I've been a fan of Pres. Romney all along.
He's my favorite Republican technocrat.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 17 December 2011 22:34 (twelve years ago) link
I remember very well a time when you were all in for Newt...it was last Thursday, I think. I'm cutting a vicious flip-flop attack ad immediately.
― clemenza, Saturday, 17 December 2011 22:39 (twelve years ago) link
Tomorrow morning I roll-out the "Bachmann '12" buttons.
New slogan: "There's still a chance." Catchy.
― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 17 December 2011 22:42 (twelve years ago) link
Des Moines Register unsurprisingly endorses Romney.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/17/23902/
― C.K. Dexter Holland, Sunday, 18 December 2011 13:54 (twelve years ago) link
Probably time for an RIP thread, but let Kim Jong-il have his day.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/the-gingrich-bubble-pops.html
― clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:49 (twelve years ago) link
I love how Cain's been wiped from chart history there.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:51 (twelve years ago) link
it's kind of amazing how ppl forget every other prez campaign they've seen every 4 years.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:55 (twelve years ago) link
Herman's line, below, was removed from the graph.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images2/number_9.jpg
― clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:55 (twelve years ago) link
Quoted from Joe Klein:
Iowa Republicans are not neoconservatives. Ron Paul has gained ground after a debate in which his refusal to join the Iran warhawks was front and center. Indeed, in my travels around the country, I don’t meet many neoconservatives outside of Washington and New York. It’s one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.
What is this "again"??? None of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were fought for Israel's national security.
― Mordy, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:56 (twelve years ago) link
Name a nomination in the last 30 years or so that resembles the way this one has gone.
― clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:57 (twelve years ago) link
The Vietnam and Korean wars were about Israel.
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 17:58 (twelve years ago) link
If Romney does take it, it certainly won't resemble 2008; Giuliani and Hillary were heavy favourites just prior to Iowa. This would be a presumed front-runner reasserting himself after, what, five different people moved ahead of him? I don't remember anything like that.
― clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:00 (twelve years ago) link
I guess it's just easier to blame AIPAC for all these wars than to blame the American public for getting us into war after war after war for the last fifty years. xp
― Mordy, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:00 (twelve years ago) link
there isn't one but there also isn't a nomination that went anything like obama vs. clinton
pundits like to gain insight from comparing stuff to history but w/ american politics you're working w/ such a small sample set
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:00 (twelve years ago) link
xp
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:01 (twelve years ago) link
I agree. I think you could find nominations that pair up well in--as I always say--broad detail, but every one has different twists and turns. (My knowledge of American politics is pretty much post-war, so that's the sample set I'm always talking about.)
― clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:06 (twelve years ago) link
well there's even less to garner from comparing things to the pre-war nomination process
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:08 (twelve years ago) link
tbh I am amazed they aren't shoehoning in 5 more debates before New Year's
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:09 (twelve years ago) link
or shoehorning, even
those are some pretty sharp shoes you got there, Ron
― brownie, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:10 (twelve years ago) link
dammit xpost
hahaha
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
You mean, ignoring all the pretty lights and flea circuses you live for? Dole's in '96 is close enough. ("No one else? Are we sure? Shit, you're it.")
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:15 (twelve years ago) link
This would be a presumed front-runner reasserting himself after, what, five different people moved ahead of him?
AAAAAGH, THERE'S BEEN NO BLOODY VOTING
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:17 (twelve years ago) link
polls aren't everything (esp w/ a caucus) but they aren't nothing
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:18 (twelve years ago) link
Yes--having not yet reached your level of political sophistication, Morbius, I live for them (not just merely find them entertaining). There's just nothing else going on.
― clemenza, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:19 (twelve years ago) link
FYI:
Going into the 1996 primary contest, Senate majority leader and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole was seen as the most likely winner. However, in the primaries and caucuses, social conservative Pat Buchanan received early victories in Alaska, Louisiana, a strong second place in the Iowa Caucus, and a surprising victory in the key New Hampshire primary, while Steve Forbes finished first in Delaware and Arizona.
this is like the vaporware version of the '96 primary
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:20 (twelve years ago) link
nah the difference is that even though they might have been crazyish human beings they were 'viable candidates'
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:22 (twelve years ago) link
whereas this has all been a big show
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:23 (twelve years ago) link
hated unacknowledged-corporatist "un-American" Democratic prez, etc.
Bob Dole was a viable candidate?
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:25 (twelve years ago) link
dude....
for the republican nomination, yes
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:26 (twelve years ago) link
Forbes and Buchannan were most certainly NOT "viable candidates"
― Hurting, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:26 (twelve years ago) link
I mean steve forbes really wanted to be president vs trump and cain never ran presidential campaigns but were 'running for president'
Cain wouldn't have minded being President if it meant he could shift more books, at least up until his wife started beating his ass.
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:28 (twelve years ago) link
steve forbes was seen as a wide-eyed coot and buchannan nearly as fringe as ron paul
― Hurting, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:30 (twelve years ago) link
ron paul is not going to win any primaries, let alone multiple primaries
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:31 (twelve years ago) link
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/SteveForbesJun2009.jpg
"viable candidate"
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:32 (twelve years ago) link
crazy rich people have won plenty of big elections in american history, steve forbes shoulda just been a governor first
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:32 (twelve years ago) link
like I don't find the concept of steve forbes as president any weirder than b-movie film star ronald reagan as president
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:34 (twelve years ago) link
looking forward to President Ventura
― OH NOES, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:36 (twelve years ago) link
you could cynically say that in earlier GOP (and uh dem too) contests, the out-there candidacies served the purpose of keeping the more extreme (and therefore more easily and inevitably disappointed) party constituencies interested in the process and committed to something after the outcome: ron paul, pat buchanan, steve forbes, etc are all partially-un-sanded-down versions of conservatism that are all crucial to the party but mutually exclusive to each other if held constant
i think this year the "airing out the extremes" dealio was both way dumber and much closer to slipping out of its appointed confines. we'll see tho, there have been of course no votes cast yet.
― slandblox goole, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:36 (twelve years ago) link
Dole was the closest thing to a viable nominee then, and Mittens is now! QED.
― Dr Morbius, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:39 (twelve years ago) link
ron paul is not going to win any primaries
It's entirely possible he will win Iowa with something in the 20-25% range if enough support is distributed among the also-ran candidates. I still predict a Romney win in the 25-30% range. Either way, as long as Gingrich loses, Romney wins.
― C.K. Dexter Holland, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
there's been a major structural change w/r/t party ideology since then and we're seeing that w/r/t 'extreme'
also romney and dole are coming from very different places within the gop, romney might be inevitable but he's not 'safe'
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
I said in the ILE thread that this year only looks bizarre because the Internet has finally caught up with the avarice of journalists who insist on covering "primary season" earlier and earlier.
― Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:43 (twelve years ago) link
also would look different if rick perry had half-decent handlers
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
I do. One nearly embodies the sort of relaxed jocularity Americans tend to like in their Presidents (assuming some minimal baseline of competence, as perceived by not necessarily well-educated), and one is spectacularly lacking in same.
― C.K. Dexter Holland, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:44 (twelve years ago) link
and uh Reagan was a two-term governor and radio commentator.
― Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:45 (twelve years ago) link
right and forbes shoulda gone that route
― iatee, Monday, 19 December 2011 18:46 (twelve years ago) link