68
   

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

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 12:25 pm
@spendius,
Delegates "in the pocket" is more then a bit nebulous because of the way the allocation goes. The chart I follow has Mitt at 77 with Newt at 27. Santorum has 8 and Paul is at 6.
1144 are needed to secure the nomination.
March 6th (Super Tuesday) is the day to watch.
Thanks for following, by the way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 01:23 pm
@spendius,
All that could change at the convention, so nothing is set into cement.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 01:56 pm
I am today discarding my notes about Nevada. I have a couple left, though.
That state has the highest unemployment and home foreclosure rates in the country. Yet the turnout in the Republican caucuses was down. One would think that Nevada would be ripe for Obama bashing regarding the economy.
I have no doubt that the economy will likely still be the number one issue come November. But it seems to me (a Democrat) that the Republicans should be wary of, as Obama said, "mucking things up" in Congress and the campaign.
Entrance polls from Nevada: Age 18-29: 8%; 30-44: 15%; 45-64: 43% and 65+:
35%.
Self described Repubs- Romney: 56%; Gingrich: 21%; Paul: 13%, Santorum: 10%.
Self described Independents- Paul: 46%. Romney: 28%
88% of Mormons and 48% of Catholics voted for Romney while 54% of those professing no religious affiliation intended to vote for Paul.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:02 pm
@realjohnboy,
Interesting stats, but I just wonder why the younger voters are so low? Do you have any demographics by age on Nevada? I would think the younger generation will vote democratic.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I suspect that the age demographics skew towards older residents. I also think that the Nevada caucus system is not particularly appealing to younger people who believe that they have better things to do with their time.
In 2008, while 44,000 people turned out for the Republican thing, 116,000 showed up at the Democrat event. Obama lost to Hillary but carried the state in November over McCain by, as I recall, 12%.
Nevada (with 6 electoral votes) is on my list of toss-ups but I am thinking about moving it to Leans Democrat.
The unemployment numbers are spongy at best and the Repubs can still milk that, perhaps. They need, in my mind, to think very seriously about social issues.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:26 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
That state has the highest unemployment and home foreclosure rates in the country. Yet the turnout in the Republican caucuses was down.

I think that reflects the real lack of excitement that any of the candidates are generating.
Quote:
One would think that Nevada would be ripe for Obama bashing regarding the economy.

That may reflect itself in the vote in November, if things haven't improved by then, but it's much less of a factor in a primary.

Nevada's economy depends heavily on tourism. As the over-all economy of the country continues to improve, that source of Nevada's revenue will improve, and it will help the job market and the local economy. And the people of Nevada may realize that this will just take time, and, as long as the economic news continues to be going in the right direction, as it has been, that may tone down the desire to Obama-bash at the polls.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:32 pm
@firefly,
Good observation; as the employment picture improves across the country, people will help the tourism industry in the state by traveling there in increasing numbers.

There's an interesting article in this morning's newspaper about more people in the bay area that owns homes worth a $million or more are increasingly going broke and into foreclosure. We don't have that worry, because our home is fully paid off.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think the younger voters in Nevada tended to vote for Paul.

Newt is apparently bombing out big time with women voters. It's not only his marriage track record, it's also the fact that he's not concentrating on the issues which are traditionally important to female voters.

And Gingrich's wife is also a public reminder of his infidelity. Maureen Dowd offered her take on the significance of Callista.
Quote:
The New York Times
February 4, 2012
The Great Man’s Wife
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

IF you want to figure out why Newt Gingrich is still out there grasping for lost power, howling at the moon like King Lear, look to Callista.

You can find her anytime standing statue-still on stage next to Newt as he speaks, gazing at him with such frozen attentiveness that she could give a master class to Nancy Reagan.

Ann Romney often introduces her husband, chatting warmly about his uxorious virtues, and then disappears offstage or to the back of the stage while he talks. But the 45-year-old Callista has created an entirely new model for a spouse, standing mute in her primary color suits and triple-strand pearls looking at the 68-year-old Newt for the whole event, her platinum carapace inclined deferentially toward his shaggy gray mane.

“She’s a transformational wife,” Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist, told me. “She’s the wife who makes the candidate think he is destiny’s gift to mankind, born to greater things.”

While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff.

Castellanos weaves the common tale of a “great but frustrated” man: “The first wife, and often the second, do not grasp his brilliance or grandeur. The starter wives try to confine him in their small world. But his drive to fulfill his gargantuan potential is too powerful. He rebelliously breaks conventions.

“Then he finds the muse who sees him as he sees himself. He is a man of history and belongs to something larger. She agrees that his rejections have been the fault of the audience. They cannot stare into a light so bright. She directs and channels him, saying, ‘This is what you have to do to achieve your destiny.’

“Now he is unleashed. The best and worst of him have been fed and watered.”

The Republican establishment is chasing Newt around the country with a butterfly net. But when he looks into Callista’s bright blue eyes, he’s reminded of his adolescent dreams of exploring galaxies and saving civilization.

When Barack is cocky and looks at Michelle, he might see her thinking: “You’re no messiah. Pick up your socks.” But when Newt is cocky and looks at Callista, he sees her thinking: “You are the messiah. We’ll have your socks bronzed.”

Where Michelle sees herself as the puncturer of delusions, “the Department of ‘Let’s Get Real,’ ” as an aide called her, Callista reinforces Newt’s delusion that he can be president — even when the staff quit en masse last June because he put pampering her above campaigning.

In business, the Transformational Wife is less complicated. In politics, she’s a double-edged spouse. She feeds his ego like a goose destined for pâté, but drains support among some women and some evangelicals who disapprove of a man who keeps trading in wives, even sick ones.

At the Texas meeting of evangelicals last month, one of the leaders, James Dobson, questioned whether Callista, “a mistress for eight years,” as he put it, would make a good first lady.

Gingrich’s plaint that his passion to save the country may have led him to give in to more corporeal passions did not persuade the women of Florida, who favored the Mitt-bot over him by a 24-point margin. One indignant woman I interviewed at a church in Columbia, S.C., where Newt was speaking, hurrumphed that Callista was “his Barbie.”

Draped in Tiffany diamonds, Callista is the embodiment of the divide between Gingrich’s public piety and private immorality.

Gingrich’s communications director, Joe DeSantis, has airbrushed Callista’s Wikipedia page 23 times since 2008, often to banish unflattering details from the site, according to BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski.

DeSantis edited the introduction, taking out the fact that she is “the third wife of,” and excising the sentence, “She met her husband while he was in the House, and had an affair while he was conducting the impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton.”

As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reported, the top Google search for Gingrich in Florida during the primary there was “Callista,” right up there with “Newt wives” and “Newt scandals.”

That may be why she has a largely nonspeaking role in the campaign, as silent as the slender heroine of “The Artist,” even though Newt relays that she has described herself as a hybrid of Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush and Jackie Kennedy. The campaign does not want to remind voters that the relationship, portrayed as so redemptive, was born in sin and hypocrisy.

There’s always a chance, of course, that Callista is not staring so intently at Newt to make him feel more Napoleonic. Maybe she just doesn’t want to let him out of her sight.

As the maxim goes, “When a man marries his mistress, he creates a job opening.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:53 pm
@firefly,
Brutal article from Dowd.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 02:55 pm
@firefly,
Thanks for sharing that article. It's a wonderment to me that women still will vote for Newt - the wife changer. Newt must have some qualities that men just can't see! LOL
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 03:25 pm


America, Elect Anyone but Obama!
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Thanks for sharing that article. It's a wonderment to me that women still will vote for Newt - the wife changer. Newt must have some qualities that men just can't see! LOL


I'd guess it's been years since HE'S seen it
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:12 pm
@firefly,
I think Ms Dowd is slightly miffed at not being able to ham it up as good as Callista can.

No woman sees a man as he sees himself.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:13 pm
Romney wins Nevada with a HUGE landslide. At least Ron Paul beat Santorum. Honestly, does any rational person think Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich can beat Barack Obama? Disclaimer: if you voted for Bush/Cheney or McCain/Palin, you are not rational and your opinion does not count. Cool
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:16 pm
@jcboy,
Your "disclaimer" is spot on! LOL
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:16 pm
@realjohnboy,
Meantime, I've gotten the first in a probable long series of emails pro Romney from my cousin's husband, bless'm. I like the man, even love him for his good self. There is no use at all in our arguing about politics (he used to do that with my hub, they had great conversations. He's the one who was the birtcher, back in the day).

I'll wait and see, but I expect to have to write one of those every few years emails re don't send me political stuff.

I'm the opposite of cyclo - I don't want to read up extensively on sites I disagree with. I find that admirable from either side, but life is short and art is longer.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:33 pm
@firefly,
Thanks for that, Firefly. I don't read Dowd anymore since I closely watch my nyt clicks. and abominably, I tend to choose the frugal traveler, some arts stuff, and some recipes before politics. Even I, wild eyed left etcetera, have eschewed several, even many, Dowd columns re her writing tactics. However, I'm glad she's there and writing.

So, now to go see your quote...

(adds before reading, I really do not care who a candidate or president so called sleeps with. I agree it can be a signal for high stupidity, but it's not the basis for my concerns)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:43 pm

I clearly remember 1968:
Governor George Wallace was beating Hubert Humphrey by 3:1 in the polls.
Nixon was beating Gov. Wallace by 2:1 in those polls.

On Election Day, we did not know (with certainty) the result until 11:00 in the morning,
the next day. It was that close between Nixon and Humphrey,
but the clever denizens of A2K think that THAY know for sure
what the result will be before the general election has even begun
and while even the GOP candidacy is a wide open possibility.

O, the WISDOM, the prescience on A2K! (SUPERNATURAL!)





David
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 04:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I salute you for your powers of discernment David. we ARE geenyus' here at A2K, no doubt about it Mr. Green
 

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/01/2025 at 10:08:54