68
   

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

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 07:38 pm
@JPB,
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is politically, intellectually and creatively very much up to whatever either the empty suit (Romney) or the scorched-earth blowhard (Gingrich) throw at him, and then some. Add to that if the unemployment numbers get down to anywhere around 8.0, and I think it's definitely advantage - Obama.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 07:42 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
But, if he can't counteract that then we'll get the government (President) we deserve.


It has always been so, JPB, and that won't change until y'all show a little gumption and state, unequivocably, that war criminals/terrorists have no place as the US's top officials.

But as you've noted, the affects have been a bit better for you than they have been for the poor of the world.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 07:45 pm
@JTT,
Yes, we (collectively) are the 1% to the rest of the world.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 07:56 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Yes, we (collectively) are the 1% to the rest of the world.


Yes and if we could stop all of these wars and work with our enemies, the rest of the world along with us could even be more wealthy. At least this is how I see it.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:12 pm
Brutal.
Gingrich: 40.6%; Romney: 26.4%; Santorum: 17.8%; Paul: 13.4%
Romney only carries the Charleston and Columbia areas.
Delegates to Newt big time.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:15 pm
@realjohnboy,
This is a very big development.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:16 pm
@snood,
Dare I worry that unemployment can or will be rigged?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:20 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Dare I worry that unemployment can or will be rigged?


You can count on it not being accurate.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
However, wasn't South Carolina penalized by losing half of their delegates because they moved their primary date forward?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:23 pm
It was during the Reagan administration that members of the armed forces were included in employment figures to "reduce" the unemployment rate as a percentage. I suspect that those figures have been unreliable ever since, no matter who was in the White House.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:29 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I don't think I agree with that, Finn. Romney will win FL handily, I think, and he will probably win the 1144 Republican delegates needed to clinch the nomination prior to the convention. Unless either Gingrich or Santorum pull out, which strikes me as unlikely.
We have to watch the delegate count in the next 6 weeks.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:32 pm
@realjohnboy,
It can be a big development even if Romney still wins the nomination, though.

A long-contested race means more time for the various candidates to try to tear each other down, doing the Democrats' work for them.

The 2008 Dem race was long-contested, but has two important differences.

#1, the Republicans were doing it at the same time.

#2, there was a lot more POSITIVE emotion about the two candidates (Hillary and Obama, both in and of themselves and what they stood for) than there is positive emotion towards any of these candidates.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:33 pm
@Setanta,
They still have 25 delegates after losing 25. I think.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:36 pm
@realjohnboy,
Yes, I just saw that somewhere. Gingrich is on pace to get 21 out of the 25.

Here we go:

Quote:
In total, Mr. Gingrich is likely to win at least five of seven Congressional districts tonight, which would give him at least 21 of the state's 25 delegates. And he could get a clean sweep.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/live-coverage-of-the-south-carolina-primary/
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:37 pm
Losing SC is, obviously, not a good deal for Romney but it isn't fatal.

If he hangs out relatively close to Gingrich, he can spin it about Newt's skillful tactic of transfering the damage of his marital infidelities to the MSM.

It's disappointing that Newt's blatant strategy seems to have worked, but that's how it goes.

Newt is driven to assume a pominent historical position equal to that of Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. Should he win the presidency (which he won't) we can rely upon him to spend his first four years in advancing all sorts of crazy ideas. Two will probably be magnificent but the other eight will be ineffective or disastrous.

And yet as much as a train wreck Gingrich wil be , I will vote for him rather than Obama whose ideas break down to 10 out of 10 as ineffective an disaterous.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Newt is driven to assume a pominent historical position equal to that of Washington, Lincoln and Reagan.


Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't beat this place for comic relief.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  5  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Pardon me from assuming you don't believe charges that the US MSM is driven by a libral bias. I'm sure you have never made such short leaps to conclusions about conservatives. Convenient outrage is quite hollow.

In any case, tell me you agree that the US MSM is driven by a liberal bias, and I will not only apologize to your for an erroneous assumption, but will have learned a good lesson about generalization.

No hedging allowed. You do or you don't.


You are in pre-senile dementia aren't you? I wasn't commenting on US MSM - I don't even know what it stands for - neither does google, I looked.

If you read - and comprehend, what I posted I was saying that your statement that Gingrich would get a bounce from the Republican distrust of 'liberal' media was a good call - and we were proved right. Specifically the point you made was that Gingrich was not out to win Soz's vote and did not need it to secure the R nomination. So I asked you, civilly, if Gingrich got the repub nomination how the same tactic would fare when he needed to win the votes of non-republicans to secure the presidency. The word 'nonsense' or any of its synonyms were not used.

That you paint all your perceived foes with the same brush diminishes my respect for you more than your opinions. But I guess it's easier than thinking.

Shine on.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:53 pm
Question> Does every state have a primary or only a selected few?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 08:56 pm
@Ceili,
A few states, as does Iowa, hold caucuses--that effectively means that only party members participate. Some states have open primaries, which means anybody can vote in a party's primary, but once they have done so, they may not vote in any other party's primary. Other states require that voters register as a supporter of a particular party, and they may only vote in that party's primary. I'll go see what i can find. A few years back (2008? 2004?--i don't recall), a member from Iowa described for us her particpation in the Iowa caucus. I'll see if i can find that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2012 09:02 pm
This is from the Wikipedia article on primaries and caucuses:

Quote:
Both major political parties of the U.S. - the Democratic Party and the Republican Party - officially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions. Each of these conventions are attended by a number of delegates selected in accordance with the given party's bylaws.

Both parties operate with two types of delegates: pledged and unpledged. The group of unpledged delegates, generally comprising current and former elected officeholders and party leaders, are free to vote for any candidate they wish at the convention. The group of pledged delegates, comprising delegates representing the party committee of each state, are expected to vote in accordance with the rules of their state party.

Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may be voting to actually award delegates bound to vote for a particular candidate at the state or national convention, or they may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention.

In recent elections, the eventual nominees were known well before the actual conventions took place. The last time a major party's nominee was not clear before the convention was in 1976, when incumbent president Gerald Ford narrowly defeated Ronald Reagan.


I advise reading that article, it looks pretty good. As far as i know, Iowa, Washington, Texas, Nevada and Idaho hold caucuses. But that's just my recollection.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 01:22:19