Something happenedFollow

Did you make a car ad that was so obviously a partisan Democratic Big Union political ad?

In related news, Romney just ran an(other) op-ed in a Detroit paper that the administration should have let the domestic auto industry go bankrupt. Going to be embarrassing to lose his "home" state to Santorum.

So he and Clint Eastwood have a position in common? Just wanted to verify that we're on the same page here.



/shrug

I'm sure that's the line everyone's tossing around the liberal water cooler. The reality is that in this election the GOP candidate has to be able to distinguish his positions from those of Obama. I don't think it hurt Romney in the long run to take this position.

Can't get *any*? Or *some*? Isn't this the norm in a primary contest though? If a single candidate had 100% of the party support, then you wouldn't have a primary. I don't recall you making a big deal about how Obama couldn't get Democrats to vote for him at this stage in the 2008 primary, so why make a big deal out of something that is completely normal this time around?


Seems like you just want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Shocking!

Yes. And I understand that not winning every single primary or caucus isn't a disaster for a candidate. So singling out one state which he may or may not do well in, doesn't really mean much.



At this stage? Or at this time? The 2008 primary season was pretty compressed relative to this time around. We've had 9 states so far. 4 have gone for Romney, 4 for Santorum, and 1 for Gingrich. Is this unusual? In 2008, the Dems had 6 states prior to super Tuesday. And for an ironic twist two of them had such problems with their rules and whatnot that their delegates weren't allowed to be seated at the convention. Kinda make the issues with the GOP this time around look tame really. But at that point, Obama won 3, Clinton won 2, and one was a tie (for delegates anyway). Pretty similar split, huh?

And on Super Tuesday? Obama won 12, Clinton 10. Yeah. He was so much the clear winner at that point, wasn't he?

My point is that you didn't even mention relative delegates won or states won. You just pointed to one state and somehow insisted that this one mattered (apparently more than anything else). Do we point to any of the 10 states that Obama didn't win that Tuesday in the same manner? How about Florida and Michigan? Do we point out those because Obama failed to win them as well?


Really? I'm just not sure what you think this means. It's like you're just repeating some rhetoric you heard somewhere and not engaging your own brain.

You're the one who singled out a state Joph. I'll note that you didn't say that Romney couldn't get the Republicans of New Hampshire, or Florida, or Nevada, or Maine to vote for him. Why is that? Hell. Why mention Michigan at all? I'm still not sure what you thought this meant. So a candidate in a primary wont always win every state. Is that it? Because if that is, then can't we just chuck that on the pile of "true, but meaningless facts" and move on?



Exactly, sure. But all I was doing was showing that the winner of the last Dem primary *also* was unable to get people of his own party to vote for him in a number of states.

In case you're confused, the point was to show how meaningless your earlier statement was. Do you understand this yet? Or do I need to go on?




That and the GOP came up with a sensible adult decision right off the bat, while the Dems bickered over it like children, and played games after the fact with the delegate count. The GOP went into those states knowing that the penalty for the early primaries were the half vote thing. No one complained. No one made a huge deal out of it. They accepted the reality, adjusted to it, and moved on.

The Dems were a cluster@#%^ though. First they stripped all the delegates. Then some folks campaigned anyway. Some withdrew. Some didn't. It was screwed up top to bottom. Then they had to decide how to seat them and how many after the fact, which of course led to more wrangling and fighting within the party.

You're pretty dramatically downplaying the vast differences between how the two parties handled the states shifting their primary dates forward Joph. It was certainly not the Dems brightest hour at all.




And I'm sure that's the message you've been told this week. Next week it'll be something else. Like rumors Romney has cancer or something. I'm sure you'll lap that up (whatever it is) just as readily.



Nope. Anything that's so obviously media manipulated messaging is though. You honestly don't stop and think about how your media sources all manage to decide to write the same thing at the same time, then magically shift to the exact same opinions on something else next week, and the week after that, etc? It never occurs to you that there just might be some coordination going on there?

Last week it was Santorum surging. The week before that it was about Bain Capital. This week it's GOP election mishandling. What do you suppose it'll be next week? Don't worry. The guys on TV will be sure to tell you what you're supposed to repeat when it's time for you to know.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 7:06pm by gbaji

Um... Yes. Unless you're stepping like 8 steps ahead of the whole bit about Romney saying that we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry? That's the only thing I can think that might be related. But then I'm sure you got some gaps filled in by your helpful media sources who made sure you knew exactly what that would mean.

Or are you talking about something else?



Except that it was 3 months later when it became apparent that their delegates no longer mattered. And during that time period, there certainly was a lot of fighting about the issue. The fact that the Obama lead in delegates was sufficient by early April to make the delegate differential in FL and MI irrelevant doesn't change the fact that up until that point, it was a problem. Your argument is like saying that it was ok that a ref blew a call early in the game and gave a team a score it shouldn't have because they ended out winning by more than that score differential anyway.


I don't think many people would think that wasn't still a problem.




Yup. So it means that you were just as invested in minimizing this back then as you are now. Um... You still don't see a problem with that? Seating delegates isn't just about prestige Joph. It's about taking part in the process. So we wont let your votes count if they'll make a difference (ie: matter), but count them if they wont? What kind of a solution is that? Aren't you still basically saying their votes don't matter? And what would they have done if the race ended out being closer than it was? You don't think the lack of a clear solution agreed upon by all parties prior to the primaries in those states might not have been a bit of a problem.


The Dems lucked out is what happened. That's hardly an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 8:45pm by gbaji

If I understand gbaji correctly; if 90 sources say one thing and 10 say the opposite...the 90 are all biased?

Would you two just jerk/suck each other off and get it over with?

Then they'll all have a nice coed shower and share a bunk?

You make him want to be a better duck.

Articulateduck?

If I'd asked you a week ago which state was the most important for Romney to win, would you have listed Michigan? Would you have listed it in the top ten?



It matters because this week the folks in your TV told you it matters. Had they not told you, you wouldn't think it matters that much.