If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Republican National Committee explains why this year's race has turned so ugly: Blame Florida   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 68
    More: Florida, Republican, RNC, GOP, Florida House, GOP race, committees, New Years, Newt Gingrich  
•       •       •

2804 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Feb 2012 at 9:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-05 12:22:30 AM
I love how the article starts by saying the goal wass to have a long protracted battle for the nomination, because that's a good thing, but then Florida happened.

And by the second page the same people are saying the long protracted battle caused by Florida is a bad thing, because Florida.

In other words, the GOP still doesn't understand that four years of small-minded malice only begets candidates who thrive on small-minded malice.
 
2012-02-05 12:34:32 AM

bigbadideasinaction: I love how the article starts by saying the goal wass to have a long protracted battle for the nomination, because that's a good thing, but then Florida happened.

And by the second page the same people are saying the long protracted battle caused by Florida is a bad thing, because Florida.


I think the point of the article was that it was supposed to be a long, undecided battle where early states had proportionally appointed electors so there would be no early victor. This was meant to create an invigorating campaign, good for the GOP.

Florida created an all or nothing pot that was too important to fit the "no winner yet" narrative. With that change, instead of having a kinder, gentler "getting to know you" type of race, it became nasty, brutish, and oh so long.

I don't know that the article is correct, but I think that's what it tried to say.
 
2012-02-05 12:34:57 AM

bigbadideasinaction: I love how the article starts by saying the goal wass to have a long protracted battle for the nomination, because that's a good thing, but then Florida happened.

And by the second page the same people are saying the long protracted battle caused by Florida is a bad thing, because Florida.

In other words, the GOP still doesn't understand that four years of small-minded malice only begets candidates who thrive on small-minded malice.


On the plus side, a long primary season gives these guys more chances to expose themselves as lunatics, sociopaths and charlatans. Without the extended process, without debate after debate after debate, Americans may not have been privy to all they know now. Screw a debate per week. I want a debate every day. I want candidates to have every opportunity to insert foot into mouth.
 
2012-02-05 12:38:18 AM
No, the problem is that the Republicans are far-right psychopaths. Everyone in the party is a farking lunatic, a childish, delusional lackwit or (in the extreme minority) a conservative die-hard that for some reason hasn't just moved to support the Dems (ie, the regular center-right party).

Everything else, this farking clownshow of a primary race, the stupid bullshiat they're up to in Congress, it's all symptomatic.
 
2012-02-05 12:44:34 AM

mrshowrules: Why does a 15 count give you 2 points in Cribbage? Why do you get $200 for passing Go? Why can you store a dozen assault rifles and 10 sets of power armor in a first aid kit in Fallout?


They're easier to get than the more valuable hands, it's your "salary" and one lap around the board is a "pay period," and Yukari is fooling around again.
 
2012-02-05 12:46:21 AM

Name_Omitted: bigbadideasinaction: I love how the article starts by saying the goal wass to have a long protracted battle for the nomination, because that's a good thing, but then Florida happened.

And by the second page the same people are saying the long protracted battle caused by Florida is a bad thing, because Florida.

I think the point of the article was that it was supposed to be a long, undecided battle where early states had proportionally appointed electors so there would be no early victor. This was meant to create an invigorating campaign, good for the GOP.

Florida created an all or nothing pot that was too important to fit the "no winner yet" narrative. With that change, instead of having a kinder, gentler "getting to know you" type of race, it became nasty, brutish, and oh so long.

I don't know that the article is correct, but I think that's what it tried to say.


Maybe so, I just find it funny that they're getting what looks to be a long and spirited campaign beyond their wildest dreams and into their worst nightmares.
 
2012-02-05 01:00:14 AM

gimmegimme: Notabunny: Jim_Callahan: Marcus Aurelius: So please explain why exactly we can't let the order of the primaries rotate to someplace a little more pertinent than Iowa and New Hampshire and South Frigging Carolina?

That's actually exactly why. It prevents the big states from just completely steamrolling the political process and making the little guys, rural concerns, and so on de facto irrelevant. Sort of similar to why the Senate has two reps per state instead a population-proportional scheme-- it forces various factions to play nice even when they're dramatically unequal in power, at least to an extent.

So a minority of extremist wingnuts decide the direction of the party, rather than the more moderate majority. That seems to be working well.

Were there any 2012 candidates who weren't extremist wingnuts? (I'm thinking Romney and Huntsman, but Huntsman had no chance because he's comparably poor and speaks Communisty language.)


What a Buddy Roemer may look like

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-05 01:37:41 AM

Notabunny:

What a Buddy Roemer may look like

[img.photobucket.com image 327x400]


Who on account of not being nuts, was given even less attention by the GOP than Gary Johnson and John Huntsman.
 
2012-02-05 02:19:10 AM

Name_Omitted: bigbadideasinaction: I love how the article starts by saying the goal wass to have a long protracted battle for the nomination, because that's a good thing, but then Florida happened.

And by the second page the same people are saying the long protracted battle caused by Florida is a bad thing, because Florida.

I think the point of the article was that it was supposed to be a long, undecided battle where early states had proportionally appointed electors so there would be no early victor. This was meant to create an invigorating campaign, good for the GOP.

Florida created an all or nothing pot that was too important to fit the "no winner yet" narrative. With that change, instead of having a kinder, gentler "getting to know you" type of race, it became nasty, brutish, and oh so long.

I don't know that the article is correct, but I think that's what it tried to say.


It's not like they didn't know that if they took away half of Florida's delegates Florida was going to switch to winner-take-all for the half that was left. They did it in 2008, and they had the same "proportional representation unless we lose half our delegates" clause in from the beginning this go around too.

Since they knew there was no way Florida was going to budge on the primary date, they knew exactly what they were in for the second they took away half the delegates. The only penalty that would have actually gotten them to move the primary to a reasonable date would have been to take away all the delegates and to pull the convention out of the state.
 
2012-02-05 03:52:27 AM
Newt is NOT our fault. Seriously, he's from up north.
 
2012-02-05 08:39:35 AM
OK, GOP...so let's recap

For two or three decades you have been training your political elite that the best form of campaigning is to strike for your opponent's jugglar repeatedly and often. You have convinced them that it is OK to tell any lie about your opponent because God is on your side. You have ignored all of their faults if you deemed them to be electable. You have subscribed to a scorched earth doctrine to the point of destroying any hope of civil discourse in public afairs.

And now that all of this conditioning is coming back and biting you in the ass, it's Florida's fault?


The Party of Personal Responsibility strikes again out.
 
2012-02-05 08:48:00 AM

Name_Omitted: I don't know that the article is correct, but I think that's what it tried to say.


It's even simpler than that. The party of personal responsibility is saying "It's not our fault" again.
 
2012-02-05 09:43:29 AM
Florida republicans breaking the rules so that they will be in their favor is the norm, not the exception. It's practically a way of life there, what with the "just us" justice system that they have. Does anyone need to be reminded of the 2000 elections, which brought Bush/Cheney to power?
 
2012-02-05 01:21:50 PM
I'm just not seeing any justification for the article's headline within the article itself.

The primaries didn't turn nasty due to any state's decision. The primaries turned nasty because Newt Gingrich is a petty old man executing a scorched earth policy.

Even if Gingrich wasn't to blame, the state that would be more applicable a target is the always-dirty SC primary.
 
2012-02-05 01:37:46 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-05 02:42:17 PM
It's important to have the whole process start out slowly and then ramp up.
"Iowa and NH go first" is an adequate solution which frustrates voters who don't live in those two places.
The best solution is to have winner-take-all contests on a rotating schedule, broken down by media market. It wouldn't be a big deal for a fledgling candidate to run ads in say, Ft Myers or Gainesville, if the random rotating schedule called on one of those places to go first. Much easier than trying to win all of Florida.

But for that to happen, the RNC has to step up and say, "Yes, we do call for more autonomy for the states, EXCEPT IN THIS INSTANCE."
 
2012-02-05 10:48:12 PM
Funbags:

Holy farkin' crap, that's great.
 
2012-02-06 12:49:54 AM
I'm not listening to anything Prince Rebus says. He can fark off because his parents clearly didn't love him enough to give him a normal name.
 
Displayed 18 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report