[x]

See Where You Rank in Virginia

  1.  
    Originally Posted by dolphin13 View Post

    Anger? You're probably one of the most miserable people on this site. You're constantly putting down and attacking people on here like you did with lord supremo for no good reason. You're the miserable fuck around these parts.

    No good reason?

    Some tool quoting 10k+ word essays from his blog deserves to be mocked just like you do you fat fucking clown.
     
    Add 36crazyfists to Rail
  2.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    I mean the party has a variety of tools and soft powers at its disposal with which to pressure candidates into dropping out or with which to destroy them in specific elections (see, e.g. Florida GOP Primary 2012). I believe the Republican Party will employ those tools to prevent a brokered convention if it senses there is a risk that a brokered convention could occur.

    Why would a brokered convention be a bad thing for the party? I realize I have more questions than statements but once i have a better understanding of where you are coming from I think I can make more sense of your viewpoint
    Add MustbeMoore to Rail
  3. good read LS....but only one little paragraph about Paul? Obvious bias in that blog.
    Add ScottBrewr99 to Rail
  4.  
    Originally Posted by 36crazyfists View Post

    No good reason?

    Some tool quoting 10k+ word essays from his blog deserves to be mocked just like you do you fat fucking clown.

    do you honestly feel better talking shit?
    Add MustbeMoore to Rail
  5.  
    Originally Posted by 36crazyfists View Post

    No good reason?

    Some tool quoting 10k+ word essays from his blog deserves to be mocked just like you do you fat fucking clown.


    Lol. I'm done with you. Time to put you on ignore.
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  6.  
    Originally Posted by dolphin13 View Post

    Lol. I'm done with you. Time to put you on ignore.


    But then you won't be there next time to defend your e-friends from my vicious personal attacks...

    Maybe you can siphon off some of your wife's money and buy yourself a plane ticket to Vegas for wsop this year and we can discuss our differences in person.
     
    Add 36crazyfists to Rail
  7. wow, the trolling is strong on this page
    Edited By: jesterwords Feb 14th, 2012 at 05:54 PM
    Add jesterwords to Rail
  8.  
    Originally Posted by 36crazyfists View Post

    But then you won't be there next time to defend your e-friends from my vicious personal attacks...

    Maybe you can siphon off some of your wife's money and buy yourself a plane ticket to Vegas for wsop this year and we can discuss our differences in person.

    Edited By: ajedrez Feb 14th, 2012 at 06:08 PM
    Add ajedrez to Rail
  9. everybodygettinmad.jpg
    Add saxman to Rail
  10. Alright, time to get back on track.

    LS

    Do you think this Santorum bounce after his sweep is just temporary. He went from being down to Michigan to holding a pretty healthy lead. I looked into those Ohio poll numbers posted on 538 and they can pretty much be discounted. They were taken back in Jan. I'd imagine Santorum would be leading in Ohio polls. Maybe Gingrich does get out after Super Tuesday and it becomes a two-man race
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  11.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    Because the popular vote matters, and Ron Paul devotees who try to pretend otherwise are dipshits.

    Were George Bush devotees dipshits?
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  12.  
    Originally Posted by Geoff Moore View Post

    Why would a brokered convention be a bad thing for the party? I realize I have more questions than statements but once i have a better understanding of where you are coming from I think I can make more sense of your viewpoint

    ugh, I was in the middle of typing a long response then accidentally deleted it all. I'll see if I can reproduce it, but I might just get perma and write a short reply.

    First, modern political conventions exist primarily so that parties can have three days of free primetime TV coverage with which they can extol the virtues of their candidate (and bash the other guy) directly to the voters, with minimal filtering by media. They are entirely produced and run by the campaigns of the nominee so that every speaker, every speech, every atmospheric detail, every everything goes toward the message that they are trying to get out. And conventions are exceptionally effective at this; I'm sure you've heard of the "convention bounce" whereby the nominee of a party gets a bump in the polls directly after the convention. Interestingly, this effect is even more important for Republicans, as their convention bounce tends to be about 2-3 points bigger than the bounce Democrats get. But if there's a brokered convention, the convention doesn't get to have that use. Every second of convention airtime spent running ballots or arguing over who should be the nominee or talking about any candidate who doesn't wind up being the nominee is a second that is not being utilized to maximum advantage. What's more, whatever time is left in the brokered convention after they finally do figure out who the nominee will be (assuming there is any of this time) can't be planned by that nominee's campaign the same way a non-brokered convention would be. So that's all very bad.

    Secondly, there is a cost to a party having an ugly fight on national television over who their nominee is going to be. Part of the reason that tough primary battles over the nomination aren't as damaging to eventual nominees as some would like to think they are is that the majority of voters are not paying attention to election news in February or March. However, the conventions (along with the debates) are one of the two points in the general election cycle when voters who aren't political junkies start really paying attention and deciding who to vote for. If a party is on national TV fighting amongst itself, airing dirty laundry, etc., there are a certain percentage of voters who will be actively turned off by that and will either stay home or vote for the other guy because of it.

    Third, in addition to those convention-specific problems, there is another cost in that the party cannot begin its general election campaign early. In a typical election cycle, the presumptive nominees are decided in mid-March if not earlier. Thus, the presumptive nominee is able to spend all of the time before the convention (the remainder of March, April, May, June, July, and a large portion of August) fundraising for the general election, running general election ads, getting his name recognition up, lining up the endorsements of political figures and issue groups, building his grassroots network and voter turnout operations, making appearances in battleground states, bashing the other guy, talking about how awesome he is, etc. The value of this time should be obvious. This party-building time is particularly important for Republicans this year, however, for two reasons:
    (1) They are running against the incumbent President, who will have an advantage in this area no matter who he is; and
    (2) The incumbent President they are running against is Barack Obama, whose 2008 campaign had the best organization in modern political history.
    However, if there is a brokered convention, the candidates instead have to spend all that time actually campaigning in the remaining contests and wheedling with party insiders to get an edge on the secondary ballots that will decide who the nominee is. It should then go without saying that their post-convention organization efforts will be rushed and probably severely deficient.

    Fourthly, there is a real risk that a brokered convention, particularly in this year with these candidates, would result in a fracturing of the party that would be very damaging for the general election. In this year, if there is a brokered convention it will almost certainly mean that the conservative base of the party does not want Mitt Romney as its nominee; they will not accept him, and they're willing to fight all the way through August in an attempt to ensure it doesn't happen. What would happen, then, if Mitt actually became the nominee at the convention? (As an aside, I think that would be the most likely result; brokered conventions are decided by party insiders and Mitt's lead with them seems ironclad at this point.) Would conservatives actually turn out for him in November? Would they do the organizational work that's so vital to success in Presidential elections? Might they even go so far as to support a Gingrich or Santorum third-party candidacy? These are very serious questions that Romney would face.

    Likewise, say Santorum became the nominee at a brokered convention. Would moderates, both within the party and outside, be turned off by the hard-right positions he would have had to take to hold conservatives? Would the big-money people, who have been squarely in Romney's camp, come over to Santorum or work as hard for him as they would Romney?

    I think the problem of fracture is particularly more troublesome for Republicans because their general coalition is a rather unstable one. The Reagan Coalition that built the modern Republican party is made up of
    (1) Working-class whites who support nativist, protectionist policies designed to protect their industries and jobs from both foreign marketplace competition and immigrant labor competition
    (2) The Religious Right, who are primarily concerned with instituting a Christian theocracy and are very concerned with "social" and "culture wars" issues
    (3) The Chamber of Commerce Republicans, who favor "pro-business" tax policies, regulatory policies, and labor policies, along with tax breaks for their class of income-earners
    (4) Foreign policy conservatives, who want a "strong military" and etc
    (5) Libertarians, who just don't like taxes or laws in general.
    There is a widely-held view (if not a consensus) among political scientists that this coalition is inherently unstable and requires a really strong figure (like Reagan) to hold it together. In this view, the further we get temporally from the memory of Reagan - as invoking his name loses its power - the Republican party becomes more likely to actually disintegrate into a number of small parties. A brokered convention might just be the catalyst that causes this bubbling, barely-below-surface disharmony to boil over and destroy the party in a particularly irreparable way, and we might have decades of Democratic dominance in national politics before there is (A) a figure who can put Humpty Dumpty back together again or (B) a new party can emerge with broad enough appeal to challenge for national supremacy.

    So, yeah, the Republican powers-that-be probably want to avoid that.

    edit: I guess I didn't get perma and write a short reply lol

     
    Originally Posted by dolphin13 View Post

    Alright, time to get back on track.

    LS

    Do you think this Santorum bounce after his sweep is just temporary. He went from being down to Michigan to holding a pretty healthy lead. I looked into those Ohio poll numbers posted on 538 and they can pretty much be discounted. They were taken back in Jan. I'd imagine Santorum would be leading in Ohio polls. Maybe Gingrich does get out after Super Tuesday and it becomes a two-man race


    I'm really not sure how temporary or permanent Santorum's bounce is. It should last for at least a little while because there really aren't any opportunities for Romney or Gingrich to change the narrative between now and the end of the month (although Romney did a little bit of that in winning Maine and the CPAC vote, it would've been bad for him to lose those things). It's all going to depend on if Santorum can raise enough money between now and Super Tuesday to compete on a really broad, national level on Super Tuesday. It looks like Santorum got a bit of a boost in that regard last week (three straight million-dollar days) but he has to accelerate his pace if he wants to sustain this bump. And a significant problem for him is that he is still perceived as being thoroughly unelectable because of his hard-right social positions. So, it's going to be interesting to see how this goes. I think the one thing we've learned is that Rick Santorum is really, really good at retail politics...the question is, can he compete at a wholesale level?

    If you want a more definitive, simpler answer than that then my primary thought is that Romney is still a significant favorite for the nomination and will remain so unless he loses Michigan. So, in that sense, I think the Santorum infatuation is temporary at least in the sense that I doubt he'll be the nominee when all is said and done. It's not impossible though, which is just really fucking weird.

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Were George Bush devotees dipshits?

    **TV Announcer Voice**
    If you would like Lord Supremo to reply:

    "George Bush had devotees??"

    Send a PM with the letter "A" to Underdog34!

    If you would like Lord Supremo to reply:

    "Yes, but not for that reason"

    Send a PM with the letter "B" to p00pymcp00perton!

    Polling is only open for the next 20 minutes, so hurry up and vote now!
    Edited By: Lord Supremo Feb 14th, 2012 at 08:15 PM
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  13. LOL. Here is a decent article on what someone thinks the affect Ron Paul will have.

     

    A strong run for the nomination—with a hefty portion of delegates—gives him the power he needs to make his mark on one of the most important things to come out of the convention—the party platform. With a stamp on the GOP mission, Ron Paul doesn’t need to win high office—his ideas will pulse outward from within the Republican Party itself, and the Ron Paul Revolution will become another part of the GOP establishment.

    http://prospect.org/article/ron-pauls-endgame
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  14. lol at anyone who thinks party platforms mean anything in 2012.
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  15.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    lol at anyone who thinks party platforms mean anything in 2012.

    True in the sense that the official platform doesn't matter. However, in the sense that people inside the party are adopting some of his ideas, it matters. For example, Rush Limbaugh stating that Ron Paul's budget plan is a good idea. Paul Ryan starting to come on board to a policy of a gold standard. Newt Gingrich agreeing in the debates with Ron Paul that medical care needs to work more like a market. More people coming around to the idea of auditing or even ending the Fed. These are things that wouldn't have even been considered without Ron Paul running and getting the amount of support he is. Even some of his ideas about rethinking our role as the world policemen are gaining traction within the party. He is definitely having an affect on what kind of platform the Republican nominee will be running on.
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  16. there is only one party platform... the demipublican one that has been churning shit into more shit for my whole lifetime

    when the blurring of the lines becomes so staggering one is left with little to do but decide that both 'parties' want the same things by their actions

    what we have really learned is that words mean nothing in politics anymore

    nothing

    transparency

    T
    R
    A
    N
    S
    P
    A
    R
    E
    N
    C
    Y
    transparency

    perhaps words never meant anything anyway
    Add jesterwords to Rail
  17. So LS is saying the GOP leadership (the establishment) will have the party avoid the political process designed to be responsive to the members of its party so they can get on with their pep rally.

    I have been elected as a delegate to our county assembly, if I get enough votes I can then go to the state convention and if I get elected there I can go to Tampa. I think I'm going to try so I can attempt be a fly in the ointment.

    Wish me luck. I'm going in!
    Add Willywoo to Rail
  18. good luck Mr. Woo - and god speed (don't know what that means but that's what they say in the movies i think).
    Add saxman to Rail
  19.  
    Originally Posted by Lord Supremo View Post

    ugh, I was in the middle of typing a long response then accidentally deleted it all. I'll see if I can reproduce it, but I might just get perma and write a short reply.

    First, modern political conventions exist primarily so that parties can have three days of free primetime TV coverage with which they can extol the virtues of their candidate (and bash the other guy) directly to the voters, with minimal filtering by media. They are entirely produced and run by the campaigns of the nominee so that every speaker, every speech, every atmospheric detail, every everything goes toward the message that they are trying to get out. And conventions are exceptionally effective at this; I'm sure you've heard of the "convention bounce" whereby the nominee of a party gets a bump in the polls directly after the convention. Interestingly, this effect is even more important for Republicans, as their convention bounce tends to be about 2-3 points bigger than the bounce Democrats get. But if there's a brokered convention, the convention doesn't get to have that use. Every second of convention airtime spent running ballots or arguing over who should be the nominee or talking about any candidate who doesn't wind up being the nominee is a second that is not being utilized to maximum advantage. What's more, whatever time is left in the brokered convention after they finally do figure out who the nominee will be (assuming there is any of this time) can't be planned by that nominee's campaign the same way a non-brokered convention would be. So that's all very bad.

    Secondly, there is a cost to a party having an ugly fight on national television over who their nominee is going to be. Part of the reason that tough primary battles over the nomination aren't as damaging to eventual nominees as some would like to think they are is that the majority of voters are not paying attention to election news in February or March. However, the conventions (along with the debates) are one of the two points in the general election cycle when voters who aren't political junkies start really paying attention and deciding who to vote for. If a party is on national TV fighting amongst itself, airing dirty laundry, etc., there are a certain percentage of voters who will be actively turned off by that and will either stay home or vote for the other guy because of it.

    Third, in addition to those convention-specific problems, there is another cost in that the party cannot begin its general election campaign early. In a typical election cycle, the presumptive nominees are decided in mid-March if not earlier. Thus, the presumptive nominee is able to spend all of the time before the convention (the remainder of March, April, May, June, July, and a large portion of August) fundraising for the general election, running general election ads, getting his name recognition up, lining up the endorsements of political figures and issue groups, building his grassroots network and voter turnout operations, making appearances in battleground states, bashing the other guy, talking about how awesome he is, etc. The value of this time should be obvious. This party-building time is particularly important for Republicans this year, however, for two reasons:
    (1) They are running against the incumbent President, who will have an advantage in this area no matter who he is; and
    (2) The incumbent President they are running against is Barack Obama, whose 2008 campaign had the best organization in modern political history.
    However, if there is a brokered convention, the candidates instead have to spend all that time actually campaigning in the remaining contests and wheedling with party insiders to get an edge on the secondary ballots that will decide who the nominee is. It should then go without saying that their post-convention organization efforts will be rushed and probably severely deficient.

    Fourthly, there is a real risk that a brokered convention, particularly in this year with these candidates, would result in a fracturing of the party that would be very damaging for the general election. In this year, if there is a brokered convention it will almost certainly mean that the conservative base of the party does not want Mitt Romney as its nominee; they will not accept him, and they're willing to fight all the way through August in an attempt to ensure it doesn't happen. What would happen, then, if Mitt actually became the nominee at the convention? (As an aside, I think that would be the most likely result; brokered conventions are decided by party insiders and Mitt's lead with them seems ironclad at this point.) Would conservatives actually turn out for him in November? Would they do the organizational work that's so vital to success in Presidential elections? Might they even go so far as to support a Gingrich or Santorum third-party candidacy? These are very serious questions that Romney would face.

    Likewise, say Santorum became the nominee at a brokered convention. Would moderates, both within the party and outside, be turned off by the hard-right positions he would have had to take to hold conservatives? Would the big-money people, who have been squarely in Romney's camp, come over to Santorum or work as hard for him as they would Romney?

    I think the problem of fracture is particularly more troublesome for Republicans because their general coalition is a rather unstable one. The Reagan Coalition that built the modern Republican party is made up of
    (1) Working-class whites who support nativist, protectionist policies designed to protect their industries and jobs from both foreign marketplace competition and immigrant labor competition
    (2) The Religious Right, who are primarily concerned with instituting a Christian theocracy and are very concerned with "social" and "culture wars" issues
    (3) The Chamber of Commerce Republicans, who favor "pro-business" tax policies, regulatory policies, and labor policies, along with tax breaks for their class of income-earners
    (4) Foreign policy conservatives, who want a "strong military" and etc
    (5) Libertarians, who just don't like taxes or laws in general.
    There is a widely-held view (if not a consensus) among political scientists that this coalition is inherently unstable and requires a really strong figure (like Reagan) to hold it together. In this view, the further we get temporally from the memory of Reagan - as invoking his name loses its power - the Republican party becomes more likely to actually disintegrate into a number of small parties. A brokered convention might just be the catalyst that causes this bubbling, barely-below-surface disharmony to boil over and destroy the party in a particularly irreparable way, and we might have decades of Democratic dominance in national politics before there is (A) a figure who can put Humpty Dumpty back together again or (B) a new party can emerge with broad enough appeal to challenge for national supremacy.

    So, yeah, the Republican powers-that-be probably want to avoid that.

    edit: I guess I didn't get perma and write a short reply lol




    I'm really not sure how temporary or permanent Santorum's bounce is. It should last for at least a little while because there really aren't any opportunities for Romney or Gingrich to change the narrative between now and the end of the month (although Romney did a little bit of that in winning Maine and the CPAC vote, it would've been bad for him to lose those things). It's all going to depend on if Santorum can raise enough money between now and Super Tuesday to compete on a really broad, national level on Super Tuesday. It looks like Santorum got a bit of a boost in that regard last week (three straight million-dollar days) but he has to accelerate his pace if he wants to sustain this bump. And a significant problem for him is that he is still perceived as being thoroughly unelectable because of his hard-right social positions. So, it's going to be interesting to see how this goes. I think the one thing we've learned is that Rick Santorum is really, really good at retail politics...the question is, can he compete at a wholesale level?

    If you want a more definitive, simpler answer than that then my primary thought is that Romney is still a significant favorite for the nomination and will remain so unless he loses Michigan. So, in that sense, I think the Santorum infatuation is temporary at least in the sense that I doubt he'll be the nominee when all is said and done. It's not impossible though, which is just really fucking weird.



    **TV Announcer Voice**
    If you would like Lord Supremo to reply:

    "George Bush had devotees??"

    Send a PM with the letter "A" to Underdog34!

    If you would like Lord Supremo to reply:

    "Yes, but not for that reason"

    Send a PM with the letter "B" to p00pymcp00perton!

    Polling is only open for the next 20 minutes, so hurry up and vote now!

    Sorry for another question. So given how the "high brass" in the republican (and democratic) party operate, do you think that they have the best interest of the American people in the forefront of their minds?

     
    Originally Posted by Willywoo View Post

    So LS is saying the GOP leadership (the establishment) will have the party avoid the political process designed to be responsive to the members of its party so they can get on with their pep rally.

    I have been elected as a delegate to our county assembly, if I get enough votes I can then go to the state convention and if I get elected there I can go to Tampa. I think I'm going to try so I can attempt be a fly in the ointment.

    Wish me luck. I'm going in!

    You are the man. GL Woo
    Add MustbeMoore to Rail
  20.  
    Originally Posted by Geoff Moore View Post

    Sorry for another question. So given how the "high brass" in the republican (and democratic) party operate, do you think that they have the best interest of the American people in the forefront of their minds?

    I mean, idk. They have winning elections at the forefront of their mind, but that might well be synonymous with "the best interest of the American people" from a number of different perspectives. There's the democratic perspective, there's the "the other guy would be terrible for the country so it's important for the country that we beat him" perspective, and then there's always the chance that parties think their policies/candidates would be good for the country, and getting them elected is important for that reason. So, yeah, I think "they have the best interest of the American people in the forefront of their minds" is at least a plausible proposition.
    Edited By: Lord Supremo Feb 15th, 2012 at 03:41 AM
    Add Lord Supremo to Rail
  21.  
    Originally Posted by Willywoo View Post

    So LS is saying the GOP leadership (the establishment) will have the party avoid the political process designed to be responsive to the members of its party so they can get on with their pep rally.

    I have been elected as a delegate to our county assembly, if I get enough votes I can then go to the state convention and if I get elected there I can go to Tampa. I think I'm going to try so I can attempt be a fly in the ointment.

    Wish me luck. I'm going in!

    makes me wish i lived in a caucus state

    instead, i put my vote in an envelope and dropped it in a mailbox
     2
    Add warden to Rail
  22. New polls out. 538 has Santorum leading Romney by 9 points in Michigan and 7.5 points in Ohio.
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  23. Obama just licked his lips a bit like LL Cool J, looked at the camera and smirked.

    Rick, "the conservative" is gonna get fucking hammered.
    Add jesterwords to Rail
  24. Good post ls.

    Does anyone else find it mindnumbingly absurd that an idiot like Rick santorum actually has a real chance of being president?

    I'm jean luc picard'ing.
    Add phish42O to Rail
  25. Good article by Silver on the Santorum surge

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  26. Santorum getting a lot more attention over the past few days. The numbers show Romney gaining a little ground in Michigan (Santorum up two points) but strangely enough, Santorum is gaining on Romney in Arizona (Romney up 4.5). Santorum still has a big lead in Ohio but I still think the key is Michigan. He needs to take momentum into Super Tuesday
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  27. Momentum has meant nothing so far, why would it matter now?
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  28.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Momentum has meant nothing so far, why would it matter now?

    Because you're looking at it wrong. With the candidates we have this year momentum means nothing going from Iowa to New Hampshire or New Hampshire to South Carolina or South Carolina to Florida/Nevada or Florida/Nevada to Colorado, Missou and Minny. The calendar set up has stifled momentum so far. But momentum gained from Colo/Missou/Minny and then carries to Michigan can be carried into Ohio. it's just how certain states are.

    Would you say Ohio is more like Michigan or would you say Ohio is more like Alabama or Tenn. or Georgia??
    Edited By: dolphin13 Feb 21st, 2012 at 05:09 AM
    Thread StarterAdd dolphin13 to Rail
  29. You just make that up? That makes absolutely no sense. Nevada should have definitely given momentum into Colorado. Florida should have given momentum in to Maine.
    Edited By: Dyzalot Feb 21st, 2012 at 05:13 AM
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  30. OT has become a surreal caricature of itself inside of itself

    much like an Escher drawing but only with hyperbole
    Add jesterwords to Rail