[The Final Dakar]

Stick that in your rectum and slurp it.

Goes to show the evangelical base isn't dead, I guess. Still, a mindbogglingly awful candidate. I'd take Gingrich over him.

[besson3c]

Indeed. WTF Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado?

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not surprised by MIssouri.

[besson3c]

Missouri is kind of a swing state, isn't it? Didn't it go Obama during the last election? Minnesota and Colorado definitely did, I've always thought of these states as more moderate. I guess either things have changed within these states, my perceptions were off, or this country as a whole is swinging even further to the right, or some combination thereof...

I wouldn't be surprised at Mississipi, Alabama, West Virginia, and states like that though.

[Dork.]

I think there have been some rifts opening up in the Republican party lately. It used to be that the Republicans were better at keeping their troops in line than the Democrats: after all, if you ask ten Liberals about their political views, you'll get twelve different answers. Republicans have been historically better at building up a "brand" of tax reduction, focus on business investment (can we still call it "trickle-down economics?"), and social conservatism.

But now you have candidates from each of those wings: Romney representing the business sector, Santorum representing the social conservatives, and Paul representing the fiscal conservatives. And nobody can agree on which one to back. Newton Leroy, as always, mainly represents his own tremendous ego, but also represents Republicans who know something is wrong, but don't have any confidence in the other three to fix it. All candidates have their support, and neither faction really likes the other choices enough to rally behind them. They need to figure out how to agree by the time they choose a nominee, or they're in trouble.

The Republicans are wise to not make the same mistake the Democrats did in 2004: nominate the next guy in line because they feel the incumbent is so unpopular that a ham sandwich would win an election against him. They may end up being lunch instead.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think there have been some rifts opening up in the Republican party lately.

At the risk of just restating your post a different way, it wasn't 10 years ago when I remember people (likely on these boards as well) talking about how the Democratic party would always be a mess because of it was just a patch-work quilt of voters. Looks like the Republican party gets to enjoy that as well, now.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The Republicans are wise to not make the same mistake the Democrats did in 2004: nominate the next guy in line because they feel the incumbent is so unpopular that a ham sandwich would win an election against him. They may end up being lunch instead.

While I'm not crazy enough to think Obama is a lock, I see seriously flaws with all the candidates left in the Republican field right now. The call backs to 2004 for me are amazing.

It really feels like conservatives are left in a position where they have to root against an improving economy like liberals had to with the Iraq War.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Missouri is kind of a swing state, isn't it? Didn't it go Obama during the last election? Minnesota and Colorado definitely did, I've always thought of these states as more moderate. I guess either things have changed within these states, my perceptions were off, or this country as a whole is swinging even further to the right, or some combination thereof...

I wouldn't be surprised at Mississipi, Alabama, West Virginia, and states like that though.

Remember, the only people who vote in primaries are the folks who care who their party's nominee is in the first place. You can't make the assumption that an entire state is moving one direction or the other just based on the conservatives who bothered to show up to the Republican primaries.

But remember that Newton Leroy was a Congressman from Georgia, so don't be surprised if Southern states go for him.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think there have been some rifts opening up in the Republican party lately. It used to be that the Republicans were better at keeping their troops in line than the Democrats: after all, if you ask ten Liberals about their political views, you'll get twelve different answers.

Another version is "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Remember, the only people who vote in primaries are the folks who care who their party's nominee is in the first place. You can't make the assumption that an entire state is moving one direction or the other just based on the conservatives who bothered to show up to the Republican primaries.

I think an important footnote to last night's victories is that no delegates were awarded, which really confuses me.

[OldManMac]

MN doesn't mean much, because it's caucus votes instead of actual public voting, and in that case it's mostly the ultra conservative who show up to the caucuses. His MN delegates aren't bound to him. Santorum is getting some press, but he hasn't got a prayer in Hell's chance. For better or worse, Obama is getting reelected. The Republicans are a fractured party, and they're doing a damn good job of showing that to the rest of the country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think an important footnote to last night's victories is that no delegates were awarded, which really confuses me.

Really? Why is Santorum in second place now in the delegate count then? He was in third place prior, behind Gingrich.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

MN doesn't mean much, because it's caucus votes instead of actual public voting, and in that case it's mostly the ultra conservative who show up to the caucuses. His MN delegates aren't bound to him. Santorum is getting some press, but he hasn't got a prayer in Hell's chance. For better or worse, Obama is getting reelected. The Republicans are a fractured party, and they're doing a damn good job of showing that to the rest of the country.

Perhaps the only elections that we should really pay attention to are the open primaries?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Perhaps the only elections that we should really pay attention to are the open primaries?

Honestly (and this goes for both sides), you might as well pay attention to a bunch of bobbers in a lake.

None of this ever has any rhyme or reason, it's whichever bobber is highest at some mystery moment.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Really? Why is Santorum in second place now in the delegate count then? He was in third place prior, behind Gingrich.

I don't care enough to look into ti, but that's what I heard.

[Dork.]

Delegates in some states are legally bound to vote according to the result in the primary. Other states assign delegates based on the vote, but do not require the delegates to vote for any particular candidate. Other states wait until the state party convention to award delegates, and may award them in any fashion they choose, even contradicting the result of a primary or caucus (but they better have a good reason to do so, or else the folks who participated in the primary or caucus may decide it's not worth doing next time.)

So, Santorum's delegates are nominally in his column, but they are free to jump ship if his candidacy falters. The most likely scenario is if one of the other candidates is the clear front-runner, but does not have enough votes to win outright: those delegates may choose to back the leader to put him over the top and avoid multiple votes on the convention floor.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Delegates in some states are legally bound to vote according to the result in the primary. Other states assign delegates based on the vote, but do not require the delegates to vote for any particular candidate. Other states wait until the state party convention to award delegates, and may award them in any fashion they choose, even contradicting the result of a primary or caucus (but they better have a good reason to do so, or else the folks who participated in the primary or caucus may decide it's not worth doing next time.)

So, Santorum's delegates are nominally in his column, but they are free to jump ship if his candidacy falters. The most likely scenario is if one of the other candidates is the clear front-runner, but does not have enough votes to win outright: those delegates may choose to back the leader to put him over the top and avoid multiple votes on the convention floor.

Schrodinger's Delegates?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't care enough to look into ti, but that's what I heard.

I seem to recall a certain person being hostile over another certain person's lack of research, but we won't get into that...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Delegates in some states are legally bound to vote according to the result in the primary. Other states assign delegates based on the vote, but do not require the delegates to vote for any particular candidate. Other states wait until the state party convention to award delegates, and may award them in any fashion they choose, even contradicting the result of a primary or caucus (but they better have a good reason to do so, or else the folks who participated in the primary or caucus may decide it's not worth doing next time.)

So, Santorum's delegates are nominally in his column, but they are free to jump ship if his candidacy falters. The most likely scenario is if one of the other candidates is the clear front-runner, but does not have enough votes to win outright: those delegates may choose to back the leader to put him over the top and avoid multiple votes on the convention floor.

How often does this happen though? I only remember a very small number of these during the last election, if my memory serves me correctly, so small to be pretty much insignificant, the obvious exception being delegates for candidates who abandon their candidacy.

It seems like one of Paul and/or Gingrich may be the next to drop out, I don't see Gingrich's delegates going for Romney, at least not those emotionally invested in the Romney vs. Gingrich battles that have been going on.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I seem to recall a certain person being hostile over another certain person's lack of research, but we won't get into that...

When dealing with in depth discussions. Check out the thread. Check out the aside. Nice try.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

When dealing with in depth discussions. Check out the thread. Check out the aside. Nice try.

Ahh, so then there is a misunderstanding then, because I rarely consider discussions in here in depth.

Anyway, I don't want to a pick a fight over this, I was just trying to make a gentle point-out.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahh, so then there is a misunderstanding then, because I rarely consider discussions in here in depth.

If you start a topic about x and don't know the basics, that's annoying.

Is knowing how delegates are awarded the basics? Arguably it could be 4th grade social studies. In reality, the three major new outlets can't agree on who has what.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Anyway, I don't want to a pick a fight over this, I was just trying to make a gentle point-out.

If someone else wants to crucify me for being a hypocrite, I'd be more likely to consider their position.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How often does this happen though? I only remember a very small number of these during the last election, if my memory serves me correctly, so small to be pretty much insignificant, the obvious exception being delegates for candidates who abandon their candidacy.

It seems like one of Paul and/or Gingrich may be the next to drop out, I don't see Gingrich's delegates going for Romney, at least not those emotionally invested in the Romney vs. Gingrich battles that have been going on.

There are also additional delegates (state party members, members of Congress, and prominent party leaders) who are named ahead of time as uncommitteed delegates, and who can support whoever they like. I'm sure you remember the Superdelegate stuff from 2008.

The most likely scenario is that one candidate will emerge as the front-runner , and either have enough votes to win outright or enough superdelegates will support him that he doesn't have to poach delegates from other candidates.

And Paul and Gingrich are not dropping out. Paul thinks that the more delegates he brings to the convention, the more influnce he will get to shape the party platform. And Newton Leroy's sense of his own greatness is too big to fit through the exit now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If someone else wants to crucify me for being a hypocrite, I'd be more likely to consider their position.

How did a gentle point-out become crucification? Relax, I'm not crucifying your ass. I will keep your annoyances in mind going forward and make adjustments so that I can please you, because I'm a pleasure provider, and also a lover.

Often times what I suspect you would agree is annoying is my thinking out loud, so by stopping that I should make you much happier right off the bat. This is a bad habit of mine for a number of reasons anyway.

Just you wait, I'll make a convert out of you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There are also additional delegates (state party members, members of Congress, and prominent party leaders) who are named as uncommitteed delegates, and who can support whoever they like. I'm sure you remember the Superdelegate stuff from 2008.

I do now. Thank you Professor Dork.!

Didn't the Democrat delegation process involve a proportionate sort of thing where the Republican one was winner-takes-all, or am I on crack?

And Paul and Gingrich are not dropping out. Paul thinks that the more delegates he brings to the convention, the more influnce he will get to shape the party platform. And Newton Leroy's sense of his own greatness is too big to fit through the exit now.

Yeah, Paul was in it up to the very last minute last go around, IIRC. Gingrich I could see eventually being forced out though, unless he can stage another grand comeback.

I'll just be far happier if/when Santorum drops out, and nobody picks him to be VP. I'm not a fan, I might be able to tolerate the others a little better.

[Shaddim]

Meh, if Paul doesn't get it (doubtful) I'll root for Obama. As I said before, "the devil you know" and all that rubbish. At least the (R) types will control one part of the legislature and can keep DC gridlocked, and that works for me.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How did a gentle point-out become crucification?

I was being colorful. And I didn't say you did.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Didn't the Democrat delegation process involve a proportionate sort of thing where the Republican one was winner-takes-all, or am I on crack?

The Democratic nomination process in 2008 did have more proportional contests than the Republican process did back then. That's part of the reason McCain achieved such an easy victory.

And you're also on crack -- it's not an either/or thing.

(By the way, my Ph.D. is in how to look up the 2012 Republican and Democratic Primaries on Wikipedia....)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

(By the way, my Ph.D. is in how to look up the 2012 Republican and Democratic Primaries on Wikipedia....)

I think this might deserve another infraction for your cleverness.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Missouri is kind of a swing state, isn't it? Didn't it go Obama during the last election? Minnesota and Colorado definitely did, I've always thought of these states as more moderate. I guess either things have changed within these states, my perceptions were off, or this country as a whole is swinging even further to the right, or some combination thereof...

I wouldn't be surprised at Mississipi, Alabama, West Virginia, and states like that though.

I don't consider Missouri a swing state anymore. It's pretty red at this point. McCain won by a hair here in 2008.

As for this years primary, due to Missouri moving the primary up, it doesn't actually count for anything. I think that skewed the results. The middle-of-the-road, moderate Romney voters didn't show up, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter, while the socially conservative, mega-religious types showed up and made their voice heard regardless... they are a more motivated crowd.

[OAW]

^^^^^^

ort888 is correct. Missouri has a red majority. It is heavily blue in the large metro areas of St. Louis and Kansas City. But with the suburban vote being split and the solidly GOP rural vote throughout the rest of the state ... it's pretty much a red state overall. Even given the unprecedented turnout in the 2008 election among the Democratic base for Obama .... he still lost to McCain by a hair. Without such turnout it's not even close at the presidential level.

As has been mentioned, Missouri's vote didn't even count. So Santorum was the only one who even bothered to campaign in the state. Might have something to do with why he won.

OAW

[hyteckit]

The thread title alone sounds dirty.

Didn't need more graphic detail from the OP.

[ort888]

A better thread title would be...

Santorum leaves a trail of victory across America.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Another version is "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line".

That would explain the Tea Party.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by finboy 

That would explain the Tea Party.

Tea Party is kind of a recent development, historically speaking, isn't it there rollseyes?

[hyteckit]

Poor Romney.

He is getting Santorumized.

Talk about getting reamed.

[olePigeon]

I learned not to Google Santorum at work.

[olePigeon]

Does Stanorum's Hat Trick include gold tablets and a rock?

[besson3c]

If Santorum earns the nomination he is going to set the party back a great deal. The independents and moderates are not going to be all that impressed with his social viewpoints in the general election.

[lpkmckenna]

When I was a Catholic, uber-Catholics like Santorum (who are very, very rare) drove me crazy. That anyone could agree with the Vatican's moronic contraception policy was astounding.

Santorum is a would-be Franco.

[ironknee]

frothy!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

When I was a Catholic, uber-Catholics like Santorum (who are very, very rare) drove me crazy. That anyone could agree with the Vatican's moronic contraception policy was astounding.

There is an interesting statistic going around. With all the ruckus being made by the bishops over Catholics and contraception, one study claims that something like 98% of American Catholic women have used some form of contraception at one time or another. I haven't had time to look into the study in more detail, but if it has any rigor whatsoever, it bolsters the notion that the Catholic hierarchy (and those loud people who push the most conservative aspects of the faith in political circles) is increasingly out of touch with American Catholics. And indicates that the Bishops perhaps have more political clout than they deserve.

The idea probably deserves a thread of its own...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There is an interesting statistic going around. With all the ruckus being made by the bishops over Catholics and contraception, one study claims that something like 98% of American Catholic women have used some form of contraception at one time or another. I haven't had time to look into the study in more detail, but if it has any rigor whatsoever, it bolsters the notion that the Catholic hierarchy (and those loud people who push the most conservative aspects of the faith in political circles) is increasingly out of touch with American Catholics. And indicates that the Bishops perhaps have more political clout than they deserve.

By virtue of Catholic families not all resembling the Duggar family, it's pretty darn obvious they're using contraception.