Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#702 Feb 06 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Once they learn that Obama once didn't wear a flag pin, it'll all be over.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#703 Feb 06 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Once they learn that Obama once didn't wear a flag pin, it'll all be over.


Exactly!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#704 Feb 06 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
My favorite was when he wore a yarmulke.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#705 Feb 06 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

While I agree in this specific case, I think that's more wishful thinking on your part. Same with your "GOP needs to hope for higher unemployment" bit earlier. It's about what you hope the GOP does, not about what would actually be the better choice for them to do. The reality is that the left uses a constant repetitive message to affect people's opinions. The specifics don't matter, of course, but the general feel of what is said and how that affects perceptions of candidates in a race absolutely does.


What the **** are you on about? I know what the GOP will do, it's not a secret. Obstruct as much as possible legislatively and hope things don't get better economically before November. That's the strategy. That's why you nominate Romney.

If voters perceive the economy is getting better, it's over. You understand that, right? Without the economic fear aspect it's Donnie Osmond on stage with Elvis in one debate and that's the end of the election.


They wont parrot the line Romney said, but they will play on the perception that is created by those things. And you can bet that over the next 6 months, the liberal media will not stop finding every way they can to remind the public over and over that Romney is wealthy and doesn't like poor people. And he eats puppies!


What perception? That the son of a millionaire Governor, handed every privilege possible his entire life, who leveraged his families contacts and wealth into a successful private equity career might not have a good handle on the problems of the working class? Perish the thought that narrative gets repeated.

Romney is a nice guy. I've met him in passing a few times. I've worked with Bain, they're a above board ethical company. For a private equity company they're ******* saints.

Here's the thing, though. Nice as he is, he's the classic "little boy lost". He doesn't know what to do with his life, he's never known. He got into Stanford because of who his father was. He spent his LDS mission time in Paris because of who his father was. He was able to find Bain because of who his fathers was. He ran for Governor because of who his father was.

He clearly wants to be President, it's FAR FAR FAR less clear why. He doesn't seem very passionate about, well, anything. Surpassing his father maybe? Maybe being president finally raises him above his old man? I genuinely have no idea why he's running.

I like the guy, I really do. If he moved next door, I'd have a beer with him. Well, I'd have a beer and he'd have whatever magic underpants drinkers have, I guess. Soda? (Ok, I'd have a 2001 Napa Cab, happy?).

He's hard to actively dislike, but also hard to be that enthusiastic about. Anger with Obama works great when things are perceived as hard. When things are perceived as getting better, what's going to motivate GOP voters? I mean, don't get me wrong, you'll always have racism. God knows the GOP is the party of homicidal racists nationwide. You might get a little traction from the God thing, itself, but beyond that, what? If the economy improves you lose women by a large margin. There just aren't enough white men and Mormons in the country to win this thing if there's less fear.

You should pray, every night, that unemployment is in the high 8s in November, otherwise the demographics are really really hard for the GOP in a national race. With the wrong VP or particularly favorable economic conditions, you lose the house, as well.

The whole plan has to been obstruct everything until the election and pin the lack of improvement on Obama. Again, this is openly commented about by GOP politicians, strategists, everyone. How do you idiots claim credit if things turn around? Say you obstructed things that would have been harmful, I guess?

Good luck with that. That and the 17% of the minority vote you're going to get in Florida will buy you another 4 years out of power.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#706 Feb 07 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
You know what the problem with all that is Smash? You're proceeding from the assumption that Democrat economic policies work. Thus, you assume that GOP obstruction since the 2010 election has been designed to hinder recovery, and more of the same is a desperate ploy to keep recovery from happening so as to pin failure on Obama. That's a nice fantasy, and I totally get why you believe it (you have to). But it's wrong.

The message the GOP will sell is that the Democrats economic policies don't work. Their policies were actively harming the economic outlook and we'd be in much much worse shape if it weren't for the GOP gaining control of the house and stopping them from doing yet more damage. Let's not forget that the GOP win in 2010 was 100% about the publics lack of faith in the Dem economic approach. So it's not like it's hard to simply continue the same message this time around.

The mediocre recovery we've had so far is because we failed to put the GOP more in control. The GOP has not been able to implement a single one of its plans to create recovery. The best it has been able to do with control of just one half of the legislature has been to prevent the Dems from continuing to make things worse. That has borne fruit so far, but if we want full recovery, we need to get rid of the disastrous and failed stimulus programs. We need to roll them back. We need to repeal Obamacare. And since the Dems have steadfastly refused to do those things with the GOP, the only way to accomplish them is to boot them out of office.


It's not hard to paint the picture in a way that puts the Dems as the obstructers of recovery. After all, things only started to get marginally better *after* the GOP took partial control of the government. Give us full control and we'll be able to put the country back on the right track. Queue music.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#707 Feb 07 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The mediocre recovery we've had so far is because we failed to put the GOP more in control.

With that messaging, I feel more confident than ever about the election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#708 Feb 07 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The GOP has not been able to implement a single one of its plans to create recovery.

I don't recall there being any, but let me guess. Cut taxes, keep the **** from getting married, and get rid of the migrant labor force?

I do remember constant warnings about all of the inflation we were going to have to suffer through because of the stimulus, the S&P ratings cut, etc. I'm going to assume the "plans" would have been about as prescient.


You're proceeding from the assumption that Democrat economic policies work.


I don't know what "Democrat economic policies" are. Keynesian economic policies obviously and demonstrably work. Real buisness cycle theory on the other hand...well again, it's predicted spikes in inflation, the inability of the US to sell bonds, etc.

Damned inconvenient when you're forced to actually test a theory you use to make policy, isn't it?

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 8:13pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#709 Feb 08 2012 at 12:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ouch. Romney 0-3 tonight and Santorum taking them all. Romney must have seen this coming (bad internal polling in CO? He was supposed to be favored there) and put out a memo this afternoon dismissing the elections' importance. While it's true the delegate selection is non-binding in these states, it's also true that, well, no one liked Romney all that much. Mathematically nothing much is changed but the image is really poor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#710 Feb 08 2012 at 2:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
The only shred of a chance for the non-romney candidates still involves all other non-romney candidates dropping out.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#711 Feb 08 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I still firmly believe that Romney will win the nomination. It increasingly seems that he'll win it without much enthusiasm. He'll have lots of money from corporate donations though so maybe what he'll lack in citizen donations and volunteers he'll make up in corporate cash and paid employees.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#712 Feb 08 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Santorum got Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota yesterday? I wasn't paying attention to the results.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#713 Feb 08 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah. Missouri and Minnesota were expected to go Santorum but Romney was well favored to win Colorado. That he got shut out by five points is pretty embarrassing.

Two of the caucuses were "nonbinding" in that the convention delegates will be chosen by the state party at a later date, theoretically using the caucus results as a guide. The other was just a joke and waste of money by the GOP -- they're holding ANOTHER election later in the year for the delegates. It's the image that no one bothered supporting Romney and the lost momentum that hurts.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 8:38am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#714 Feb 08 2012 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rather than trying to remember which "M" state has which stupid process, I'll just cut & paste:
Electoral-Vote.com wrote:
The Missouri result is simultaneously the least important and the most important of the three. It is the least important because the primary has nothing to do with the delegate selection process. The actual delegates will be chosen at a caucus in March. But it is also the most important because Newt Gingrich failed to qualify for the ballot, thus making this a one-on-one race (at least for the 85% of the Republican electorate not in love with Ron Paul) and a conservative. The result was a crushing defeat for Romney. Santorum won by 30 points, This fact is not going to be lost on anyone, but with Santorum alive again, the schism in the not-Romney camp, which was slowly coalescing around Gingrich, is going widen into a canyon again. In a certain sense that does not matter because delegates are allocated proportionally until April 1 (except for Florida), and all that matters to the conservatives is that Romney doesn't get them. After April 1, it is winner take all almost everywhere, and unless either Santorum or Gingrich drops out, Romney will simply win all the delegates with small pluralities.

Minnesota and Colorado held nonbinding caucuses yesterday. Delegates were elected to the county conventions, but they are not legally bound to support the winners of their precincts. Nevertheless, typically in a precinct caucus, each of the candidates for delegate gets to make a short speech explaining why he or she should be elected to go to the next level. In a caucus full of Santorum supporters, it is unlikely that someone who gets up there and says: "If elected, I will support Mitt Romney" is going to get many votes. So in practice, most of the delegates elected in both states are probably Santorum supporters.

The scope of the disaster for Romney shouldn't be underestimated. He lost every county in Missouri and came in third (after Santorum and Paul) in Minnesota. Romney won both states in 2008. The Minnesota loss is especially painful since former governor and former candidate Tim Pawlenty is Romney's national campaign chairman and has been very active in supporting Romney. In terms of delegates, none of this matters, but in terms of perceptions of inevitability, it weakens Romney substantially.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#715 Feb 08 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
The longer it goes, the more it sounds like an elaborate April Fools joke. Romney might as well get Kerry as a running mate for the full effect.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#716 Feb 10 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
World News Daily wrote:
WASHINGTON – For critics of Barack Obama, 2012 has been portrayed as a do-or-die year for the country – an election that will determine whether America stays on the road to European-style socialism or veers right to reclaim its positions as the most vibrant economy in the world and the home of individual liberty.

But the 2012 election is looking more like a replay of 2008 than a do-over.

The latest WND/Wenzel Poll shows none of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates has solidified the base of the party, with one in five GOP voters leaning toward support of Obama in November.

The results are from the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. The poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 1-3, 2012, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points.


I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just wondering why a Republican pollster and kookshow wingnut "paper" are pushing the story.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#717 Feb 10 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Trying to rally the troops, I reckon. Every Middlesex village and farm, and all that.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#718 Feb 10 2012 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
They'll begrudgingly rally behind Romney whoever gets the final pat on the head.

Then blame Gingrich and Santorum when they don't get the presidency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#719 Feb 10 2012 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Trying to rally the troops, I reckon. Every Middlesex village and farm, and all that.

Could be. Maybe they're afraid that enough people will stay home and want to push the message that, if you care, you'd better vote because a lot of people won't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#720 Feb 10 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
/shrug

Not terribly worried (although you never know how media spin might influence things). After the incredible showing so far, I suspect that a lot of conservatives thought "Ok. Romney's won" and didn't show up to vote in these three states for what are really somewhat meaningless processes anyway. The fervent followers of the guys in the 3rd and 4th positions, still thinking their guys could come from behind, did show up. I wouldn't read much more than that from it.

It has the potential to be a momentum killer for Romney, but Santorum just doesn't have the national appeal or recognition to be viable right now. I'm not an opponent of Santorum. I'd certainly rather have him in the slot than Gingrich. But I don't think he has the operation to get this done. And I also think he's getting the same sort of positives that each candidate has so far, right up until the media takes them seriously and give the voting public a really good look.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#721 Feb 10 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
After the incredible showing so far, I suspect that a lot of conservatives thought "Ok. Romney's won" and didn't show up to vote in these three states for what are really somewhat meaningless processes anyway. The fervent followers of the guys in the 3rd and 4th positions, still thinking their guys could come from behind, did show up. I wouldn't read much more than that from it.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#722 Feb 10 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
After the incredible showing so far, I suspect that a lot of conservatives thought "Ok. Romney's won" and didn't show up to vote in these three states for what are really somewhat meaningless processes anyway. The fervent followers of the guys in the 3rd and 4th positions, still thinking their guys could come from behind, did show up. I wouldn't read much more than that from it.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you.


My father in law really believes that Herman Cain will un-suspend his campaign just before the national convention and swoop in to rescue the GOP, riding on a white horse, at a brokered convention.
#723 Feb 10 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Are you sure he didn't say "riding on a white *****"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#724 Feb 12 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
#725 Feb 12 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney wins Maine caucus by 194 votes. Fails to call it "meaningless" despite it being as nonbinding as Minnesota and Colorado was. Or Iowa for that matter. Actually Maine is worse because they had late precincts (or ones just holding their own caucus on another day) but cut them off and declared the election closed without taking their results. It's legal because this caucus didn't select the real delegates anyway.

But, hey, he beat Santorum in the state that elects Collins and Snowe over and over again so that's something.

Edited, Feb 12th 2012 5:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#726 Feb 13 2012 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
I don't understand the lack of faith in, and the lack of discussion about Ron Paul as a serious candidate. Sure he hasn't won any primaries yet, but he's placed 2nd a few times. He has the support of the military, and from what I can tell, the whole world when it comes to his foreign policy, and he's the only one who plans on seriously addressing any sort of budget reform through auditing the fed and ending bailouts.

Before I go on listing a whole bunch more examples of why I think Paul's policies are superior to the other candidates, is there a reason that this whole thread was basically only Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum hype with just a little hint of Paul? Am I wrong to be taking him seriously?

Also, what do you think of this?

It works like this: After the actual caucus, there is another meeting where delegates are selected. What Paul's campaign seeks to do is take those meetings over with supporters in hopes of capturing a majority of the delegates to the national Republican convention in Tampa.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-delegate-strategy-threatens-to-undermine-will-of-gop-voters

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)