci major. Never did like poly-sci; not the courses, those were kind of fun, the people who majored in it. It's barely above comparative literature as far as real-world usefulness.

[Ghostbear]

Since the primary is for all practical purposes considered over now, do people have any guesses on who Romney will pick for a running mate? Rubio is always put at the top of everyone's list, due to being an almost perfect foil to Romney (very conservative, young, hispanic) while also being very popular in Florida. Despite that, I don't think it'll be him, or any of the (ex) governors (Christie, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc.) floated around either, as they all are either a poor political fit or just not tested enough to be tossed on a presidential campaign. So I guess, basically, I have no idea on who I actually expect it to be, but I expect it won't be anyone that is currently seen as likely. Anyone have better guesses?

Both the OWS and the Tea Party movements are "reactionary".

You keep using these words in their historical context and definition. I'm sure you're completely correct about those uses as well, but you're missing a vital fact: that's not how those words, when used politically, mean anymore.

Yes, both OWS and the tea party were reacting to something, but that does not make them both political reactionaries. The tea party of the now (though not necessarily the tea party of the protests), in a nutshell, wants to regress several social progresses, reverting more to a "traditional" social structure; they want to remove government from anything that goes opposite that traditional structure, while keeping it in place for things that enforce it (e.g. the military). OWS, also in a nutshell, wants to fix income and political inequality -- it wants to progress past the current imbalances, and wants to use government to fix them.

It doesn't matter what being politically conservative meant in the early 19th century when discussing modern politics: it only matters what it means now.

[CorruptUser]

Considering that OWS is trying to stop/reverse increasing income disparity, OWS is technically regressive.

Anyway, I use the words for what they mean because if we keep changing the words everything becomes impossible to understand. Any works from more than a decade ago become incomprehensible. Words mean what they mean, and people will try to attach themselves to words with positive connotations and their opponents will try to turn those words into pejoratives. No. Enough is enough. We must stop this. Whenever someone uses the word completely out of context or pretty much the opposite of what it means, stop them. Correct them. Yes, you may be called so many various things, but you must fight the good fight. This does not mean you have to become a grammar-fascist; constantly complaining about a misplaced comma or a typo or a new word, but you have to stop people from saying things are ironic when things are the exact opposite of ironic.

So when someone refers to someone else as a "damn Liberal", explain how there is actually nothing liberal about that person's policies. When someone insists that they are a "good conservative", explain how their policies are anything but conservative. When someone calls Obama a socialist, ask that person which part of Obama's policies involve employee ownership of the means of production (other than GM).

[Vaniver]

ask that person which part of Obama's policies involve employee ownership of the means of production (other than GM).

Um, why doesn't GM count? The way that was managed was a serious rewriting of contract law, and not for the better.

[Ghostbear]

Anyway, I use the words for what they mean because if we keep changing the words everything becomes impossible to understand. Any works from more than a decade ago become incomprehensible. Words mean what they mean, and people will try to attach themselves to words with positive connotations and their opponents will try to turn those words into pejoratives. No. Enough is enough. We must stop this. Whenever someone uses the word completely out of context or pretty much the opposite of what it means, stop them. Correct them. Yes, you may be called so many various things, but you must fight the good fight. This does not mean you have to become a grammar-fascist; constantly complaining about a misplaced comma or a typo or a new word, but you have to stop people from saying things are ironic when things are the exact opposite of ironic.

Except you're fighting for what the words meant a century ago. You'd be just as right to correct people who use "decimate" to mean anything other than "to remove one tenth". Or if you told someone they were wrong to use "gentleman" to mean something other than a member of the landed nobility. You'd only be right in a completely different century than the one you're speaking in. Language evolves, words evolve. The meaning changes with time, and you can't change that. When speaking on modern politics, liberal and conservative do not mean what they meant in the decades following the French Revolution. Sticking to those old definitions makes you, not the people you're speaking with, the incomprehensible one.

[CorruptUser]

Conservative still has a semblance of its original meaning. Just listen to the Dead Kennedy's song "MTV Get Off the Air", they use the word correctly. Liberal didn't lose its original meaning until the 60s in the US; in Europe, it mostly means what it used to mean centuries ago. Radical still has the same meaning, at least outside of politics.

It's only in politics have the words had their meanings twisted. Don't let a bunch of politicians ruin language. When a politician lies, call him out on it. When s/he starts using pejoratives, counter them. Don't just sit back and do nothing.

[Ghostbear]

It's only in politics have the words had their meanings twisted.

And if you want to use the words when speaking about politics, and wish to be understood, you should use the modern definitions. Just like if you talk to people about organic food. Sure, you'd be right if you pointed out that all food is organic in the scientific sense (with all foods containing carbon), but you wouldn't actually succeed at communicating with that person. I happen to particularly dislike that example, but I also enjoy communicating something that makes sense to the people I'm talking to, so I don't make a fuss about it. It's already a lost war, and insisting on fighting it doesn't help make people understandable. Everyone here knows what is meant when someone says "Romney is too conservative".

You have made the point that modern US politics doesn't use the words as per their original definitions anymore multiple times. All it serves to do now is act as an impediment to discussion on the topic.

[emceng]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120410/D9U285F81.html

Well it is pretty much over. The much worse candidate is bowing out. Too bad the whole field was a pile of awful.

[Роберт]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120410/D9U285F81.html

Well it is pretty much over. The much worse candidate is bowing out. Too bad the whole field was a pile of awful.

Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[Vaniver]

Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

The opposite, actually. I think Paul was counting on Santorum draining Romney's votes and delegates.

[Dauric]

Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

The opposite, actually. I think Paul was counting on Santorum draining Romney's votes and delegates.

The Ronpaul sits in his darkened sanctum caressing "Fluffy" as he contemplates his last plan to secure world domination. It was to have been perfect, setting the misguided acolyte of the Risen Lord and their followers to drain The Romney and convert his own followers to the cult of the Conservative Society. But the Ronpaul had not accounted for an important detail: The zombie leaders of the Risen Lord's cult required to consume brains and flesh for sustenance, and the Romney was in fact the M1-1T Politibot, it's brain made of aluminum powder would provide the cult of the Risen Lord no nutrients to renew their expended powers had they even been able to penetrate the perfectly shaped Plasticine hair-shaped access cover.

[Роберт]

Clears the way for the Ronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

The opposite, actually. I think Paul was counting on Santorum draining Romney's votes and delegates.

If you thought I was being serious with that many exclamation marks AND ONES trailing my sentance, I... I don't know if you should be using the internets.

[CorruptUser]

Poe's Law; sarcasm on the internet has a chance to be taken seriously equal to the percentage of serious arguments in the topic.
Poe's Strong Law; if a conversation goes on long enough, Poe's Law will eventually be triggered.
Poe-Godwin Law; if Poe's Law is discussed for at length, eventually Godwin's Law will also be invoked.

[++$_]

Poe's Law; sarcasm on the internet has a chance to be taken seriously equal to the percentage of serious arguments in the topic.
Poe's Strong Law; if a conversation goes on long enough, Poe's Law will eventually be triggered.
Poe-Godwin Law; if Poe's Law is discussed for at length, eventually Godwin's Law will also be invoked.

You know who liked to make up laws?

Hitler.