Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#852 Feb 28 2012 at 10:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Damnit, I'm not allowed to buy the game as I'm not from the US. I need to get a US credit card. /sigh. Stupid amazon.

Bummer. It's $3.99 on GMG which isn't as exciting to say but still a great game for the price.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#853 Feb 28 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Probably because she votes with the GOP an average of 75% of the time.

Kind of funny how 25% heresy translates to "She should just be a Democrat" Smiley: laugh


If that's 75% of all votes, then yeah. Or do you think that more than 25% of all votes in the Senate are divided among partisan lines? I wouldn't be surprised if most Democrats voted with Republicans 75% of the time (which is hard to figure out given the way they list the stats on that site).

Looking the link you provided, in 2011, when partisan voting was at 90% (meaning 90% of the votes were divided among party lines), she only voted with the GOP 80% of the time. That's pretty freaking abysmal. What it means is that when votes really matter, she does not support her party. It's easy to vote with a party when it's for a bill that everyone's voting for anyway. I mean "a measure to declare may 13th official tupperware day" (or equivalent) isn't exactly hard to go along with. And a **** of a lot of what our congress does is stuff of that sort (ok, slightly more important, but "a bill to ratify the automatic extension of bills X, Y, and Z" isn't much more controversial either).


It would be interesting to flip her party affiliation and see how her voting record would stack up if she were calculated as a Dem.


I'm sure party loyalty is why her constituents voted her in.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#854 Mar 03 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,020 posts
I'm not sure whether Santorum is the saddest or the most hilarious person in politics.

That guy is so insanely **** and **** obsessed that he just has to be hiding something...
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#855 Mar 03 2012 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Do Republicans hate woman? If they don't, then why would Rush double down on his "slut" comment before being forced into apologizing do to loss of sponsors, or Santorum going out of his way to alienate Catholic woman (Of whom, 98% use some form of contraceptives), it's like they have no desire to get votes from anyone other than ignorant men.

The complete & utter lack of a Karl Rove figure organizing the establishment in order to garner the popular vote has caused the party to alienate most voters while pandering to the tea partiers in order to get primary votes.

It's fantastic.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#856 Mar 03 2012 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Do Republicans hate woman?


Derp?
#857 Mar 05 2012 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,442 posts
The popular vote isn't important.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#858 Mar 05 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The popular vote isn't important.

Care to elaborate?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#859 Mar 05 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,220 posts
I saw the first Rick Santorum signs pop up like mushrooms on the corners where political advertising is allowed.

I wanted to make signs to set next to them that says "Google for more information!"
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#860 Mar 05 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
**
574 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The popular vote isn't important.

Care to elaborate?



Ask Gore for the answer to that.
____________________________
.
#861 Mar 05 2012 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Is it too late to enter Paul Ryan into the primaries?

I really don't like any of the potential GOP candidates. Smiley: frown
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#862 Mar 05 2012 at 3:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The popular vote isn't important.

Care to elaborate?



Ask Gore for the answer to that.

Oh, right...that.
/sigh
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#863 Mar 05 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Demea wrote:
Is it too late to enter Paul Ryan into the primaries?

I really don't like any of the potential GOP candidates. Smiley: frown


Ugh. Well, at least his spontaneity won't embarrass the GOP voting base. I don't think that guy ever says anything without practicing it 3 times beforehand.
#864 Mar 06 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
******
43,442 posts
John Clarkson 2012!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#865 Mar 06 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,220 posts
A lot of my friends are tossing down spoiler votes here in GA since we have an open primary system and they gleefully want to cause as much chaos democracy as possible. Husband voted for Ron Paul, and another friend is voting for Newt.

Newt has all but said that if he loses Georgia, he's out for the count, but all signs point to him having a shot at it.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#866 Mar 07 2012 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,442 posts
So results of Super Tuesday are six for Romney, three for Santorum, and one for Newt.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#867 Mar 07 2012 at 8:38 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Olympia Snowe announces she won't run this year for her Senate seat. Good news for Democrats who'll probably have an easy pick-up of the seat and offset one of the easy GOP pick-ups from retiring Democrats.


That may have an impact in terms of majority party in the Senate (maybe). In terms of voting though, it's pretty much a non-issue. She's by far the most liberal Republican in congress. One would think she already caucuses with the Dems anyway.
Actually, one would think she caucuses with the Pubs, since she does. I know she doesn't always vote the way Rush can Co. says she should, but she's far from a Democrat. Making deals and occasionally compromising isn't a bad thing. If more politicians were willing to do it, we'd be in a better place.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#868 Mar 07 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Santorum's early lack of organization is really hurting him. He probably would have won Ohio except that he wasn't on multiple county ballots and he gave away Virginia due to his inability to get on the ballot there as well. Even is he didn't win VA, he would have done well enough in the rural areas to pick up delegates.

Lucky breaks for Romney.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#869 Mar 07 2012 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Olympia Snowe announces she won't run this year for her Senate seat. Good news for Democrats who'll probably have an easy pick-up of the seat and offset one of the easy GOP pick-ups from retiring Democrats.


That may have an impact in terms of majority party in the Senate (maybe). In terms of voting though, it's pretty much a non-issue. She's by far the most liberal Republican in congress. One would think she already caucuses with the Dems anyway.
Actually, one would think she caucuses with the Pubs, since she does. I know she doesn't always vote the way Rush can Co. says she should, but she's far from a Democrat. Making deals and occasionally compromising isn't a bad thing. If more politicians were willing to do it, we'd be in a better place.

This is from Sunday's paper. I just got around to reading it last night.

A couple facts from the article....

Portland Press Herald wrote:
- congressional voting records show a 63 percent decline in the number of U.S. senators willing to vote across party lines during the last three decades

- in the House of Representatives the number of centrist members dropped 84 percent during the same period.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#870 Mar 07 2012 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,442 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Lucky breaks for Romney.
I'd put money on Santorum (and everyone not Romney, really) was simply tossed onto the field just to make the election year more interesting. Which would explain why it seems like everyone else is scrambling while Romney isn't. Also makes it a bit more amusing that everyone else is doing as well as they are with the circumstances.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#871 Mar 07 2012 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think (and mine isn't a unique opinion) that Santorum joined the race just to raise his name awareness and parlay it into a hosting gig on Fox or something. Same with Gingrich and Cain. None of them really built a campaign infrastructure going into the race and all seemed caught flat-footed and unprepared when the spotlight hit them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#872 Mar 07 2012 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,020 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Lucky breaks for Romney.
I'd put money on Santorum (and everyone not Romney, really) was simply tossed onto the field just to make the election year more interesting. Which would explain why it seems like everyone else is scrambling while Romney isn't. Also makes it a bit more amusing that everyone else is doing as well as they are with the circumstances.
It's all a liberal conspiracy to sabotage the GOP by making Romney fight for right wing nutter votes and making him lose moderate voters in the process so Obama gets an easy win and is allowed to keep destroying your great country of freedom for four more years.








I bet Jophiel is behind it all
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#873 Mar 07 2012 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I think (and mine isn't a unique opinion) that Santorum joined the race just to raise his name awareness and parlay it into a hosting gig on Fox or something. Same with Gingrich and Cain. None of them really built a campaign infrastructure going into the race and all seemed caught flat-footed and unprepared when the spotlight hit them.


Certainly possible. Don't forget Palin and Trump, who's flirtations with running were even more about brand awareness.

Really makes you question the whole thing. I wonder if the trend will continue that way for the next GOP primary, and what it is about the GOP that's making this such a viable technique.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#874 Mar 07 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
******
43,442 posts
Eh, it's not like the Dems didn't do the same thing election before last. It just seems ... I don't know, bigger this time around. I've said it before, but Incumbent Elections seem to be a huge waste of time and resources that we could really do without.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#875 Mar 07 2012 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A couple significant differences:

(1) The 2008 Democratic primary was more about degrees than differences. Debating whose universal health care plan was more universal or who was against the Iraq war first is different than Romney saying his opponents are attacking the root of capitalism or Santorum/Gingrich saying Romney is really a moderate and not conservative at all. You didn't have the same schism of who the "real" Democrat was.

(2) The 2008 Democratic primary was down to two people before February. We still have four GOP candidates running with no one getting better than a weak plurality. The "best" candidate still has two-thirds of the primary electorate not picking him. This is where the split conservative votes between Santorum & Gingrich is really benefiting Romney in the delegates fight.

(3) The 2008 Democratic primary battle didn't have the same bruising effect. The worst favorability Obama endured during the 2008 season was -2 during the Jeremiah Wright thing and generally stayed above water throughout. Romney's favorability has gone from -1 (Oct 2011) to -16 today. Granted he may yet rehabilitate his image but doing so will be a climb the Democratic candidates didn't have to undergo.

None of this is to say it'll cause anyone to win or lose or whatever. But there's a reason why this contest is making the GOP nervous.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#876 Mar 07 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,442 posts
I was going with 2004, actually. Kerry was the clear go-to guy, but you had the three other also-rans with Clark, Dean, and Edwards, along with a bunch of others like Al Sharpton. Mostly there just for name awareness like you said, though I still wouldn't toss out the idea that they were put in just for the sake of having a bigger event. Though, by February they were down to two then as well. Like I said, it's just a bigger mess this time around than then.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 1:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#877 Mar 07 2012 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ah, I misunderstood your point.

Yeah, every election has its opportunists that are in the race just for the media coverage and never take it seriously. This cycle just seems to have more of them taking the spotlight and front-runner status. Had Santorum treated this more seriously back in late 2007, he'd be in a much stronger position right now. But I doubt he ever expected to be in his position at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#878 Mar 07 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I think (and mine isn't a unique opinion) that Santorum joined the race just to raise his name awareness and parlay it into a hosting gig on Fox or something. Same with Gingrich and Cain. None of them really built a campaign infrastructure going into the race and all seemed caught flat-footed and unprepared when the spotlight hit them.


I said the same thing about Gingrich and Cain back in November I think (idea stealer!). Not so sure about Santorum, but I wouldn't doubt the possibility. I also think that a lot of the time, it's the folks around the candidates whispering in their ears and convincing them that they've got a shot that put them out there. It's not nearly as calculated as some seem to think.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#879 Mar 07 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
(1) The 2008 Democratic primary was more about degrees than differences. Debating whose universal health care plan was more universal or who was against the Iraq war first is different than Romney saying his opponents are attacking the root of capitalism or Santorum/Gingrich saying Romney is really a moderate and not conservative at all. You didn't have the same schism of who the "real" Democrat was.


I don't know about that. It got pretty ugly. Far uglier than the GOP primary last time around.

Quote:
(2) The 2008 Democratic primary was down to two people before February.


Which could be interpreted a couple different ways though.

Quote:
We still have four GOP candidates running with no one getting better than a weak plurality. The "best" candidate still has two-thirds of the primary electorate not picking him.


Huh? You're looking at opinion polls, not actual election results. Of secured delegates, Romney currently has twice as many as all the other three candidates combined (so he's won 2/3rds of the delegates). He's won twice as many states as the next closest candidate, and just under 2/3rds of the total (14 out of 23). He's got as many wins as the second place guy (Santorum) has wins and second places

At this point (by number of states, and not date), Obama and Clinton were neck and neck with Clinton having a slight lead. Coming out of super Tuesday (which that year was Feb 5th), neither of them had a huge lead. Compared to either of them, Romney is wiping the floor with the competition.


The shocking thing really is that the media still plays this like he isn't doing well enough.

Quote:
This is where the split conservative votes between Santorum & Gingrich is really benefiting Romney in the delegates fight.


Only if you assume that if one of them dropped out, their votes would go to the other. And even then, Romney would have a commanding lead. Certainly he has a bigger lead over both of their delegate counts 23 states in than Clinton had over Obama 29 states into the race last time around.

And let's be honest here. Santorum and Gingrich are on kinda distant edges of the conservative envelope. Santorum's faith and values folks aren't likely to all break for Gingrich, and Gingrich's balanced budget/small government supporters are vastly more likely to break for Romney than Santorum. Take either out of the race and Romney's lead likely grows, not the other way around.

Quote:
(3) The 2008 Democratic primary battle didn't have the same bruising effect.


I think that this is the talking point of the media recently. I don't think I agree with it. There was some brutal stuff that went on between Clinton and Obama last time around.

Quote:
The worst favorability Obama endured during the 2008 season was -2 during the Jeremiah Wright thing and generally stayed above water throughout. Romney's favorability has gone from -1 (Oct 2011) to -16 today.


Measured how? I'm curious what source you're using because there's a lot of different ways to measure this. What's that number based on? Where do they get their base number?

It's just interesting to me because I keep hearing nothing but journalists and pundits talking about how unpopular Romney is, and how no one supports him, and voters don't like him, even while he turns in one of the most powerful open primary performances I've seen in my lifetime (maybe even the most powerful). It makes me suspect that a lot of that is perception being pushed by the media and doesn't match reality when people actually go out and vote.

Quote:
None of this is to say it'll cause anyone to win or lose or whatever. But there's a reason why this contest is making the GOP nervous.


Again, I think that's the story. And it's not a bad one. Suppose it gives the pundits something to write about.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 2:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#880 Mar 07 2012 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't know about that. It got pretty ugly. Far uglier than the GOP primary last time around.

If you mean uglier than the 2008 GOP primary, sure. That one was a snooze with McCain clinching it quickly.

Quote:
The shocking thing really is that the media still plays this like he isn't doing well enough.

Without mentioning plausible scenarios where he doesn't have it sealed before the convention, the real point is that he's not sealing it quick enough during a damaging primary.

Quote:
Only if you assume that if one of them dropped out, their votes would go to the other.

That's not a crazy assumption given their bases. NBC/WSJ poll form the other day put it at 50-45 in a Romney/Santorum two way race. And you can't say with a straight face that the Paul camp's second choice is Santorum.

Quote:
Measured how? I'm curious what source you're using because there's a lot of different ways to measure this. What's that number based on? Where do they get their base number?

Favorability index. Go look 'em up. You ask if the respondent has a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a candidate and subtract the unfavorables from the favorables. God willing, you arrive at a positive integer.

Quote:
even while he turns in one of the most powerful open primary performances I've seen in my lifetime (maybe even the most powerful).

Erm, which performance was this?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#881 Mar 07 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,256 posts

She's by far the most liberal Republican in congress. One would think she already caucuses with the Dems anyway.


Except that she voted with the caucus on EVERY whipped vote of her career. King wins that seat with token opposition, almost certainly caucuses with the Dems.

Olympia Snowe was the worst kind of faux moderate. Jon Chait nails what this sort of pretend wisdom looks like:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/olympia-snowes-strange-martyrdom.html


When George W. Bush proposed a huge, regressive tax cut in 2001, Snowe, sitting at the heart of a decisive block of centrists, used her leverage to support the passage of a modestly smaller and less regressive version. When Barack Obama proposed a large fiscal stimulus in 2009, Snowe (citing fears of deficits that she had helped create) decided to shave a nice round $100 billion off his figure and call it a day. If a Gingrich administration proposed spending a trillion dollars to erect a 100- foot-tall solid-gold Winston Churchill statue on Mars, Snowe would no doubt decide, after careful deliberation, that the wise course was to trim the height down to 90 feet and perhaps use a cheaper bronze alloy in the base.


Nowhere is the saying that "perception is more important than reality" more true than in the political sphere. A world where Snowe/Collins can be seen as moderates and where people take Paul Ryan even semi-seriously is a world of illusion. Like Narnia!
____________________________
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 whore. 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.

#882 Mar 07 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
The shocking thing really is that the media still plays this like he isn't doing well enough.

Without mentioning plausible scenarios where he doesn't have it sealed before the convention, the real point is that he's not sealing it quick enough during a damaging primary.


First off, you have to have an extremely flexible definition of "plausible" for that to be the case. Stop looking at his delegate count and start looking at the other guys. If Romney is "weak" because he's only secured 315 out of 527 delegates, then how much weaker and less likely to win is Santorum who has only 105, or Gingrich with 78, or Paul with 29?

Sealing it "quick enough"? Again, you're measuring by time and not states. Romney is sealing this far faster by state contests then is usual. Certainly, he has a much more commanding lead 23 contests in than Obama had (or should I say, than Clinton had). And he's got a more commanding lead that McCain did as well.

By Feb5th 2008, the GOP had 29 contests. McCain had won 12 of them. Note, Romney has won 14 out of 23 this time around. Who's off to an early lead? Romney.

Hell. Romney had 11 state wins at that point in 2008. Huckabee had 6. McCain was not even close to sealing a win at this point in the campaign, yet that contest was "boring".

Strange how double the standard is.

Quote:
Quote:
Only if you assume that if one of them dropped out, their votes would go to the other.

That's not a crazy assumption given their bases. NBC/WSJ poll form the other day put it at 50-45 in a Romney/Santorum two way race. And you can't say with a straight face that the Paul camp's second choice is Santorum.


The same polls that show Santorum beating Romney for weeks now? Or that keep showing Romey with mid 30% support, even while he's winning 60% delegates?

A smart person would realize that he's missing something by just looking the polls.

Quote:
Quote:
Measured how? I'm curious what source you're using because there's a lot of different ways to measure this. What's that number based on? Where do they get their base number?

Favorability index. Go look 'em up. You ask if the respondent has a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a candidate and subtract the unfavorables from the favorables. God willing, you arrive at a positive integer.


I know what the index is. I mean, what period of time measured for Obama, compared to Romney. What was the starting point, the low points, high points, etc. Or, if you don't feel like regurgitating such things, perhaps a link to the source for your data so I don't have to go looking all over the interwebs trying to figure out where the **** you got those numbers.

Quote:
Quote:
even while he turns in one of the most powerful open primary performances I've seen in my lifetime (maybe even the most powerful).

Erm, which performance was this?


How many open primaries in the last say 40 years have a single candidate holding 60% of the delegates only 23 contests in, with the closest opponent only having 1/3rd as many. Can you find any?


By any sane measurement, Romney is blowing out his competition here. What's shocking is that for some reason most journalists are trying to sell the opposite story and even more strangely much of the public is buying it. Look at the actual data from this primary. He's winning and he's winning big.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 7:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#883 Mar 07 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
By any sane measurement, Romney is blowing out his competition here

Hey, if you say so. Good luck in November Smiley: grin

Actually, I will make one brief point: Your silly clinging to the "How come he has 60% then??" shows a bit of ignorance on your part. When the FL & AZ primaries (79 delegates) were winner-take-all and only Romney & Paul were on the VA ballot, percentage of won delegates does NOT accurately reflect public support. That should be obvious but, hey, again... good luck in November.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 9:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#884 Mar 08 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Reading something else today, Idaho was winner-takes-all as well.

If you subtract the WTA primaries (FL, AZ, SC, ID), Romney won 44% of the delegate total bouyed primarily by Virgina (where only he and Paul were on the ballot) and Massachusetts where he was governor. Subtracting VA would mean 41% of the delegates. Subtracting both means only 38%.

I'm not saying you should subtract this or that state since ultimately the total is the total. But to keep crowing "60%" and trying to compare that to his national poll standing implies you don't know how the delegates have been allocated thus far. Given that Gingrich and Santorum split the "Anti-Romney" status and thus those delegates, 41-44% of the proportionally allocated delegates for a guy polling around 38% isn't all that impressive. Calling it the "most powerful performance in my lifetime" is just laughably silly.

gbaji wrote:
A smart person would realize that he's missing something by just looking the polls.

A smart person would realize there's a reason for the disparity indeed. Next time, find a smart person to feed you your talking points Smiley: smile

Edit: Regarding favorability, I was comparing these graphs.

But you can check PollingReport.com for more complete data. That's actually a rosier picture for Obama since I was using a lolRasmussen graph originally for his scores.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 9:55am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#885 Mar 08 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
So you're saying that Romney isn't really doing as well as he's doing because he apparently understands the rules of the game better than the other players? But that's somehow a poor reflection on him?


You get that all but 2 states (IIRC) are also "winner take all" in the general election, right? Hopefully for you, Obama's re-election team is more aware of the electoral realities than you are.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#886 Mar 08 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that Romney isn't really doing as well as he's doing because he apparently understands the rules of the game better than the other players? But that's somehow a poor reflection on him?

I'm saying that your comments that "Sure he's supposedly getting only mid 30's in the polls but he has 60 PERCENT of the delegates -- how do you EXPLAIN THAT?" were stone stupid.

If you're agreeing that his percentage of won delegates doesn't directly reflect his support then we're all good.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#887 Mar 08 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Oh. And this bears direct response:

Jophiel wrote:
Given that Gingrich and Santorum split the "Anti-Romney" status and thus those delegates ...


That is not a given. You are assuming it's true and that everyone who's voting for those guys are voting "against Romney". That's silly even for you. I know it's a popular perception tossed around by the folks on your TV, but that doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Calling it the "most powerful performance in my lifetime" is just laughably silly.


Why? I asked you how many open primaries for the last 40 years had a single candidate with this large a delegate lead (or state "win" lead) this early in the process (early being in terms of the number of state contests). Instead of assuming that what I'm saying is silly, why not prove me wrong?

I've provided ample hard data supporting my claim. You've provided... laughter. Why laugh when you're wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#888 Mar 08 2012 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that Romney isn't really doing as well as he's doing because he apparently understands the rules of the game better than the other players? But that's somehow a poor reflection on him?

I'm saying that your comments that "Sure he's supposedly getting only mid 30's in the polls but he has 60 PERCENT of the delegates -- how do you EXPLAIN THAT?" were stone stupid.


I didn't say that though. I said that since Romney has done so well in delegates and states won despite having polling in the mid 30s, that the fact of polling in the mid 30s isn't the super relevant factor you seem to keep wanting it to be. Clearly he is winning. And he's winning handily.

So by focusing on only the polling data, you are missing something. My point is that you keep ignoring the important numbers (states won, and delegate pledged), in favor of a number that isn't important (popularity in polls). Clearly, the correlation you're trying to make isn't valid. Polling in the 30s does *not* mean poor performance in the actual state contests.

So why keep focusing on it? Doubly silly when you're attempting to use the polling numbers to refute the real numbers that matter.

Quote:
If you're agreeing that his percentage of won delegates doesn't directly reflect his support then we're all good.


No. The polls don't mean what you think they do. As I said earlier, you are "missing something". Also, what do you think the word "support" means in that sentence? That's an odd word choice, isn't it? I thought we were comparing the importance of those polls to Romney's odds of winning the nomination. Not some nebulous factor you're labeling "support".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#889 Mar 08 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given that the GOP radically changed its traditional delegate appropriation rules after 2008, it's a stupid question and one that reflects more your lack of understanding about the process than any wonderful action on Romney's part. That's ignoring the ever fluctuating state calendar order from election to election.

Tell me, did the "60%!" talking point sound good when you first heard it and that's why you decided not to think it through?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#890 Mar 08 2012 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That said, and grabbing the first primary out of my mind that seemed obvious, after 21 states in 1980, Reagan had won 15 of them. Out of the states he lost, the included delegate poor places like Washington DC and Puerto Rico. I'm not about to look up how many delegates Connecticut was worth in 1980 but that would be more raw wins than Romney thus far and almost certainly more delegates (again meaningless given the shifting rules and state order -- Texas voted #16 in 1980 vs being nearly the last state this cycle)

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 7:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#891 Mar 08 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Given that the GOP radically changed its traditional delegate appropriation rules after 2008, it's a stupid question and one that reflects more your lack of understanding about the process than any wonderful action on Romney's part. That's ignoring the ever fluctuating state calendar order from election to election.


Ok, so would you agree that Given that the GOP radically changed its traditional delegate appropriation rules after 2008, it's pretty moronic to judge the relative performance of a candidate by assuming no change had occurred?

Cause isn't that what people are doing when they say that Romney isn't winning fast enough, or completely enough, or whatever? If the objective is to win delegates, and Romney has 3 times more delegates than the next ranked candidate, then isn't he winning? Not just a little bit, but overwhelmingly?



Oh... So you're comparing Romney to Reagan? Great! If we go 24 races in (one more than we're at so far), Reagan had 17, and Bush had 7. So Bush did about as well as Santorum. Take a couple races from Gingrich and give them to Romney instead and he's doing pretty similarly well. Good job finding an equivalent comparison there Joph!

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#892 Mar 08 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok, so would you agree that Given that the GOP radically changed its traditional delegate appropriation rules after 2008, it's pretty moronic to judge the relative performance of a candidate by assuming no change had occurred?

Cause isn't that what people are doing when they say that Romney isn't winning fast enough, or completely enough, or whatever?

No, they're not.

Quote:
Oh... So you're comparing Romney to Reagan? Great! If we go 24 races in (one more than we're at so far)

We're 21 races in*. But I like watching you scramble to move the goalposts now that your "Most powerful performance EVER!" talking point was shot to **** Smiley: laugh
Quote:
Take a couple races from Gingrich and give them to Romney instead and he's doing pretty similarly well.

Thanks for the literal laugh out loud moment. "Take the other guy's wins and give them to my guy and my guy will be awesome!"

Most powerful performance in 40 years indeed Smiley: laugh

*21.5, sorta-kinda. Wyoming has one dorked up caucus system and won't fully allocate its delegates until the 10th despite holding caucuses and straw polls since early February.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 10:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#893 Mar 12 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,220 posts
A few pundits have noted that Romney is trying too hard to pretend to be a southerner and coming off looking more and more robotic as a result.

Edited, Mar 12th 2012 11:29am by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#894 Mar 12 2012 at 12:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Im shocked anyone is arguing over the GOP nominees still anyway. Its not like any of them actually stand a chance at beating Obama. 4 more years of nothing doing, followed by a Clinton WH in 2016.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#895 Mar 12 2012 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok, so would you agree that Given that the GOP radically changed its traditional delegate appropriation rules after 2008, it's pretty moronic to judge the relative performance of a candidate by assuming no change had occurred?

Cause isn't that what people are doing when they say that Romney isn't winning fast enough, or completely enough, or whatever?

No, they're not.


They're not? Then by what standard are they saying that Romney isn't doing well? I mean, other than a bunch of pundits saying that over and over, the actual results of the actual primaries and caucuses seem to indicate a near landslide for Romney so far.

Quote:
Quote:
Oh... So you're comparing Romney to Reagan? Great! If we go 24 races in (one more than we're at so far)

We're 21 races in*. But I like watching you scramble to move the goalposts now that your "Most powerful performance EVER!" talking point was shot to **** Smiley: laugh


Er? As of Super Tuesday, the count was 23.

Romney has won: New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Maine, Arizona, Michigan, Wyoming, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont, and Virgina. That's 14.

Santorum has won: Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. That's 7.

Gingrich has won: South Carolina, and Georgia. That's 2.

Paul has won nothing.


As of today, Santorum has won Kansas, so his state total is up to 8. Romney has won Guam, North Marianas, and the Virgin Islands, so the totals have shifted slightly. But he's still well ahead. And if we look at delegate count (now, since I don't feel like subtracting the totals from this weekend), Romney has 393, Santorum has 133, Gingrich has 110, and Paul has 24. Romney still has more delegates than all the other candidates combined and then some. He's still sitting at about 3 times as many delegates as the second place opponent.

I'm still curious how you can objectively think that he's doing poorly. If you had heard nothing from anyone in the media about this race, and I just presented those numbers would you conclude that Romney wasn't doing well?


Quote:
Quote:
Take a couple races from Gingrich and give them to Romney instead and he's doing pretty similarly well.

Thanks for the literal laugh out loud moment. "Take the other guy's wins and give them to my guy and my guy will be awesome!"


Romney's performance is already pretty impressive Joph. I was illustrating how little difference there is between his performance and Reagan's back in 1980. And also addressing the claims about how Santorum would be doing better if Gingrich wasn't in the race. I think Romney would be doing better if Gingrich wasn't in the race, but that's a side issue.

Quote:
Most powerful performance in 40 years indeed Smiley: laugh


Up at the top. I'm just pointing out the massive difference between the reality of the actual primary election results and how they are being reported to the public. You're looking at the media coverage. I'm looking at the results.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#896 Mar 12 2012 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,220 posts
I think Romney is doing quite well, as far as the GOP caucuses are going. We were all fairly certain he was going to be the nominee long before this all started, however, so the fact that this hasn't just been a dog and pony show just goes to show how nervous the rank and file GOP folks are about him.

And if they're nervous, well, that's not a good sign for the general election. Which is what the whole process is ultimately about.

As it stands, the moderates are pretty apathetic about the wannabe robot overlord.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#897 Mar 12 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's doing "well" in that the guy everyone assumed would win might possibly have enough delegates by June to beat a couple knuckleheads too disorganized to file for state ballots or full slates of delegates. To the extent you want to consider that a "powerful performance".

He's not doing well enough to push an early end to a bruising primary that has been damaging his favorability and chances in the general election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#898 Mar 12 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Double post pwnt.

Edited, Mar 12th 2012 5:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#899 Mar 12 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,479 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He's doing "well" in that the guy everyone assumed would win might possibly have enough delegates by June to beat a couple knuckleheads too disorganized to file for state ballots or full slates of delegates. To the extent you want to consider that a "powerful performance".


But as you alluded to (and I've pointed out myself), the GOP deliberately changed their primary schedule and methodology so as to avoid an early win scenario. It doesn't mean that Romney is doing more poorly, but that it's taking longer to nail down a win. Again though, that was by design, so it's somewhat silly to fault Romney for this.

Quote:
He's not doing well enough to push an early end to a bruising primary that has been damaging his favorability and chances in the general election.


But that's an unfair assessment. There's no way to push an "early end" to the process. That's by design. Even if Romney had won 100% of the delegates so far, he'd still have only 660 right now, less than 2/3rds of what is needed to win the nomination. As to whether that's damaging his favorability, that's speculative at best. It's damaging while the process goes on, but also gets him a **** of a lot more media time. How much the negatives today will hurt him during the general is hard to say. In any case, the GOP made the decision after 2008 to shift things later in the year specifically so that they wouldn't have a case where one guy wins by early Feb, no one pays attention to him for the next 4 months, then there's a convention, but no one pays much attention to that, and now he's got an uphill battle to fight for media recognition against the guy who's been in the media (good or bad) for the entire time.


We can debate whether this is better or worse in the long run, but that was a deliberate choice made by the GOP. So it's pretty strange to somehow say that this is "wrong", or that it somehow reflects poorly on Romney.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#900 Mar 12 2012 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Keep whistlin'. You'll be past the graveyard in another couple of months Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#901 Mar 12 2012 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
gbaji wrote:
the GOP deliberately changed their primary schedule and methodology so as to avoid an early win scenario.

So a major delegate state like Texas having its primary schedule pushed back because the GOP failed to prove their original redistricting map didn't discriminate against minorities was a deliberate change? Those cunning bastards.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Demea, gbaji, Jophiel, Nadenu, Samira, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (38)