2012 Presidential Campaign

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How do I benefit if Obama stays "pure" but the GOP wins the election? In the real world the choice is between the two parties. Obama isn't perfect, but he's the best I can get. I won't feel better voting for a third party candidate that can't win.

As flawed as I find the Dems, and Lord do I find them flawed, I still think I'm much more likely to see my policy preferences enacted through them than a third party. Reform, however unlikely, is more likely through the levers of power than outside.

My comment was more aimed at Obama saying it than you but I guess it could also work for you saying it. What a chance for Obama to be a real leader for real "change" by turning down super-PAC money.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

My comment was more aimed at Obama saying it than you but I guess it could also work for you saying it. What a chance for Obama to be a real leader for real "change" by turning down super-PAC money.

Real leaders need to win elections to matter.

[larrymcg421]

I'm against Super PAC money as well, but if I was running, I would most certainly take it. Just like I'm against the electoral college, but if I was running I would certainly spend most of my time campaigning in swing states instead of focusing solely on the popular vote.

[JPhillips]

I've never seen anything like the GOP primary. From Public Policy Polling:

We put a national poll in the field today and pretty clear your new leader is Rick Santorum.

[SackAttack]

My nearly-82-year-old grandmother was asking me about Rick Santorum today.

That gave me pause.

[sterlingice]

You didn't tell her to Google him, right?

SI

[SackAttack]

She's 82. She's not even entirely sure what the Internet is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've never seen anything like the GOP primary. From Public Policy Polling:

Didn't they say this about Gingrich too? Looking at the schedule, the next states offering up delegates are Michigan and Arizona which Romney seems to have a fairly comfortable lead in both.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Umm, so about that whole contraceptive thing ... what I really meant to say was ...

LOL

[bronconick]

So, in the last month we've had "big news" about Abortion (Komen), Gays (Prop 8) and birth control. All we need now is something about prayer/evolution in public schools and we'll have hit for the social conservative Grand Slam.

[JPhillips]

This is a good line:

Santorum #CPAC introducer opens w/ joke: A conservative, a moderate, & a liberal walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Hi, Mitt."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've never seen anything like the GOP primary. From Public Policy Polling:

Social issues have in the news A LOT lately. The Planned Parenthood/Komen thing, the Catholic hospitals and contraception, etc. When those come into focus, it is someone like Santorum that is going to get a boost, because, unlike Romney, Santorum is an avowed culture warrior.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a good line:

Thanks, I needed a good status update

[larrymcg421]

A Nate silver tweet:

Santorum would be 11th GOPer to lead a national poll, joining Bachmann Cain Christie Gingrich Giuliani Huckabee Palin Perry Romney & Trump.

[sterlingice]

That's awesome considering how few of those actually ran

SI

[panerd]

Remember that Cheers episode where Frasier ran an experiment with Woody for mayor or city council? I often wonder if the media is just running an experiment to see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion.

That or these guys just aren't very good candidates.

[Crapshoot]

Btw, I saw this over at RedState (which was quoting from The New Republic - yeah, politics makes for strange bedfellows ).

A Severe Conservative Speaks at CPAC | RedState

Quote from TNR:

Superman was born Superman. It’s Clark Kent that is the invented alias, the pose, the “costume.” And in the way Superman plays Kent–weak, self-doubting, cowardly–we see his critique of the human race.

It occurred to me that the same is true of Romney’s desperate, if never terribly persuasive, impersonation of a conservative Republican. That persona–angry, simple-minded, xenophobic, jingoistic–is exactly what Romney (who is himself cultured, content, and cosmopolitan) imagines the average GOP voter to be

.

[albionmoonlight]

Best description of Romney that I heard is that he's a damn fine business consultant.

And, what does a great business consultant do? Whatever the client needs. What does he say? Whatever the client needs him to say. What does he believe? It does not matter; his job is to help the client, not push his agenda.

Basically, some of the same qualities that would make him a great business consultant--adaptability, an ability to subordinate his interests to the interests of the client, a talent for corporate-speak--make for political liabilities. Adaptability becomes flip-flopping. An ability to subordinate his interests makes him seem inauthentic. A talent for corporate speak makes him seem out of touch.

[DaddyTorgo]

Honestly?

WTF is wrong with these people??

Originally Posted by CPAC Panel summary

Stop talking about birth control. That was the key message from some of the most prominent leaders of America’s anti-abortion movement, speaking Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. During a talk on how to advance the movement through messaging, an all-female panel discussed the Obama administration’s birth-control-coverage mandate and suggested that the best way to defeat it is by calling it an “abortion mandate.”

Equating birth control with preemptive abortion? Really??

a) that's just fucking BONKERS
b) that's going to be a massively losing strategy with like...the 98% of non-fundy women who actually want to be something other than barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen

Seriously...what's the deal? The war-on-sex is not a winning cultural issue. Everybody likes sex. Making it have more consequences and be more "regulated" is in no way a winner with the non-fundy population of this country (which is a massive majority).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Honestly?

WTF is wrong with these people??



Equating birth control with preemptive abortion? Really??

a) that's just fucking BONKERS
b) that's going to be a massively losing strategy with like...the 98% of non-fundy women who actually want to be something other than barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen

Seriously...what's the deal? The war-on-sex is not a winning cultural issue. Everybody likes sex. Making it have more consequences and be more "regulated" is in no way a winner with the non-fundy population of this country (which is a massive majority).

You are talking about CPAC. It would be like Greenpeace taking a position on offshore drilling. What do you really expect?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Honestly?

WTF is wrong with these people??



Equating birth control with preemptive abortion? Really??

a) that's just fucking BONKERS
b) that's going to be a massively losing strategy with like...the 98% of non-fundy women who actually want to be something other than barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen

Seriously...what's the deal? The war-on-sex is not a winning cultural issue. Everybody likes sex. Making it have more consequences and be more "regulated" is in no way a winner with the non-fundy population of this country (which is a massive majority).

The same conversation that found my grandmother asking about Rick Santorum had her saying she strongly supports the availability of contraception at the same time as she was expressing her stance against abortion. So, y'know, even among the fundamentalists, calling that an 'abortion mandate' isn't necessarily going to be a winner.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Seriously...what's the deal? The war-on-sex is not a winning cultural issue. Everybody likes sex. Making it have more consequences and be more "regulated" is in no way a winner with the non-fundy population of this country (which is a massive majority).

It's not a war on sex, it's just woman shaming. That's what most of the Pro-Life movement is. Contraceptives would cut down on the number of abortions in this country. They are actively pushing policies that increase abortions. So this isn't about abortions at all, just trying to shame women for being independent.

[larrymcg421]

The PPP poll is finally out and it's a doozy:

Santorum 38, Romney 23, Gingrich 17, Paul 13

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by panerd

Remember that Cheers episode where Frasier ran an experiment with Woody for mayor or city council? I often wonder if the media is just running an experiment to see how easy it is to manipulate public opinion.

It's very easy when you control what is presented as public opinion. We don't actually KNOW what public opinion is here, but they can spout off any old poll or interview 2 or 3 people or just make stuff up to tell use what "public opinion" is.

DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN

[Jas_lov]

PPP also tweeted that Santorum led Romney in their first night of Michigan polling. Maine looks to be between Romney and Paul. Romney will be in free fall if he loses Maine then loses his father's state. And I think Santorum would get even stronger if Gingrich dropped out. If the Republicans nominate Santorum they're guaranteeing themselves a 60-40 loss in November.

[mckerney]

So Rick "Ccnservatives don't think the government should leave people alone" Santorum is against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives because "it's about government control of your lives and it's got to stop."

Uh, ok.

[sterlingice]

I still think Romney has this nomination but it's looking a little more tenuous. But how many times have we said this? First with the rogues gallery last summer then with Gingrich in early December, Santorum's push in Iowa, Gingrich again, etc.

Also, I must have my head under a rock. Until it made the front page of Yahoo yesterday, I had no idea this contraception thing was blowing up.

Lastly, if Santorum wins the nomination, what percentage of Obama surrogates start throwing out lines like "Say, just Google both of our names to see our policies"

SI

[panerd]

Yeah if Santorum somehow won the nomination and somehow got close in the polls I think I would strongly consider not voting 3rd party and voting Obama. At least there would gridlock instead of fairy tales with my politics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Romney nips Paul in Maine, just fwiw
edit to add: Santorum 3rd, Newt 4th

[SackAttack]

Can I just say that Romney finishing first in a caucus that took a fucking WEEK to complete is not, realistically, "bouncing back" from the Santorum sweep from earlier in the week? CNN, I'm eyeing your copy editor on that one.

It's kind of like Florida and early voting. What the polls reflect on Outcome Day and what ends up *being* the results don't necessarily share any basis in reality.

[JPhillips]

Why have the Maine caucus? I guess a few counties didn't have caucuses because of the weather, but they'll reschedule. However, their vote totals will not be added to the current results. It's all good, though, because none of this matter as the results are non-binding. In fact, the second place finisher is confident that he'll have control of the Maine delegation at the convention.

There has to be a better way to pick our presidential nominees.

edit: And only about 1% of Maine's registered Republicans took part in the week long caucuses.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why have the Maine caucus? I guess a few counties didn't have caucuses because of the weather, but they'll reschedule. However, their vote totals will not be added to the current results. It's all good, though, because none of this matter as the results are non-binding. In fact, the second place finisher is confident that he'll have control of the Maine delegation at the convention.

There has to be a better way to pick our presidential nominees.

edit: And only about 1% of Maine's registered Republicans took part in the week long caucuses.

I used to get irritated by this too - now I just think of the economic stimulus of it - the spending on ads, materials etc. and try to feel better about it for that reason.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There has to be a better way to pick our presidential nominees.

That's the hiccup, it's not our nominee, its the Republican party's. I'm sure it works as a mini-fund raiser. I don't understand all of why either party uses this drawn out process, but I'm sure that's part of it, it's about fundraising, promoting the brand coast-to-coast, trying to create the appearance of momentum for one candidate. If either party was just looking for the nominee their party members wanted, a 1-day national primary would probably do a better job. If they wanted those in power to decide, relying on the conventions would do a better job. I'm sure there's reasons to do it this way instead, including having the meaningless caucuses, but I think it's counterproductive, especially with the Republican party this year, because we hear months and months of national news coverage about Republican candidates using rhetoric that is not helpful to their general election chances (e.g. Romney telling everybody who would listen that he was "severely conservative" or whatever as governor as MA...in a general election, the fact that he was governor of a liberal state can only help him).

[larrymcg421]

There's a Gallup poll out that has Romney still ahead of Santorum 34-27, but it contains data going back to the 7th, while the PPP poll started on the 9th. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers move in the next couple days.

Romney better hope that PPP poll is off the mark, because the internals on it look even worse than the overall numbers. Romney has a 44/43 favorability, while Santorum is at 64/22. If Gingrich drops out, then Santorum's lead moves from 38-23 to 50-28. It's funny that the same criteria Gingrich used to say Santorum should drop out earlier means Gingrich should definitely drop out now.

[larrymcg421]

dola

Two more polls that should have Romney trembling...

Michigan (PPP) - Santorum 39, Romney 24, Paul 12, Gingrich 11
California (SurveyUSA) - Romney 33, Santorum 31, Gingrich 17, Paul 9

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

There's a Gallup poll out that has Romney still ahead of Santorum 34-27, but it contains data going back to the 7th, while the PPP poll started on the 9th. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers move in the next couple days.

Romney better hope that PPP poll is off the mark, because the internals on it look even worse than the overall numbers. Romney has a 44/43 favorability, while Santorum is at 64/22. If Gingrich drops out, then Santorum's lead moves from 38-23 to 50-28. It's funny that the same criteria Gingrich used to say Santorum should drop out earlier means Gingrich should definitely drop out now.

With those favorables the only thing keeping Romney afloat is electability. If enough people decide Santorum is electable or at least as electable as Romney the race could be much more open than I thought it could be.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

With those favorables the only thing keeping Romney afloat is electability. If enough people decide Santorum is electable or at least as electable as Romney the race could be much more open than I thought it could be.

Romney is starting to lose his edge on the electability argument as well. A Rasmussen poll released today shows him losing to Obama 48-42, while Santorum loses 49-41. That 2 point gap isn't going to be enough for voters to go for someone they don't really like in the name of electability.

[I. J. Reilly]

At this point I don’t think it will be people deciding that Santorum is electable so much as the voters who decide based on electability will just throw up their hands and walk away.

I don’t see what all the fuss about Santorum is though. Isn’t this kind of business as usual for this race? The Romney campaign is like a battleship, it takes some time to turn and line up the next target, but when it does that all she wrote. Santorum will be blasted out of the water in a week or two.

[ISiddiqui]

That's true. When Romney focused on Gingrich, it was all she wrote in double time. Now Gingrich is basically done.

[larrymcg421]

Yeah, but the problem he faces now is Santorum doesn't have the same negativity (at least among the GOP electorate) that Newt did. He could blanket FL with ads essentially calling Newt a scumbag and that worked. That's not going to work on Santorum.

The reason people are making a big deal about Santorum is that once again Romney can't sustain momentum and the later it gets into the campaign, the more problematic that becomes. Santorum swept three states (even if one was unofficial, it still got the headlines) where Romney was expected to do well, which was more impressive than Newt winning in South Carolina.

Romney may indeed come back yet again, but he's gonna have to make up ground quickly. If he loses Michigan by double digits, I'm not sure he'll have another comeback in him. However, this primary has broken pretty much every rule, so who knows what the hell could happen.

[Warhammer]

I wonder if part of this is due to the media. There are no big stories out there, so each and every candidate is talked about, attention is brought to them, people buy in, like some of what they see, until the media is done and starts talking about their warts. Then they start the cycle again with the next guy.

[Ksyrup]

Great. So Dave Mustaine endorses Santorum and I've now got to be subjected to a bunch of old guys who think they're funny misspelling Megadeth. I thought that shit ended when Camelot Music went out of business.

[JediKooter]

Maybe this is the real reason he was kicked out of Metallica?

[Ksyrup]

Judging by their Gucci bags I'm thinking Lars and James are conservatives. Actually Im pretty sure James is libertarian.

[JPhillips]

Poor Mitt just can't catch a break. In his new ad claiming to be a native son of Detroit he uses a picture from the 1964 World's Fair in NYC and he drives a car built in Canada.

All the money in the world won't help much if you're stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In his new ad claiming to be a native son of Detroit he uses a picture from the 1964 World's Fair in NYC

You gotta be kidding me

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, but the problem he faces now is Santorum doesn't have the same negativity (at least among the GOP electorate) that Newt did. He could blanket FL with ads essentially calling Newt a scumbag and that worked. That's not going to work on Santorum.

Depends what you call negatives. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D, and with this Tea Party influence, that's quite a negative in a Republican primary.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Depends what you call negatives. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D, and with this Tea Party influence, that's quite a negative in a Republican primary.

I'd love to see some good polling on this. While the younger portions of the GOP may hate Medicare D the older voters love their prescription coverage. I'm not sure in the primary that attacking or defending Medicare D would be much of a net vote gain.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Judging by their Gucci bags I'm thinking Lars and James are conservatives. Actually Im pretty sure James is libertarian.

I got a good laugh out of this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Incidentally, Mustaine issued a clarification today that he never used the word "endorse" in connection with Santorum and emphasized that most importantly he want a Republican in the WH.