2012 Presidential Campaign

[JPhillips]

dola

First post-SC Florida poll has Newt up by 9.

edit: Rasmussen has the same spread.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

They tend to disenfranchise voters such as the elderly and poor, who don't otherwise have IDs (usually because they don't drive). Voter ID laws would, presumably, be much less objectionable if voting-age citizens were made well aware of the requirement and a concerted effort was made to provide them with free, government issued IDs.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think the argument is because almost every ID has a fee associated with it so it's not actually free

SI

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Easily available is another problem. Look at what they tried to do in Wisconsin. After the voter ID law was passed the DMV proposed closing offices in highly Dem areas and opening new offices in highly GOP areas.

Most of the voter ID movement is just a way to make it harder for likely Dem voters.

edit: And you have to look at it in conjunction wit efforts to make registering more difficult, eliminating same day registration and limiting early voting.

Maybe I am more intimate with because it is my home state, or my local precinct was the center of a hotbed last election but for hose not up to speed.

SC's law was a totally free ID and the state was even going to provide free transportation to the nearest location at a time convenient to the applicant for those unregistred. For those over 65 they were going to offer to produce the IDs in home.

My local precinct has 102 registred voters. I know them all by name.
At the 2008 election 7 Chartered buses (all with out of state plates) pulled up to our precinct to vote and the State Special Law Enforcement Division had to be brought in to remove them after they refused to leave.

Tell me again why this should be legal.

[CU Tiger]

Dola - BTW how do you cash a payroll, social security, unemployment, or other check withut an ID?

I care for some elderly family. My Grandfather is 92. He doesnt go out to ride his tractor around his own farm without his driver's license.

I understand in some metro areas many dont drive, but in SC there is no mass public transit option and very, very few urban areas where folks cna walk to the market. The number of legitimate adults who do not have a state issue ID has to be in the single digit percentage wise.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Maybe I am more intimate with because it is my home state, or my local precinct was the center of a hotbed last election but for hose not up to speed.

SC's law was a totally free ID and the state was even going to provide free transportation to the nearest location at a time convenient to the applicant for those unregistred. For those over 65 they were going to offer to produce the IDs in home.

My local precinct has 102 registred voters. I know them all by name.
At the 2008 election 7 Chartered buses (all with out of state plates) pulled up to our precinct to vote and the State Special Law Enforcement Division had to be brought in to remove them after they refused to leave.

Tell me again why this should be legal.

I'm all for tighter voter laws, in theory. It's always baffled me that I could walk up, say I'm my neighbor and vote in his name without having to prove a thing. Or that someone could do the same in my name. They have to take my word as to whether I am who I say I am.

That said, there's a lot of disenfranchisement opportunities so it's not this binary- what is right/wrong but whether to err on the side of too much caution or too much openness. It sounds like you have a great system in place in your area. But how do you do that if you're, say, Atlanta, where there are more than 102 registered voters?

And I start to get worried about these sorts of shenanigans as described above:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78713P20110908
Wis. DMV says closure decisions aren't final - BusinessWeek

I was looking at Indiana, which I believe has a voter ID law. Honestly, I can't remember and I voted last November but only living here for a short time, I've only been here for 2 elections. Here's our laws:
http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php
"If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented." - tho it doesn't specify what those are


I'm not really sure where I stand on voter ID laws. I'd rather everything be legal and on the level but, again, which side to err on- too tight or too loose because there's never a perfect fit.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm all for tighter voter laws, in theory. It's always baffled me that I could walk up, say I'm my neighbor and vote in his name without having to prove a thing. Or that someone could do the same in my name. They have to take my word as to whether I am who I say I am.

That said, there's a lot of disenfranchisement opportunities so it's not this binary- what is right/wrong but whether to err on the side of too much caution or too much openness. It sounds like you have a great system in place in your area. But how do you do that if you're, say, Atlanta, where there are more than 102 registered voters?

And I start to get worried about these sorts of shenanigans as described above:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78713P20110908
Wis. DMV says closure decisions aren't final - BusinessWeek

I was looking at Indiana, which I believe has a voter ID law. Honestly, I can't remember and I voted last November but only living here for a short time, I've only been here for 2 elections. Here's our laws:
Applying for a New Indiana BMV Identification Card at DMV.org: The Unofficial DMV Guide
"If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented." - tho it doesn't specify what those are


I'm not really sure where I stand on voter ID laws. I'd rather everything be legal and on the level but, again, which side to err on- too tight or too loose because there's never a perfect fit.

SI

Right. It's always going to be a balancing act. Personally I think voting should be as easy as possible for as many as possible. I favor same day registration, extended voting periods, easier access to absentee ballots, and exploring ways to securely vote electronically.

[larrymcg421]

Stand in line at a metro Atlanta DMV and you'll see why voter ID laws are a horrible idea. A 5 hour wait is not unheard of.

[bhlloy]

My real concern with saying there is a single ID that you need to have or you can't vote would really be twofold

1) as noted who decides who gets the ID and how easy it is to get the ID for one group vs another

2) who gets to decide if you can keep the ID. In a crazy tinfoil hat scenario in a close local race I can absolutely see the local sheriff dept making traffic stops around a voting site and certain people mysteriously end up getting their driving license confiscated for a day or two

That being said the current system is a joke and something needs to be done to tighten it up. In a country where birth and death recording is mandatory it shouldn't be this damn hard to avoid thousands of zombies voting or counties with voting rolls twice the size of the actual county. Some real third world shit seems to be going on

[Solecismic]

I've never seen a primary anything like this. The Republicans are absolutely desperate to nominate anyone but Romney. But no one else can hold up to the vetting for more than a couple of weeks.

It's too bad we can't have any new candidates.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

2) who gets to decide if you can keep the ID. In a crazy tinfoil hat scenario in a close local race I can absolutely see the local sheriff dept making traffic stops around a voting site and certain people mysteriously end up getting their driving license confiscated for a day or two

Is that really any more likely than a bunch of people just saying they're someone else and voting?

How does the government validate ID for other social services? It doesn't necessarily have to be a state-issued driver's license, but there must be some minimally intrusive and free way to confirm identity (or even, to just take an honest shot at confirming identity beyond someone's word). If not freely issued ID, how about a government service document of some type with your name on it? Or birth date validation? Nothing will be foolproof, of course, but a modest improvement is needed.

I think there are valid reasons for wanting to confirm someone's identity other than trying to keep poor people from voting or whatever.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've never seen a primary anything like this. The Republicans are absolutely desperate to nominate anyone but Romney. But no one else can hold up to the vetting for more than a couple of weeks.

It's too bad we can't have any new candidates.

If you made an election sim where this happened, people would be bitching about it as unrealistic:

"What I'm saying is that the game seems likely to be broken. It generated me one guy who cannot get above 25% base support no matter what I do. And all of the other candidates have high base support, but no independent support. There is no way to win the election because I cannot pick a candidate who has enough of both types of support.

There's no way this would happen in real life. In real life, if you had candidates this bad, other people would have joined in the race early.

This isn't really playable as it is. I'm just hoping for a patch to come out soon."

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's too bad we can't have any new candidates.

Is it possible for a new candidate to throw their hat in the ring at this stage, or have we already passed some kind of deadline?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you made an election sim where this happened, people would be bitching about it as unrealistic:

"What I'm saying is that the game seems likely to be broken. It generated me one guy who cannot get above 25% base support no matter what I do. And all of the other candidates have high base support, but no independent support. There is no way to win the election because I cannot pick a candidate who has enough of both types of support.

There's no way this would happen in real life. In real life, if you had candidates this bad, other people would have joined in the race early.

This isn't really playable as it is. I'm just hoping for a patch to come out soon."

Well played sir!

*Applause*

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Is it possible for a new candidate to throw their hat in the ring at this stage, or have we already passed some kind of deadline?

The answer, from what I gather, is complicated.

On the one hand, because of filing deadlines for the primaries, it is too late for any candidate to get on the ballot in enough states to win the nomination in the traditional way.

But, I think that if no candidate has a majority of delegates, then the delegates at the convention, after the first vote, can change votes to try and come up with a consensus nominee.

Now, because conventions are basically infomercials for candidates these days, the GOP wants to have its nominee locked up well before the actual votes at the convention. So, the powers that be would have to work behind the scenes to get the candidates supporting enough delegates to all agree on a nominee (say, a Palin or a Jindall).

Of course, that has the problem of making the whole system look rigged and possibly pissing off the voters in the early states who voted for Romney or Gingrich and now feel disenfranchised.

So, I would imagine that the hope of the GOP bigwigs is that either Romney or Gingrich or Santorum wins this "on the merits" and makes the whole discussion moot.

[CrimsonFox]

let's combine threads....

2012 political masturbation!

[Swaggs]

I wonder how much Jeb Bush wishes his last name was just about anything else right now.

You would have to think he would have been a favorite to win it all, if he was not Dubya's brother.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Is that really any more likely than a bunch of people just saying they're someone else and voting?

How does the government validate ID for other social services? It doesn't necessarily have to be a state-issued driver's license, but there must be some minimally intrusive and free way to confirm identity (or even, to just take an honest shot at confirming identity beyond someone's word). If not freely issued ID, how about a government service document of some type with your name on it? Or birth date validation? Nothing will be foolproof, of course, but a modest improvement is needed.

I think there are valid reasons for wanting to confirm someone's identity other than trying to keep poor people from voting or whatever.

Sure, but as I said earlier most of the voting ID movement is about making it harder for likely Dem voters. You could design a system where voter ID was easy and free and available for everyone, but the people writing these laws see voter suppression as a feature.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you made an election sim where this happened, people would be bitching about it as unrealistic:

"What I'm saying is that the game seems likely to be broken. It generated me one guy who cannot get above 25% base support no matter what I do. And all of the other candidates have high base support, but no independent support. There is no way to win the election because I cannot pick a candidate who has enough of both types of support.

There's no way this would happen in real life. In real life, if you had candidates this bad, other people would have joined in the race early.

This isn't really playable as it is. I'm just hoping for a patch to come out soon."

"A Mormon Republican, a guy named Newt, and some guy who you can't even Google his name for fear of what you might find: those are your three best candidates? I'm just starting this dynasty over"

SI

[molson]

If we're talking independents, Perot didn't start campaigning until around March 1992 and he didn't officially enter the race until April. Of course, he had hundreds of millions of dollars to work with. Still, I think he got off to the great start because of a unpopular president, and a less-than-inspiring field of challengers from the other party, not unlike the setup this year. A guy with money could make a splash here, I think (but I don't think its going to happen).

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Is it possible for a new candidate to throw their hat in the ring at this stage, or have we already passed some kind of deadline?

Someone getting in at this point would have a hell of a time getting on the ballot in enough states to matter. Hell, everyone but Romney and Paul farked up and aren't on the Virginia ballot, I believe.

The only way someone else gets in is if 3-4 guys stay in, no one gets to 50%+1 of the delegates by themselves and they go into the convention and the party leaders get together and draft someone else. I'm rooting for that at this point. Heck, I already saw a month long fight over votes and a popular vote loser elected president. Why not?

[JPhillips]

I've read on a couple of conservative blogs that Paul supporters are lining up as delegates for other candidates hoping for a brokered convention and switching to Paul after the first vote. I can't believe this would work, but Paul's got the sort of supporters that I can see trying this.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by molson

If we're talking independents, Perot didn't start campaigning until around March 1992 and he didn't officially enter the race until April. Of course, he had hundreds of millions of dollars to work with. Still, I think he got off to the great start because of a unpopular president, and a less-than-inspiring field of challengers from the other party, not unlike the setup this year. A guy with money could make a splash here, I think (but I don't think its going to happen).

Bloomberg?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

If we're talking independents, Perot didn't start campaigning until around March 1992 and he didn't officially enter the race until April. Of course, he had hundreds of millions of dollars to work with. Still, I think he got off to the great start because of a unpopular president, and a less-than-inspiring field of challengers from the other party, not unlike the setup this year. A guy with money could make a splash here, I think (but I don't think its going to happen).

But Perot won zero electoral votes. Winning even a single state is damn hard for someone without the infrastructure of a party.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've read on a couple of conservative blogs that Paul supporters are lining up as delegates for other candidates hoping for a brokered convention and switching to Paul after the first vote. I can't believe this would work, but Paul's got the sort of supporters that I can see trying this.

No way Paul wins even if they do that. It's just not enough of them and until internet voting occurs, there never will be.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But Perot won zero electoral votes. Winning even a single state is damn hard for someone without the infrastructure of a party.

True, but that was after he collapsed in the polls after leading them by a large margin earlier. It would be interesting to see how an independent would fair if he was actually more popular than the other candidates by the time of the election. It'd still be an uphill battle, but it'd be interesting scenario.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

If we're talking independents, Perot didn't start campaigning until around March 1992 and he didn't officially enter the race until April. Of course, he had hundreds of millions of dollars to work with. Still, I think he got off to the great start because of a unpopular president, and a less-than-inspiring field of challengers from the other party, not unlike the setup this year. A guy with money could make a splash here, I think (but I don't think its going to happen).

Trump?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But Perot won zero electoral votes. Winning even a single state is damn hard for someone without the infrastructure of a party.

Originally Posted by molson

True, but that was after he collapsed in the polls after leading them by a large margin earlier. It would be interesting to see how an independent would fair if he was actually more popular than the other candidates by the time of the election. It'd still be an uphill battle, but it'd be interesting scenario.

I could easily see a scenario like in '48 where if Romney gets the nomination, and the South cannot stand him, a 3rd party candidate that appeals to the Southern Republican base carries a few states, ala Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

I could easily see a scenario like in '48 where if Romney gets the nomination, and the South cannot stand him, a 3rd party candidate that appeals to the Southern Republican base carries a few states, ala Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats.

FWIW, I don't see one that could pull it off in the current field. Not to say that one couldn't emerge from somewhere but I don't sense a current eventual also-ran that's got the potential to actually carry a state. Huckabee would probably have come closer last time than any of these guys, they're struggling too much already.

[stevew]

What's the deal with Gary Johnson? Is he going to get the L nod? I'm sure he will get frozen out of the debates, but he seems like a realistic L candidate for a change.

[Grover]

This debate is a trainwreck.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by stevew

What's the deal with Gary Johnson? Is he going to get the L nod? I'm sure he will get frozen out of the debates, but he seems like a realistic L candidate for a change.

I think he is the current nominee but I think the Libertarian's are holding out hope that Paul will end up running third party with them. The highest percentage they have ever gotten I think was with Paul and it was less than a percent. I think he could easily take in 5% while Johnson would be stuck with the same old <1%. (Don't get me wrong I like Johnson as a candidate and actually think he would probably be more electable than Paul but Paul right now is their "star")

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Grover

This debate is a trainwreck.

The audience cheered when the poor people got killed in the back of the train?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by stevew

The audience cheered when the poor people got killed in the back of the train?

I mean... between Santorum claiming Jihadists are in Latin America and Romney's policy of "self-deportation." I'm done.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW, I don't see one that could pull it off in the current field. Not to say that one couldn't emerge from somewhere but I don't sense a current eventual also-ran that's got the potential to actually carry a state. Huckabee would probably have come closer last time than any of these guys, they're struggling too much already.

Someone to the far right, like Jim DeMint, could possibly carry a few Southeastern states and/or gulf states and potentially raise their national profile (possibly for the 2016 cycle if it looks like Obama is going to win, it would be a no lose situation -- I don't think any of the establishment would care if Romney got undercut).

[Grover]

and now Terry Schiavo. Jesus Christ.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Someone to the far right, like Jim DeMint, could possibly carry a few Southeastern states and/or gulf states and potentially raise their national profile (possibly for the 2016 cycle if it looks like Obama is going to win, it would be a no lose situation -- I don't think any of the establishment would care if Romney got undercut).

Hmm, hypothetically he could serve as someone not currently in the race to fit the scenario (or at least a placeholder for one).

As for "the establishment", I think there's probably at least two of those on the GOP side alone. I mean, what sort of batshit crazy divide exists when Ann Coulter spends most of her time trying to convince the rest of us that Romney is actually worth wasting time on?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm, hypothetically he could serve as someone not currently in the race to fit the scenario (or at least a placeholder for one).

As for "the establishment", I think there's probably at least two of those on the GOP side alone. I mean, what sort of batshit crazy divide exists when Ann Coulter spends most of her time trying to convince the rest of us that Romney is actually worth wasting time on?

Haley Barbour could be another possibility?

Honestly, there almost seems to be enough reprehension of Romney (by much of the GOP) and enough idelologues, that you have to wonder if many would rather throw the race to Obama, keep their party principles and try again in 4-years rather than have Romney be the party's leader for 4-8 years.

I've mentioned it before and was somewhat aware (from his treatment in 2008), but I don't think I fully appreciated how disliked Romney is by many within the party. I don't know if it is his religion or just his personality, but I think he could be a national drag on the party and cost them Congressional seats (because many diehards may sit it out rather than holding their nose to vote for him).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm, hypothetically he could serve as someone not currently in the race to fit the scenario (or at least a placeholder for one).

As for "the establishment", I think there's probably at least two of those on the GOP side alone. I mean, what sort of batshit crazy divide exists when Ann Coulter spends most of her time trying to convince the rest of us that Romney is actually worth wasting time on?

Right - its a question I've seen a lot at NR and elsewhere - where the hell is this mythical Republican establishment that's all powerful? John McCain won last time because South Carolina liked the former military guy more than the moderate Mass Governer who pretended he was a culture warrior - he sure as hell wasn't the establishment candidate. Same thing here - if there was an establishment, wouldn't Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie be winning this thing now?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Haley Barbour could be another possibility?

LMAO ... because I came within an inch of mentioning him myself.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Honestly, there almost seems to be enough reprehension of Romney (by much of the GOP) and enough idelologues, that you have to wonder if many would rather throw the race to Obama, keep their party principles and try again in 4-years rather than have Romney be the party's leader for 4-8 years.

Who are they going to run in 4 years? I'm sorry, but moderates win elections in this country. Throwing out a new batch of people with those same ideologies as Bachmann and Santorum is just going to lead to the same results.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who are they going to run in 4 years? I'm sorry, but moderates win elections in this country. Throwing out a new batch of people with those same ideologies as Bachmann and Santorum is just going to lead to the same results.

If Bobby Jindahl is ready for the big stage by 2012, then I think he'd have a great shot.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who are they going to run in 4 years? I'm sorry, but moderates win elections in this country. Throwing out a new batch of people with those same ideologies as Bachmann and Santorum is just going to lead to the same results.

It's not about being a moderate. It's about pretending to be a moderate enough that you sound good to enough people to get the job done. McCain, Bush II, Dole, Bush I, Reagan all had enough moderate in them to get there. The question then is if you win, how big a liar are you?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If Bobby Jindahl is ready for the big stage by 2012, then I think he'd have a great shot.

Jindal needs a voice coach.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Haley Barbour could be another possibility?

The same Barbour who's getting hammered for giving full pardons to convicted murderers serving life sentences because they worked at his mansion? Good luck with that, talk about issues that nobody wants to bring up.

[larrymcg421]

A WaPo poll shows some frightening numbers for the GOP. Here are the favorables among independents...

Romney 23/51
Gingrich 22/53

[Coffee Warlord]

I'd imagine Santorum is likely even worse than that among indies, too.

[ISiddiqui]

I hear that Romney won last night and that the lobbying charges may really get after Gingrich (it seemed most people really didn't know about it before hand).

That and an audience that couldn't cheer and holler killed Newt in the debate.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

A WaPo poll shows some frightening numbers for the GOP. Here are the favorables among independents...

Romney 23/51
Gingrich 22/53

Dumb question: any idea what Obama's numbers are among independents right now?

SI

[larrymcg421]

The same WaPo poll mentioned this. It looks like Romney's tax issue may be hurting him quite a bit.

This is also a group — whites with incomes under $50K — that’s moved away from Romney over the past two weeks, with his unfavorable numbers jumping from 29 to 49 percent (exactly where Gingrich is as well).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Dumb question: any idea what Obama's numbers are among independents right now?

SI

He has 51% favorable, but they don't mention his unfavorables.

[cody8200]

It's too damn bad my man Mitch didn't run. He would have killed these clowns...