I've always been wondering -- Did the Centauri males have a Maine Caucus and five secondary ones or...or...

I'm probably overthinking this.

Why do people have such care about the person who will lose to Barakka Hussein Obama at the real election? I just do not have the understanding of the desire for losing. it is as though they wish to raise the Confederate Flag which says WE DID THE LOSING!

It's all just become a dull roar at this point

/I'm desensiderped

I have to echo the sentiment already stated: at this point, do we really care who is going to take the state? Any state, any more? Because it comes down to the Convention being pretty much brokered at this point, with every candidate staying in for the long haul, and as much damn PAC money as they can pull.

This isn't a race anymore, it's a chance to fleece the faithful, and you might as well just stick these damn things in a tent, and all the candidates shoved into ice cream suits with big bruisers passing the collection plate...

meow said the dog: Why do people have such care about the person who will lose to Barakka Hussein Obama at the real election? I just do not have the understanding of the desire for losing. it is as though they wish to raise the Confederate Flag which says WE DID THE LOSING!

Republicans think they have the October surprise that will sink Obama. Apparently he has fathered two black children. Worse, the biological mother apparently is living in the White House.

COCK-US!!!

dahmers love zombie: I've always been wondering -- Did the Centauri males have a Maine Caucus and five secondary ones or...or...

I'm probably overthinking this.

A good, honest poker game will help you calm down.

xanadian: COCK-US!!!

I'm afraid they've been doing that to us for 30 years, friend.

DELEGATES!

hubiestubert: I have to echo the sentiment already stated: at this point, do we really care who is going to take the state? Any state, any more? Because it comes down to the Convention being pretty much brokered at this point, with every candidate staying in for the long haul, and as much damn PAC money as they can pull.

This isn't a race anymore, it's a chance to fleece the faithful, and you might as well just stick these damn things in a tent, and all the candidates shoved into ice cream suits with big bruisers passing the collection plate...

Agreed. It's going to be a brokered convention (YAY! for entertainment value), but the brokering is, of course, going to happen where no one can see it (BOO! for entertainment value).

That said, what do you think the last election was? Let's face it - like him or hate him, Obama won in part because he preaches a good revival sermon. Add that to the press pumping him up so there would be some kind of Democrat race (ratings and all), missteps by Clinton, and the absolute implosion of the McCain campaign, and we end up with Obama. Who has not done a bad job, IMHO, but was certainly improbable for the win.

In other words, it's always a tent revival.

NewportBarGuy: xanadian: COCK-US!!!

I'm afraid they've been doing that to us for 30 years, friend.

Well, he would know.

Benevolent Misanthrope: hubiestubert: I have to echo the sentiment already stated: at this point, do we really care who is going to take the state? Any state, any more? Because it comes down to the Convention being pretty much brokered at this point, with every candidate staying in for the long haul, and as much damn PAC money as they can pull.

This isn't a race anymore, it's a chance to fleece the faithful, and you might as well just stick these damn things in a tent, and all the candidates shoved into ice cream suits with big bruisers passing the collection plate...

Agreed. It's going to be a brokered convention (YAY! for entertainment value), but the brokering is, of course, going to happen where no one can see it (BOO! for entertainment value).

That said, what do you think the last election was? Let's face it - like him or hate him, Obama won in part because he preaches a good revival sermon. Add that to the press pumping him up so there would be some kind of Democrat race (ratings and all), missteps by Clinton, and the absolute implosion of the McCain campaign, and we end up with Obama. Who has not done a bad job, IMHO, but was certainly improbable for the win.

In other words, it's always a tent revival.

I don't think they will have a brokered convention. I could be wrong though. Anyways, if they do have a brokered convention, I'm predicting some punches. Someone will get punched in the head at some point.

+1 for "Paulistinians."

I chuckled.

AdolfOliverPanties: +1 for "Paulistinians."

I chuckled.

Gingrich probably doesn't even believe that Paulistine is a real nation.

mrshowrules: Benevolent Misanthrope: hubiestubert: I have to echo the sentiment already stated: at this point, do we really care who is going to take the state? Any state, any more? Because it comes down to the Convention being pretty much brokered at this point, with every candidate staying in for the long haul, and as much damn PAC money as they can pull.

This isn't a race anymore, it's a chance to fleece the faithful, and you might as well just stick these damn things in a tent, and all the candidates shoved into ice cream suits with big bruisers passing the collection plate...

Agreed. It's going to be a brokered convention (YAY! for entertainment value), but the brokering is, of course, going to happen where no one can see it (BOO! for entertainment value).

That said, what do you think the last election was? Let's face it - like him or hate him, Obama won in part because he preaches a good revival sermon. Add that to the press pumping him up so there would be some kind of Democrat race (ratings and all), missteps by Clinton, and the absolute implosion of the McCain campaign, and we end up with Obama. Who has not done a bad job, IMHO, but was certainly improbable for the win.

In other words, it's always a tent revival.

I don't think they will have a brokered convention. I could be wrong though. Anyways, if they do have a brokered convention, I'm predicting some punches. Someone will get punched in the head at some point.

Really? I think it'll end up being brokered because they just don't have a stand-out candidate who can build some momentum and catch the pile-on of voters that success brings. Right now, voters - what few there are turning out - are voting emotional issues like abortion and "we hate BHO". They haven't yet found a clear winner to vote for. As long as they vote based on the emotion of "issues" rather than the emotion of a sports fan for his or her team, there will continue to be no clear winner. (I'm basing my logic here on the idea that GOP voters don't really think too much - if they did, none of these guys would still be in the race and we'd be looking at Huntsman and Pawlenty.)

So, there's no "home team" to sweep in - which means a brokered election. I hope. I would almost reactivate my cable for that.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Really? I think it'll end up being brokered because they just don't have a stand-out candidate who can build some momentum and catch the pile-on of voters that success brings. Right now, voters - what few there are turning out - are voting emotional issues like abortion and "we hate BHO". They haven't yet found a clear winner to vote for. As long as they vote based on the emotion of "issues" rather than the emotion of a sports fan for his or her team, there will continue to be no clear winner. (I'm basing my logic here on the idea that GOP voters don't really think too much - if they did, none of these guys would still be in the race and we'd be looking at Huntsman and Pawlenty.)

This. Mostly because the party is so fractured that there is no one clear vision for the party. It's almost like we need to split the party into Moderates and Derpublicans or something. At least then you could root out the idiots and ignore them more officially.

mrshowrules: AdolfOliverPanties: +1 for "Paulistinians."

I chuckled.

Gingrich probably doesn't even believe that Paulistine is a real nation.

One constant is that it's the Joos' fault.

FriarReb98: Benevolent Misanthrope: Really? I think it'll end up being brokered because they just don't have a stand-out candidate who can build some momentum and catch the pile-on of voters that success brings. Right now, voters - what few there are turning out - are voting emotional issues like abortion and "we hate BHO". They haven't yet found a clear winner to vote for. As long as they vote based on the emotion of "issues" rather than the emotion of a sports fan for his or her team, there will continue to be no clear winner. (I'm basing my logic here on the idea that GOP voters don't really think too much - if they did, none of these guys would still be in the race and we'd be looking at Huntsman and Pawlenty.)

This. Mostly because the party is so fractured that there is no one clear vision for the party. It's almost like we need to split the party into Moderates and Derpublicans or something. At least then you could root out the idiots and ignore them more officially.

No, it's beyond that. It's possible to be conservative and derp-free. William F. Buckley, Jr, for example, was about as derp-free as any pundit that far from the center, left or right.

Please let Santorum win

Ricardo Klement: FriarReb98: Benevolent Misanthrope: Really? I think it'll end up being brokered because they just don't have a stand-out candidate who can build some momentum and catch the pile-on of voters that success brings. Right now, voters - what few there are turning out - are voting emotional issues like abortion and "we hate BHO". They haven't yet found a clear winner to vote for. As long as they vote based on the emotion of "issues" rather than the emotion of a sports fan for his or her team, there will continue to be no clear winner. (I'm basing my logic here on the idea that GOP voters don't really think too much - if they did, none of these guys would still be in the race and we'd be looking at Huntsman and Pawlenty.)

This. Mostly because the party is so fractured that there is no one clear vision for the party. It's almost like we need to split the party into Moderates and Derpublicans or something. At least then you could root out the idiots and ignore them more officially.

No, it's beyond that. It's possible to be conservative and derp-free. William F. Buckley, Jr, for example, was about as derp-free as any pundit that far from the center, left or right.

I agree - it doesn't seem to be a case of Moderate vs Derp, but a case of sane Republicans (all over the right side of the spectrum) and Batshiat Crazy Assholes (who tend to cluster at the far right). Unfortunately, the Batshiat side is outweighing the sane side, because they're easier to manipulate - and politicians just can't resist that. The GOP candidates could try to appeal to the sane folks, making them understand the issues and convincing them to agree... or, they can just spout totally nonsensical derp and get the crazies on their side. Which is far easier. The problem with that, though, is that all of them are now derping and none has a clear advantage with the teabaggers.

it's interesting to watch, actually. I knew this election would be about the derp on the GOP side, but I didn't realize 3 years ago that all the candidates would be doing their best to appeal to the crazies.

Benevolent Misanthrope: I agree - it doesn't seem to be a case of Moderate vs Derp, but a case of sane Republicans (all over the right side of the spectrum) and Batshiat Crazy Assholes (who tend to cluster at the far right). Unfortunately, the Batshiat side is outweighing the sane side, because they're easier to manipulate - and politicians just can't resist that. The GOP candidates could try to appeal to the sane folks, making them understand the issues and convincing them to agree... or, they can just spout totally nonsensical derp and get the crazies on their side. Which is far easier. The problem with that, though, is that all of them are now derping and none has a clear advantage with the teabaggers.

it's interesting to watch, actually. I knew this election would be about the derp on the GOP side, but I didn't realize 3 years ago that all the candidates would be doing their best to appeal to the crazies.

Educating people on conservative positions was an attempt to expand the party and win elections on principle. Unfortunately, someone somewhere decided that expansion wasn't going to work and instead decided to try to win on pure enthusiasm, and enthusiasm demands derp.

Ricardo Klement: Educating people on conservative positions was an attempt to expand the party and win elections on principle. Unfortunately, someone somewhere decided that expansion wasn't going to work and instead decided to try to win on pure enthusiasm, and enthusiasm demands derp.

Well, appealing to emotion is certainly faster (and more fun) than appealing to intellect. But it's going to bite them in the ass sooner or later.

Go Generic Republican Candidate!

Amos Quito: The strategy that the media is using to attack Paul at the moment is to simply pretend he isn't there.

Check out this LA Times article "State of the GOP race: Romney's ahead, Santorum has momentum".

Romney's name is mentioned 15 times, Santorum 11 times, Gingrich is mention 5 times.

RON PAUL is entirely ignored by the article. Not a single mention of his name.

Given that many UhMercuns have the attention span of a fruit fly, this is probably not a bad strategy to pursue.

Ron Paul has no real chance. He has a fanbase, but no appeal outside it. So while there's support there, he doesn't have a viable path to the nomination. So they ignore him as a non-factor.

I'd like to see them at least acknowledge he exists in theses discussions, but that's where the news directors are coming from.

Chris Wallace: If Ron Paul wins, Maine won't count. In fact, we'll remove its star from the flag and it will become part of Canada.

Amos Quito: The strategy that the media is using to attack Paul at the moment is to simply pretend he isn't there.

Check out this LA Times article "State of the GOP race: Romney's ahead, Santorum has momentum".

Romney's name is mentioned 15 times, Santorum 11 times, Gingrich is mention 5 times.

RON PAUL is entirely ignored by the article. Not a single mention of his name.

Given that many UhMercuns have the attention span of a fruit fly, this is probably not a bad strategy to pursue.

Well, there's no government regulation of media political content, so the Free Market will fix this. Problem Solved.

I just don't see any way that there will be a brokered convention. The very idea of a brokered convention is so distant from the modern political world that it's just never going to happen. Adlai Stevenson in 1952 was the last candidate to be picked by brokered convention, and the last president to be chosen that way was FDR in 1932.

The Republican base simply would not stand for a candidate picked by "The Establishment." My god, can you imagine if Santorum does well enough to stay in the running through to the convention, only to have "The Establishment" pick Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie or someone else? They'd go crazy, and the Republicans would lose the base immediately. In a year where even Rick Santorum is getting attacked for being a "Washington Insider", the possibility that a brokered candidate would be chosen over the candidate with the most votes is negligent at best. It would be a death knell for the one thing that the Republicans need the most this year; enthusiasm.

Amos Quito: The strategy that the media is using to attack Paul at the moment is to simply pretend he isn't there.

Check out this LA Times article "State of the GOP race: Romney's ahead, Santorum has momentum".

Romney's name is mentioned 15 times, Santorum 11 times, Gingrich is mention 5 times.

RON PAUL is entirely ignored by the article. Not a single mention of his name.

Given that many UhMercuns have the attention span of a fruit fly, this is probably not a bad strategy to pursue.

They also didn't mention Fred Karger, Kathyern Lane, Andy Martin, Jimmy McMillan, Tom Miller, Buddy Roemer, Matt Snyder, or Vern Wuensche. I wonder why? It is, indeed, a vexing question. Perhaps one of the great mysteries.

Rincewind53: I just don't see any way that there will be a brokered convention. The very idea of a brokered convention is so distant from the modern political world that it's just never going to happen. Adlai Stevenson in 1952 was the last candidate to be picked by brokered convention, and the last president to be chosen that way was FDR in 1932.

The Republican base simply would not stand for a candidate picked by "The Establishment." My god, can you imagine if Santorum does well enough to stay in the running through to the convention, only to have "The Establishment" pick Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie or someone else? They'd go crazy, and the Republicans would lose the base immediately. In a year where even Rick Santorum is getting attacked for being a "Washington Insider", the possibility that a brokered candidate would be chosen over the candidate with the most votes is negligent at best. It would be a death knell for the one thing that the Republicans need the most this year; enthusiasm.

sure
but the theory is that santorum would win the delegates, but the brokers could pick, say, mitt, because the second place finisher would go better in the general election.

the whole primary process is retarded.
their goal SHOULD be to find and pick the best candidate to win the general election.
They currently have nothing to do with this in reality.

How can the choice be over before all the states have had their primary? what a dumbass system.
Have the primaries on the same day for all states.
Have a 2nd run-off vote when there is no clear winner.
tada, something slightly more sensible

namatad:
sure
but the theory is that santorum would win the delegates, but the brokers could pick, say, mitt, because the second place finisher would go better in the general election.

Right, and that would be the worst possible choice to make. Take the candidate that won the Evangelical/Tea Party vote and kick him off for the candidate that didn't? There is no greater recipe for a complete slaughter in the elections. If they did that, I see Obama picking up states that haven't voted Democratic in decades, just because the entire Evangelical base stays home in disgust.

either way, it is awesome to see the GOP running against each other
and if Gingrich wins AZ????
lol

what we REALLY need is for one of the non-Romney's to drop out. They are currently splitting too much of the vote.
My guess is that the remaining two would split those votes and make Romney look worse and worse.

LOL

Rincewind53: Right, and that would be the worst possible choice to make. Take the candidate that won the Evangelical/Tea Party vote and kick him off for the candidate that didn't? There is no greater recipe for a complete slaughter in the elections. If they did that, I see Obama picking up states that haven't voted Democratic in decades, just because the entire Evangelical base stays home in disgust.

I would LIKE to think that, but the evangelicals REALLLLLY hate democrats and REALLLLY hate brown people.
At least, that's what I heard.

Rincewind53: I just don't see any way that there will be a brokered convention. The very idea of a brokered convention is so distant from the modern political world that it's just never going to happen. Adlai Stevenson in 1952 was the last candidate to be picked by brokered convention, and the last president to be chosen that way was FDR in 1932.

The Republican base simply would not stand for a candidate picked by "The Establishment." My god, can you imagine if Santorum does well enough to stay in the running through to the convention, only to have "The Establishment" pick Tim Pawlenty or Chris Christie or someone else? They'd go crazy, and the Republicans would lose the base immediately. In a year where even Rick Santorum is getting attacked for being a "Washington Insider", the possibility that a brokered candidate would be chosen over the candidate with the most votes is negligent at best. It would be a death knell for the one thing that the Republicans need the most this year; enthusiasm.

If they split the primaries three ways (as looks possible, if not probable at this point), there's no alternative to a brokered convention. I very much doubt that anybody involved wants it, but you have three guys with virtually unlimited wells of money to keep competing (through superpacs, they each have their own sugardaddies). As long as they don't bottom out in the polls, they'll stay in the race, get proportional delegate counts, and the convention could wind up with Romney at half and Gingrich/Santorum/Paul with a combined half. Or even if Mitt has a more commanding lead than that, he might not have enough to win, and delegates aren't bound after the first ballot. At that point, chaos.

namatad: How can the choice be over before all the states have had their primary? what a dumbass system.
Have the primaries on the same day for all states.
Have a 2nd run-off vote when there is no clear winner.
tada, something slightly more sensible

The reason we don't do this is because a) it would guarantee that only the richest candidates stand a chance in hell, candidates with the money to run in all states from the outset; and b) it really, really, really doesn't actually matter much.

cptjeff:

If they split the primaries three ways (as looks possible, if not probable at this point), there's no alternative to a brokered convention. I very much doubt that anybody involved wants it, but you have three guys with virtually unlimited wells of money to keep competing (through superpacs, they each have their own sugardaddies). As long as they don't bottom out in the polls, they'll stay in the race, get proportional delegate counts, and the convention could wind up with Romney at half and Gingrich/Santorum/Paul with a combined half. Or even if Mitt has a more commanding lead than that, he might not have enough to win, and delegates aren't bound after the first ballot. At that point, chaos.

I disagree. For one thing, I think the most realistic delegate count by the time of the convention would be something on the order of 45% Romney, 35% Santorum, and 20% Paul/Gingrich. In that situation, the party must go with the best of the possible situations, which is picking Romney, rather than a brokered convention.

However, if you reverse those numbers, and give Santorum the 45%, then if there is a brokered convention the party runs into the situation I proposed, where the entire evangelical/tea party vote splinters off in protest and refuses to vote on election day.

I don't see any situation whereby Gingrich or Paul come even close to Santorum or Romney in overall delegate totals, so the situation you mentioned where it's a three-way race doesn't seem possible to me. Gingrich got his ass kicked thoroughly this week, and his poll numbers are still down in the dumps. I predict he'll drop out come Super Tuesday; he may win a couple of states, but his candidacy (like his marriages) just doesn't have staying power. Paul, on the other hand, has a ceiling of support beyond which he simply won't get any new voters, which has been demonstrated pretty clearly by now. While some people are suggesting he may actually win Maine today, it won't change the fact that he's unlikely to ever reach more than 20% popular support nationwide, and with the winner-take-all nature of most Republican primaries/caucuses, he is unlikely to be able to compete with Santorum or Romney in delegate counts.

Basically, if Santorum is leading in delegate counts at the convention, they will not broker it, because the cure is worse than the disease. If Romney is leading in delegate counts at the convention, they will not broker it, because that's who the establishment Republicans want to win.

Ricardo Klement: namatad: How can the choice be over before all the states have had their primary? what a dumbass system.
Have the primaries on the same day for all states.
Have a 2nd run-off vote when there is no clear winner.
tada, something slightly more sensible

The reason we don't do this is because a) it would guarantee that only the richest candidates stand a chance in hell, candidates with the money to run in all states from the outset; and b) it really, really, really doesn't actually matter much.

Considering that the parties are private groups, that this primary year could be disastrous for the party, that McConnell is pretty anti-voting in general, and that the GOP itself is trying to disenfranchise voters as demographics shift away from them:

Why doesn't the GOP just scrap the whole f*cking show and say "Here's our guy". Just do it all privately.

I Said: Ricardo Klement: namatad: How can the choice be over before all the states have had their primary? what a dumbass system.
Have the primaries on the same day for all states.
Have a 2nd run-off vote when there is no clear winner.
tada, something slightly more sensible

The reason we don't do this is because a) it would guarantee that only the richest candidates stand a chance in hell, candidates with the money to run in all states from the outset; and b) it really, really, really doesn't actually matter much.

Considering that the parties are private groups, that this primary year could be disastrous for the party, that McConnell is pretty anti-voting in general, and that the GOP itself is trying to disenfranchise voters as demographics shift away from them:

Why doesn't the GOP just scrap the whole f*cking show and say "Here's our guy". Just do it all privately.

I'm pretty sure that's how the system works anyway - call it SuperPACs, or brokering, but I'm fairly certain private interests choose candidates.

I Said: Why doesn't the GOP just scrap the whole f*cking show and say "Here's our guy". Just do it all privately.

Exposure. The primaries bring a lot of name recognition for the winner to the game, especially long, drawn-out primaries.

Ricardo Klement: I Said: Why doesn't the GOP just scrap the whole f*cking show and say "Here's our guy". Just do it all privately.

Exposure. The primaries bring a lot of name recognition for the winner to the game, especially long, drawn-out primaries.

Ah. I hadn't considered that.

Benevolent Misanthrope: I'm pretty sure that's how the system works anyway - call it SuperPACs, or brokering, but I'm fairly certain private interests choose candidates.

While I think this is generally true, and more true now with SuperPACs, even sometimes there are upsets (on the Dem side: Obama over Hillary. On the GOP side: if anyone other than Mitt wins)

I Said: Ah. I hadn't considered that.

Witness the full power of having taken Larry Sabato's Poly Sci 101 course!

Ricardo Klement: I Said: Ah. I hadn't considered that.

Witness the full power of having taken Larry Sabato's Poly Sci 101 course!

lol

NewportBarGuy: xanadian: COCK-US!!!

I'm afraid they've been doing that to us for 30 years, friend.

Truth.

GAT_00: Well, he would know.

Also truth.

Nobody cares about caususes.