2012 Presidential Campaign

[RainMaker]

[RainMaker]

I feel like if Santorum is able to pull out a win in Arizona, he could be the frontrunner. Polls show him up in Michigan and Ohio with Gingrich winning Georgia.

[Swaggs]

Arizona seems unlikely, as his camp determined that there was too high a Mormon population to make it worthwhile to spend resources there. It is something like 6% of the population, but I'd imagine the majority of those are members of the Republican party and will enthusiastically support Romney. I don't think there is a whole lot to read from there, unless someone other than Romney improbably wins it.

Winning Ohio and especially Michigan would be huge. You have to wonder if Gingrich is sticking around to try to knock Romney off course or if he really thinks he can somehow win. If he is only interested in seeing Romney go down, maybe he consolidates with Santorum at some point. In which case, I think Santorum cruises to the nomination.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, the Ohio and Michigan wins would be huge. I just figured if he could nab Arizona too it would look like things are going his way.

Is there any polls out showing where Gingrich supporters would go if he dropped out? I actually think Gingrich in the race hurts Santorum more than Romney, but I could be wrong. Feels like the conservatives never get behind one candidate and it lets the moderate win (like McCain in 2008).

[JPhillips]

The two way numbers really favor Santorum. The last poll I saw had nearly 3 to 1 split of Gingrich supporters going to Santorum over Romney.

Looking at the map it still seems to favor Romney quite a bit, but he just seems to be getting weaker and weaker. As long as Santorum can't win the general I'd be fine with him as the nominee. At least he would show the rest of the country that a sizable portion of the GOP is batshit crazy. If he lost it would be hard to argue that the problem was that the nominee wasn't conservative enough and maybe that would finally allow the GOP to moderate and be a loyal opposition party rather than a group of radicals.

[RainMaker]

I'm sort of rooting for a brokered convention (or whatever it's called) because I think it would be interesting to see.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I actually think Gingrich in the race hurts Santorum more than Romney, but I could be wrong.

I would think that's the case in GA, although Romney has done quite well with the RINO's and/or fiscal-only crowd in the ATL metro.

[JPhillips]

Good God. If you're going to write on tax policy at least take the time to understand how the federal code works.

His federal income taxes rose from 2007, when he paid $167,000, to $310,000 in 2009, then dropped to $263,000 in 2010. Santorum paid a combined tax rate of 28 percent over the four years, putting him in a high tax bracket but not in the top 35 percent. Gingrich paid an estimated 31 percent, according to his federal returns, while Romney paid 14 percent because many of his earnings came from investments taxed at a lower capital gains rate. Both Romney and Gingrich recently disclosed income tax returns[...]

Nobody pays 35% because that rate doesn't apply to all income and deductions/exemptions/credits lower the AGI or tax liability. I suppose a single guy making a enough money and claiming only the standard deduction could be rounded up to 35%, but even then he wouldn't actually pay 35%.

It's shit like this that makes it hard for me to care that newspapers are dieing.

[larrymcg421]

A recent AZ poll by ARG has Santorum down only 7 points in Arizona.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's shit like this that makes it hard for me to care that newspapers are dieing.

Yeah, but evolving to crazy ass blogs isn't exactly progress.

[JPhillips]

Real headline:

Santorum blasts Obama during Cumming rally

http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=245894

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm sort of rooting for a brokered convention (or whatever it's called) because I think it would be interesting to see.

As a bit of interesting family lore, my great-great grandfather was one of the major players in the 1920 convention, backing Frank Lowden. The convention wound up deadlocking and they wound up putting up Warren Harding as a comprimise. Word has it that had Lowden been nominated and won, my ancestor woulda been tapped for a cabinet position.

[Ksyrup]

As it was, he was named Governor of the Alaska Territory, explaining that penguin hat, right?

[Coffee Warlord]

Except he, being far cooler than me (no pun intended), wore a live penguin.

[SirFozzie]

Latest Battleground report on MSNBC: As things stand:

Dem (Lean-solid) 227
Rep (Lean-Solid) 197
Toss Up - 114



Solid Dem (no chance at flip): DC, DE, HI, ME (3 EVs) MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (70 electoral votes)
Likely Dem (takes a landslide to flip): CA, CT, IL, ME, WA (94)
Lean Dem: ME (1 EV) MN, NJ, NM, OR, MI, WI (63)
Toss-up: CO, FL, NV, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, NH (114)
Lean GOP: AZ, GA, IA, MO, (43)
Likely GOP (takes a landslide to flip): AL, AR, IN, LA, MS, MT, NE (1 EV), ND, SC, SD, TX (97)
Solid GOP (no chance at flip): AK, ID, KS, KY, NE (4 EVs) OK, TN, UT, WV, WY (57)

Sounds like the GOP basically need to take 75% of the toss up states as things stand, and that number may fluctuate as the economy dips/recovers

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

As a bit of interesting family lore, my great-great grandfather was one of the major players in the 1920 convention, backing Frank Lowden. The convention wound up deadlocking and they wound up putting up Warren Harding as a comprimise. Word has it that had Lowden been nominated and won, my ancestor woulda been tapped for a cabinet position.

Have you watched the Boardwalk Empire show on HBO? There's an episode all about the 1920 Republican convention.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Real headline:



Santorum denounces Obama during Cumming rally | AccessNorthGa

Yeah, Cumming always makes for good headlines and jokes.

"Why are people in Alpharetta so happy?" - "Because they're close to Cumming."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, Cumming always makes for good headlines and jokes.

"Why are people in Alpharetta so happy?" - "Because they're close to Cumming."

The blasts in the original headline was part of it.

[SirFozzie]

Rick Santorum: JFK speech 'makes me want to throw up' - POLITICO.com

And the Santorum descent into Wackyland continues... Rather unpresidential of you, Ricky..

[mckerney]

It seems like everyday Santorum says something completely insane and idiotic that I don't think he'll be able to top but then the next day there he is again...

[Abe Sargent]

I'm considering going to Ron Paul's town meeting tomorrow - it;'s just two miles away.

[BrianD]

There is a big part of me hoping to see Santorum be the nominee so I can witness a Mondale-style defeat. Maybe that will shake up the Republican party enough to bring them back to sanity.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There is a big part of me hoping to see Santorum be the nominee so I can witness a Mondale-style defeat. Maybe that will shake up the Republican party enough to bring them back to sanity.

Well, the Republicans need to do something because without them, we are dictatorship.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Latest Battleground report on MSNBC: As things stand:

Dem (Lean-solid) 227
Rep (Lean-Solid) 197
Toss Up - 114



Solid Dem (no chance at flip): DC, DE, HI, ME (3 EVs) MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (70 electoral votes)
Likely Dem (takes a landslide to flip): CA, CT, IL, ME, WA (94)
Lean Dem: ME (1 EV) MN, NJ, NM, OR, MI, WI (63)
Toss-up: CO, FL, NV, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, NH (114)
Lean GOP: AZ, GA, IA, MO, (43)
Likely GOP (takes a landslide to flip): AL, AR, IN, LA, MS, MT, NE (1 EV), ND, SC, SD, TX (97)
Solid GOP (no chance at flip): AK, ID, KS, KY, NE (4 EVs) OK, TN, UT, WV, WY (57)

Sounds like the GOP basically need to take 75% of the toss up states as things stand, and that number may fluctuate as the economy dips/recovers

To put it more concretely, give the Dems PA (which has not voted GOP since George H.W. Bush), then the GOP needs FL to win. The Dems could lose every state on the toss-up list except FL and PA, and get 271 electoral votes. Ohio, the West, and NC/VA become meaningless.

Now, that's not as dire for the GOP as it sounds. If the GOP does win FL, then it means that other states on that list (VA, CO, NC) are probably already in the GOP column. As Nate Silver points out all of the time, the presidential election is fifty separate elections, but they are not independent of each other.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, the Republicans need to do something because without them, we are dictatorship.

.

[JediKooter]

I think this is a grand strategy by the republican party. They know they can't win in 2012, so they are putting forward the most horrible candidates they can muster. That way, in 2016, they could throw out just some marginal candidates at best, and they will seem like super stars compared to this current crop.

[larrymcg421]

Current Senate outlook. Tough hold for the Dems as they have 23 seats in play as opposed to 10 for the GOP.

7 seats are safe Dem (CA, MD, NY, VT, DE, MN, RI)
4 seats are likely Dem (NJ, PA, WA, WV)
4 seats are lean Dem (CT, HI, NM, OH)
5 seats are safe GOP (MS, TX, WY, TN, UT)
3 seats are likely GOP (IN, NE, ND) - NE and ND are pickups
2 seats are lean GOP (AZ, ME)

The toss up seats are (FL, MA, MI, MO, MT, NV, VA, WI). The Dems need to win 5 to retain their majority. The GOP only needs to win 14 of the 33 elections to take the Senate.

[spleen1015]

I ROFLed.

Fred Thompson ‏ @fredthompson

Busted: FL man drops gun during robbery attempt, returns & tries to buy it back from victims. Now THERE'S an "Obama 2012" metaphor. #tcot

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I'm considering going to Ron Paul's town meeting tomorrow - it;'s just two miles away.

I'm sad I was too sick to go. I got nausea around 1 am and have thrown up 17 or 18 times since.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I'm sad I was too sick to go. I got nausea around 1 am and have thrown up 17 or 18 times since.

Ron wishes you the best. Assuming you can afford it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

.

One party is not the American system and I put the responsibility on the Republicans, what's wrong with my logic?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Last week's Gallup results from USA Today
Swing states poll: Health care victories hurt Obama and Romney in 2012 – USATODAY.com

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum's lead narrows to 49%-46%.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each.

edit: The "electability" myth continues to crumble

[miked]

Originally Posted by Dutch

One party is not the American system and I put the responsibility on the Republicans, what's wrong with my logic?

Are you saying the republicans had a dictatorship under Bush when they controlled the WH, congress, and the senate?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit: The "electability" myth continues to crumble

Really?

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll reveals the prolonged nominating battle is taking a toll on the GOP candidates and finds the president’s standing significantly improved from late last year.

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is 53 percent, up 9 percentage points in four months. Matched up against his Republican opponents, he leads Mitt Romney by 10 points (53-43) and Rick Santorum by 11 (53-42). Even against a generic, unnamed Republican untarnished by attacks, Obama is up 5 percentage points. In November, he was tied.

Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really?

All depends on what you believe (and who has an agenda when polling).

But you keep whistling past that graveyard DT.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really?



Battleground Poll: GOP president’s race takes toll, Obama inches up - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

I think that Jon was talking about the myth that Romney is more electable than Santorum.

And, I agree, that that myth has pretty much crumbled. Santorum, in my mind, is no more or less electable than Romney v. the President at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that Jon was talking about the myth that Romney is more electable than Santorum.

Yeah, that's the one.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

One party is not the American system and I put the responsibility on the Republicans, what's wrong with my logic?

This sounds a lot like an MBBF line...

SI

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I'm sad I was too sick to go. I got nausea around 1 am and have thrown up 17 or 18 times since.

Ron Paul is willing to forgive this if you were "honest" sick. otherwise you need to deal with the consequences.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by stevew

Ron Paul is willing to forgive this if you were "honest" sick. otherwise you need to deal with the consequences.

You hear that, Ferris?

[Easy Mac]

So if we add all of Santorum's ideas together, we come to the following conclusion:

Only men and women born in the US should be allowed to marry. They shouldn't go to college. Women should have as many kids as possible and not work. They should also be extremely religious.

Basically, every person in America should be from a small, rundown mill town in the South.

/personwhogrewupinsmallsoutherntown

[albionmoonlight]

So Santorum and Romney are equally electable.

And as a former Senator and Governor have the credentials to be the President.

And they claim to both believe roughly the same things--but Santorum gives the impression of actually believing them. Romney comes off as incredibly disingenuous.

And Santorum has made a case for why he should be President. Romney, from what I can see, has only made the case for why Obama, Gingrich, and Santorum should not be President.

I'm a liberal, so I don't want to be interfering too much with the other side here. But I want Santorum to win. Not because I think that he will be "easier to beat." I don't.

I want Santorum to win because he seems to better and more purely represent the GOP base. It is an election that would allow the country to choose between two visions.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

So if we add all of Santorum's ideas together, we come to the following conclusion:

Only men and women born in the US should be allowed to marry. They shouldn't go to college. Women should have as many kids as possible and not work. They should also be extremely religious.

Basically, every person in America should be from a small, rundown mill town in the South.

/personwhogrewupinsmallsoutherntown

I got a good laugh out of the line making the rounds about Rick Santorum being one of the greatest minds of the 13th century; but I’m starting to think that’s being a little bit unfair to the 13th century.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I want Santorum to win because he seems to better and more purely represent the GOP base. It is an election that would allow the country to choose between two visions.

The GOP is good and fucked already if Santorum truly represents the base.

The fact that a non-insignificant contingent of this country are still yearning for a democratic theocracy depresses me to no end.

[rowech]

Just to play devil's advocate...(and I don't agree with what I'm about to write)

A lot of people look back at what how things were done prior to JFK and see how well a lot of that worked and look at how it's gone the last 50 years and think to themselves, man...if only we could go back.

It's no wonder that message appeals to so many people.

[Coffee Warlord]

Very true point.

Unfortunately, what many of those same people fail to realize is the world has changed a lot in those 50 years. The vast majority of things that worked 20, 50, 100 years ago simply will not work in today's world.

Adapt or die. We've been big on choosing the 'die' route lately.

[lungs]

I think some people think the 1950s were too damn liberal and progressive and that we actually need to get back to the 1850s.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Very true point.

Unfortunately, what many of those same people fail to realize is the world has changed a lot in those 50 years. The vast majority of things that worked 20, 50, 100 years ago simply will not work in today's world.

Adapt or die. We've been big on choosing the 'die' route lately.

I think most people are just naturally afraid of change whether they admit to it or not, and won't change, regardless of if it's detrimental to them. It takes them out of their comfort zone or they lose what control they think they have over things.

At it's basic foundation, change isn't inherently bad. The hard part is changing something at the right time and place for it to be the least painful or the most effective. Of course, there's always that old saying: You can't make 100% of the people happy, 100% of the time. So, there's always going to be naysayers and stragglers no matter what you do or when you do it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

I think some people think the 1950s were too damn liberal and progressive and that we actually need to get back to the 1850s.

Economically things were a lot more progressive. Union membership was much higher and the tax code was brutal for the top 1%.

But of course if you weren't a white male none of that mattered.

[RainMaker]

The notion that things were better 60 years ago is a myth. Just people looking for things to complain about when they don't have anything to really complain about.

Progress is going to happen whether people fight it or not. It can be slowed down and put us behind the rest of the world as we have done. But you can't stop technology, science, medicine, etc. These people clamoring for the early 1900's would be begging to come back the minute they went back.