RE: Santorum?!?!?! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Musicmystery -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:45:54 AM)

quote:

If the RNC would just realize that they dont have to Kowtow to the Religious fundies to keep them from voting Dem, they could do a lot more to attract Independents and OWN the election.


Those religious fundies are rolling in cash, Hill. That's the issue.

If they were poor, they'd be among the demographics the Republicans largely ignore (at least historically).




Hillwilliam -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:48:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

If the RNC would just realize that they dont have to Kowtow to the Religious fundies to keep them from voting Dem, they could do a lot more to attract Independents and OWN the election.


Those religious fundies are rolling in cash, Hill. That's the issue.

If they were poor, they'd be among the demographics the Republicans largely ignore (at least historically).

They have a lot of cash but they have to be careful how they spend it or they lose their tax exempt status.

Anyway. All the cash in the world doesnt help if you alienate 40% of the electorate (middle of the road indies) that might have voted for you and send them into the arms of the far left.

How the hell do you think Obama got elected in the first place? The RNC sold its soul to the fundies and he wasn't Dubya. Curly, Moe and Shemp could have run on a ticket and beaten the Republican side.

Personally, I blame that strategy for Dole's loss to Clinton.

Had it not been for Rush with his "Our way or the Highway" diatribes, Newt with his "Family Values" while he's fucking around on his wife and the Fundies wanting to remake everything in their own image, we would have had a president Bob Dole.




Moonhead -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:49:52 AM)

True enough.
The main reason Reagan started grovelling to the twats in the first place was to raise funds, wasn't it?




Hillwilliam -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:54:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

True enough.
The main reason Reagan started grovelling to the twats in the first place was to raise funds, wasn't it?

The hell of it is, he didn't need that money to beat Carter. There's another case of an incumbent messing up so badly that all the other side had to do was smile and count the votes.




Musicmystery -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:56:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

True enough.
The main reason Reagan started grovelling to the twats in the first place was to raise funds, wasn't it?

The hell of it is, he didn't need that money to beat Carter. There's another case of an incumbent messing up so badly that all the other side had to do was smile and count the votes.

Carter attempted to explain. Reagan smiled and said "It's just that simple."

Americans like to hear things are simple, even when they know that's crap.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:59:40 AM)

MM, one of the most important things to know about politics is this.

For all practical purposes, half the country is of below average intelligence.

If you can rope all of them in, you're golden.

That's how the news media works. Dumb it down. Appeal to the least common denominator. Lie if you want to because your target market isn't intelligent enough to figure it out on their own and a lot of your non target market is just too lazy.




Moonhead -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 8:01:08 AM)

Of course, simplistic solutions to complex problems tend not to work very well (or at all), but that's a whole other issue, really.

Hill: Reagan didn't actually need the money for his election campaign, true enough, but that doesn't mean that he didn't want it...




Musicmystery -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 8:02:43 AM)

Actually, the average IQ in America is 98, slightly below average.

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm




Owner59 -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 8:15:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, the average IQ in America is 98, slightly below average.

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm


[sm=tongue.gif]






provfivetine -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 4:32:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
That won't happen, because the Republican system, unlike the Democrats, is a winner-take-all approach, and as such, is designed to pick an early candidate. McCain is a good example...lack luster support from his own party, but the "clear" winner long before the convention.

So, whatever the mess (and yes, there is one), one candidate will have a majority of delegates; it would take an exact split of primary wins/delegates to be otherwise (and thus, extraordinarily unlikely).

What *will* happen, like last time, is that while one will win ("There can only be One..."), commentators will bitch about it and threaten to withhold their votes (like Coulter's "I'll vote for Hilary; she's more conservative than McCain"). Then on Election Day, they'll all vote for anything Republican.

The Circus will, however, hurt their chances with independent voters. But independent voters are hard to predict (presumably because they are, after all, independent).


Someone isn't keeping up on their homework!

The following rule was adopted by the Republican Party back in August 2010....

"Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis."

This means that delegates will be apportioned to candidates on a proportional basis in Republican caucuses/primaries before April 1st (excluding Florida). States are not allocating their delegates in the same way as 2008. Back in 2008, McCain did very well if those "winner take all" primaries, but nothing like that is going to happen in 2012. I still maintain that no one candidate has over 50% by the time the convention rolls around.

You can read more here, here, and here.







Owner59 -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 4:45:46 PM)

Thanks for the links.[:D]




slvemike4u -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 4:58:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverBoat

Does anybody want to wager on the smoke-filled-room strategists plugging in Bachmann for VP, regardless of how little she tallies in the primaries? They already figure she's got a lock on fundi-christian voting bloc, and so far she hasn't imploded quite as obviously as Palin did.

GOP's pick for the Prez run seems harder to call ... Most of the delegates are only obliged to electoralish votes for 1st thru nth rounds, and there may be no clear majority ...

This would be the craziest VP selection since.....I don't know ....Palin [:)]




MrRodgers -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 5:42:24 PM)

They pick corn in Iowa. They pick nominees in New Hampshire. Romney will challenge to win Iowa and may even come in second. He will then route the field in NH. Game over.

The repubs will then have their defacto nominee.

As for Santorum ? I still cannot figure out how this man can even be a pres. candidate for any parry. It was one scandal after another wasn't it ?




kalikshama -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 5:51:26 PM)

quote:

Goggle Santorum, why don`t you?


Don't mess with Dan Savage!




Musicmystery -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 7:40:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
That won't happen, because the Republican system, unlike the Democrats, is a winner-take-all approach, and as such, is designed to pick an early candidate. McCain is a good example...lack luster support from his own party, but the "clear" winner long before the convention.

So, whatever the mess (and yes, there is one), one candidate will have a majority of delegates; it would take an exact split of primary wins/delegates to be otherwise (and thus, extraordinarily unlikely).

What *will* happen, like last time, is that while one will win ("There can only be One..."), commentators will bitch about it and threaten to withhold their votes (like Coulter's "I'll vote for Hilary; she's more conservative than McCain"). Then on Election Day, they'll all vote for anything Republican.

The Circus will, however, hurt their chances with independent voters. But independent voters are hard to predict (presumably because they are, after all, independent).


Someone isn't keeping up on their homework!

The following rule was adopted by the Republican Party back in August 2010....

"Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis."

This means that delegates will be apportioned to candidates on a proportional basis in Republican caucuses/primaries before April 1st (excluding Florida). States are not allocating their delegates in the same way as 2008. Back in 2008, McCain did very well if those "winner take all" primaries, but nothing like that is going to happen in 2012. I still maintain that no one candidate has over 50% by the time the convention rolls around.

You can read more here, here, and here.


Thanks for the update. I'll be delighted to watch the Circus.




Owner59 -> RE: Santorum?!?!?! (12/29/2011 10:06:46 PM)

Just read a CNN poll that puts Rick in 3rd place and rising as newt drops.









Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375