The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

I get that...we misunderstood each other.



Do you think capturing or killing bin Laden was not a high priority of the Bush Administration?

I appreciate that you believe you recall reading that Obama rebuilt a leaky intelligence program after taking office, but I hope you understand that I'm not going to accept that as fact without evidence. This is in no way to question your honesty, I just think the claim is wrong.

In any case, I'm not denying Obama credit for bin Laden's demise. I never said that everything he's done has been a disaster.
[/quote]

They might be, if her numbers were correct.

Followed your link, thanks, got more info.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/new-hampshire-primary-jan-10/exit-polls

45% were registered as independents/undeclared.

53% were registered as Republican.

2% were unregistered at all.

So let's run those numbers.

234,851 voted in 2008, of which 37% were independents. That's 86,895 independent voters. If we say that the same 2% were not registered at all, 61% were Republicans, or 143,259.

This year, 242,585 people voted. 53% of them were registered as Republican, or 128,570.

That's not 40% off, no. Maybe he was looking at a different exit poll, or maybe later returns changed his estimate. *

Even with those numbers it's definitely fewer Republican voters, though.

Cycloptichorn, the unwillingness to call oneself Republican was already an issue in 2008 -- Bush was kryptonite at the time.

Plus, as Finn said earlier:



45% of those who voted for Romney were not registered as Republicans.




*Just found this, posted after the 40% estimate:

I think it was one of the very highest priorities, which is very pertinent.

It was a high priority, yet they messed it up. Obama did not.

Put it another way -- if it was such an easy, green-lighting kind of thing, why do you think Bush was unable to do it?

****, I dunno if it was a high priority for him. I figure if it was, maybe he wouldn't have gone on TV 6 months after 9/11 and said that he wasn't concerned about it anymore, and that it wasn't a high priority for the US anymore.

What an asshole Bush was, every now and then I forget.

Cycloptichorn

He may not have wished to. Not every president would order the execution of a foreign national without due procedure. And capturing OBL might have opened a lot of boxes that are better left closed.

As it was OBL had been neutralised already. And Pakistan had not been insulted and rendered more dangerous.

Not exactly.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-11-29-senate-report-bin-laden_N.htm

But to get things back to the Republican nomination again, here are more numbers re: turnout:



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10113509-first-thoughts-next-up-the-last-stand

In the entry for June 26, 2002, Alastair Campbell reports in his diaries GWB telling TB and AC that he thought OBL dead but daren't say so in case he popped up again.

I assume GWB was relying on intelligence.

I'm surprised at you not commenting on the moral status of the execution of a foreign national inside another country without due procedure. Or on the destabilising effect on a key ally in the War on Terror.

Personally, I'd rather be conned by the snake oil sales man than coerced by the FDA and the DEA. Cons I have to fall for, coersion happens whether me and my doctor are better-informed than the FDA or not.

There's always a first time for everything.

You get more hilarious by the minute, Spendi, if you seriously mean to consider Pakistan as "a key ally" in the war on anything. They are only barely to be trusted with anything at all.

The coercion is intended for the greatest good for the greatest number. The FDA would go loopy dealing with individual cases however large they loom to the individual.

One really can't expect to enjoy the benefits of organised society and then think individualistically.

And talk of being "harmed" by the FDA doesn't sit well with applications for US citizenship. Do in Rome and all that jazz.

Well- Andrei, however little they are trusted they remain a key ally in the region.

Hmm, I can't agree with this. But that's likely because I've read quite a lot about how harmful snake-oil salesmen really were.

Cycloptichorn

I don't understand why those not registered with a political party should even be allowed to vote in a party primary election.

The Republican party seems so internally fractured at this point that it's hard to tell who is actually speaking for the party, or which new voters would want to register as Republican.

It doesn't look like a party at all in our sense of the word.

The Dems just need to play all the attack ads currently being directed at whoever wins. If they are intended to make the candidate look bad to other Republicans imagine how they will look to the undecided.

I think the GOPers are spending their own money , making Democratic points.

Are they all running with scissors?

Now that NH is over with, Newt is over beating up on Romney, Bain Capital and capitalism.
Today he proclaims that Obama is responsible for raising the Bain issue, not him or Perry. One of his Super Pacs, though, is preparing a video on Bain that will be chopped up into commercials against Romney.

The only way to have your cake and eat it is to put your whole arm in your mouth.

A
R
T

My original assertion was that the media is deliberately trying to paint a picture of a disinterested Republican electorate. Despite your recent calculations I continue to hold this opinion. I've explained why below but you may not care to read the details.

In any case, even if assume that the media is right and that Republicans are to some extent disinterested in the primaries, that doesn't mean they will be disinterested in the general election.

We have had only two primaries thus far and there is already a general sense that Romney's nomination is inevitable. With the exception of Ron Paul, it's pretty clear that none of the other candidates can attract a sustainable following.

Someone might stay away from a primary because they feel Romney has it sewed up or there is no candidate that enthuses them, but that certainly doesn't mean that they will stay away from the general election.

Beating Obama was far and away the primary concern for NH primary voters. It certainly wasn't "Seeing Mitt Romney lead the country," or "Putting a conservative in charge." It would be better if there was a Republican candidate who fired up folks the way Obama did in 2008, but it won't prove necessary. In a sense Obama will be firing people up again in 2012, but they will be the ones who vote for anybody but him.

*********************************************************************

Assuming the 37% figure for 2008's independents/undeclared is correct, then there was an 8 point increase in independent participation in 2012 over 2008.

(Considering your source for this figure reported a drop off in Republican participation of 40%, it can't be considered authoritative)

The total number of participants increased from 2008 to 2012 by 10,522 voters or 4.5%

If your premise is correct, that Republican participation in 2012 waned from 2008 we must conclude that non-Republican participation increased.

Does that make sense to you?

You are making the case that Republican interest is down from 2008, but even if this is the case why would non-Republican interest be up?

Republicans are not excited by the 2012 candidates but non-Republicans are?

Again, assuming that your figure of 37% is correct, it seems more likely that the explanation is that the number of registered Republicans who shifted to a registered status of Independent increased in the last four years.

I don't know why people feel the need to change their registration status, but many do. However, if you change from Republican to Independent, it is most likely that you continue to lean right, just as those who switch from Democrat to Independent are most likely to continue to lean left.

Therefore there is a fair argument to be made that interest in the 2012 Republican primary by right leaning individuals remained about the same or increased since 2008.

In any case to claim that there was a 40% drop-off in Republican participation is ludicrous and would have been so even at the point when 87% of precincts had reported.

This is evidence that, at least, one media source was eager to report that Republican interest had waned, irrespective of the actual numbers. They were not alone.

Two additional points worth noting are:

1) The vote count is a real number, the party affiliation percentages are based on exit polls, not actual counts.
2) It is widely accepted that primary voter participation in a year when only one party is seeking to anoint a candidate drops.