I can't even ask that question, without getting into a conversation that will make me cringe.
Yesterdays comment: "Obama is really stupid, as in not bright at all. He just let all those terrorists out of Guantanamo, and they can now plot against us. He is a stupid man."
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 28 December 2011 05:48 (twelve years ago) link
(Say this in your best Admiral Stockdale voice): Gridlock!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/polling-gridlock-in-iowa-could-produce-last-minute-momentum/#
So far all the talk that Romney's more or less past his problems--Gingrich is fading fast, it's just him and Paul now, and Paul can't survive much scrutiny--he still hasn't really solved that 20-25% problem, has he? I think it will go away eventually. I just continue to be surprised that it's so persistent.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 15:34 (twelve years ago) link
According to fivethirtyeight, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry are all "projected to receive between 11 and 14 percent of the vote in Iowa". Gobsmacking! The idea that Bachmann, Santorum and Perry are all above 10% just floors me.
Also, in other news from that link, Gingrich still holds commanding polling leads in SC and FL, which are far more important than Iowa in terms of the eventual nomination.
btw, if I were Perry, I'd retire to N********d and use my leftover campaign cash to start the Mary Kay franchise to end all Mary Kay franchises.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 16:40 (twelve years ago) link
- "b) most of the GOP base will reluctantly vote for him anyway"
Vote for him, yes. Prolly 85% of conservatives are sufficiently anti-Obama that they will VOTE for the Republican nominee no matter who he/she/it is. (The other 10% have crankish reasons why they won't accept this or that apostate.)
But will that 85% donate? Organize? Volunteer? Work the phones? Do get-out-the-vote stuff? My guess is that no, they mostly will not.
In 2008, conservatives were disappointed with McCain as the nominee. They held their noses and voted for him, but they weren't happy. Of course some were happy about Palin, and most knew that they definitely didn't want Obama, but that didn't extend to happiness about McCain. And he lost badly.
So now we see two possibilities: one, the mainstream GOP contrives to nominate Romney. Conservatives will vote for him, but not organize and volunteer for him. And their antipathy toward the mainstream and GOP leadership can only increase; they will (understandably) continue to feel that when they support the milquetoast mainstream, they just get hosed.
Possibility two: on the off-chance that a not-Romney is nominated, it will be someone acceptable to that wacky fringe. Which means unacceptable to the middle, and the dynamic is reversed: then it's the middle who will hold their noses and vote, but not bust their butts to pull (say) Gingrich across the finish line.
As for the Not-Romneys, the Gingrich surge is the Cain surge is the Perry surge is the Bachmann surge. It's all the same people casting about for an acceptable not-Romney. Again, 85% of that crowd will coalesce around the eventual nominee - as far as voting is concerned.
So you have a lose-lose situation for the GOP, and that recipe continues to look delicious for Democrats.
― Ye Mad Puffin, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 18:39 (twelve years ago) link
(I think I meant the other 15% - math r not me)
― Ye Mad Puffin, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
Puffin, in spite of what I believe to be your essentially correct analysis of the republican side of the pending prez election, I think it will still be a very close race, because enthusiasm for Obama among liberals is rather tepid also, and the electoral college slants the prez race heavily toward small-population states, which tend to be more rural and republican. We're still gioing to see this race pivot on Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, with a few small states like NH tossed in for spice, if it gets razor thin.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 18:46 (twelve years ago) link
imo the states that're gonna matter most in '12 are gonna be the historically red ones that Obama "flipped" by inspiring the indifferent, who won't be as inspired this time
― undervalued aerosmith tchotchkes sold in bulk, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:05 (twelve years ago) link
nah that's generally not how it works. those were the cherry on top but it's very unlikely that obama would win them if a race where he doesn't win ohio and pennsylvania - and if he wins ohio he's probably already won. unless dynamics have seriously shifted over the last 4 years.
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:09 (twelve years ago) link
2012 isn't 2008; romney isn't mccain.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:11 (twelve years ago) link
xp to myself
that said he won virginia w/ a bigger margin than ohio or florida and that might be 'safer' than either of those at this point. dunno, I'm not optimistic about florida.
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:14 (twelve years ago) link
obama's campaign manager sounds confident. about florida, he says the best way to view florida is not to have to win it (then if you do, "great!"). we'll see.
polls say romney/rubio beats obama/biden in florida. but that advantage evaporates if it's obama/HRC.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:17 (twelve years ago) link
chances of obama/hrc ticket are almost nil, unless biden fronts an ultra-credible excuse for not rejoining the ticket - like liver cancer, for example.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:25 (twelve years ago) link
I dunno, if it polls well and they're struggling, why not? it's a gimmick but what isn't?
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:27 (twelve years ago) link
heard someone say it's a strategy under consideration, depending on how things are unfolding next year.
the easy move would be for HRC and biden to trade jobs. no loss of respect/credibility there.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:29 (twelve years ago) link
"someone" being richard nixon, who spoke to me in a dream.
i think joe biden would make a pretty bad secretary of state
― slandblox goole, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:38 (twelve years ago) link
yes
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:52 (twelve years ago) link
appalling actually
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:01 (twelve years ago) link
You can get away with his interjections when your office is the constitutionally useless vice presidency, not as SOS.
basically if the gop has an embarrassing primary season, romney wins but struggles and comes out looking pretty weak - why take any risk? even if this polls well, it'd be a risk on some level.
but if romney has (more or less) a clean victory / a GOP mandate, comes out w/ a lot of momentum, obama's a few points behind...why not pull the type of stunt that the media totally eats up? clinton makes it 'obama 2.0' and gives the campaign a fresh media narrative. gives a lot of people a reason to start paying attention again. would kill in the debates and could go full force attack dog.
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:07 (twelve years ago) link
(i really don't like this kind of fantasy-team speculation but) that kind of personnel move look like a huge admission of weakness, esp if there is no immediate health- or scandal-related reason to get rid of biden. plus i wonder if obama and hrc still personally don't like each other at all. if it is true that obama is not close to many people and trusts very few it seems unlikely that a relationship like that would be sacrificed.
― slandblox goole, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:10 (twelve years ago) link
clinton makes it 'obama 2.0' and gives the campaign a fresh media narrative.
ok now you sound like gabbneb
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:16 (twelve years ago) link
I remember in '08, with a month or two to go--around the time McCain had pulled even--Limbaugh or Hannity or someone started speculating furiously that plans were underway for Biden to intentionally self-destruct so they'd have an excuse to put Hillary in. In the context of Biden's gift for unintentional gaffes, it was fun trying to imagine how spectacular an intentional one would be.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:27 (twelve years ago) link
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-era-of-the-ron-paul-newsletters-isnt-even-past/
What I find interesting is how much the discussion is focused on the past-ness of these newsletters. The newsletters stopped with their racist, bigoted and survivalist themes by the mid-1990s, and people are now debating how much they should reflect on both Ron Paul and libertarianism. Whatever the results of that debate, they represent an era now over – Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez argued that “the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon.” But if you strip away the ugliness and just focus on the underlying political strategy and the coalition it hoped to bring into existence, the newsletters have not only survived but they form the core of the Tea Party movement.
What Ron Paul actually thinks of these newsletters is a bit of a mysterious, as he often dodges hard questions about them. It is clear that Ron Paul has, to use Dara Lind’s phrase, a “Libertarianism for White Dudes” problem. The ability to discriminate against a minority at one’s lunch counter is the core of freedom, but a woman’s ability to have some autonomy over what is going on in her uterus is incidental to liberty (Ron Paul has declared Right-to-Life is “the most important issue of our age”).
But I want to abstract away from both Ron Paul and the ugly tone and language in the newsletters. What was their political strategy? As Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez dug up, there was a very clear path. According to Rothbard in 1992, they could gather disaffected working and middle class people by exposing an ”unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”
Take white middle-class people and explain to them how the safety net is ok for them because they are part of the virtuous hardworking backbone of the country, but it’s a dangerous creation because people elite liberals will use it to create a mass, dangerous Other that don’t deserve to be part of it.
― slandblox goole, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:30 (twelve years ago) link
we don't have an NRO thread so i'll just put this here
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286726/front-page-voyeurism-heather-mac-donald
i mean holy shit
― slandblox goole, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:43 (twelve years ago) link
[Approved commenter] Jenna: 12/28/11 15:30
If American society has reached the point that a newspaper article about bad sex between two teenagers with autism is considered a human interest story and we feel compelled to defend the insensitive and disgusting journalist who wrote it, it doesn't matter how bad the politicians in Washington are because we have far more serious problems.
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:46 (twelve years ago) link
I'm very fond of Jenna -- she comments often and just as wittily.
The “Aspergians have sex” story
― t. silaviver, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:46 (twelve years ago) link
ehh I'm not arguing it would change anything about obama, I'm arguing the media eats gimmicky shit up
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:48 (twelve years ago) link
I was Gabbnebbed last night on a different thread. It's a ferocious accusation.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:53 (twelve years ago) link
it's really just the flipside of being morbzed
― Mordy, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:54 (twelve years ago) link
One of these days I plan to Clemenza somebody. I'm just not sure yet what that might entail.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 20:57 (twelve years ago) link
You replaced him when he was banned. To be fair, though, he "crunches data" and such.
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:00 (twelve years ago) link
as opposed to making a reference to a 1876 election
― iatee, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:01 (twelve years ago) link
wild gossipy political horserace fiend
― Mordy, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:02 (twelve years ago) link
= enjoys politics...Guilty as charged, as I've said many times.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:03 (twelve years ago) link
― iatee, Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:01 PM
I don't understand your problem with Rutherfraud Hayes.
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:04 (twelve years ago) link
u act like you're ashamed of it. embrace ur inner clemenza. enjoy politics w/ pride xp
― Mordy, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:05 (twelve years ago) link
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:00 PM (1 minute ago)
he blends it actually
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:07 (twelve years ago) link
lol that took me a second
― slandblox goole, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:07 (twelve years ago) link
Here I am during a march last year we held in honour of Mark Halperin:
http://www.pridemarch.com.au/images/lead%20banner%202011.JPG
― clemenza, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:09 (twelve years ago) link
lol
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:12 (twelve years ago) link
well this is touching
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:12 (twelve years ago) link
how is perry transformed
― slandblox goole, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:13 (twelve years ago) link
“I really started giving some thought about the issue of rape and incest,” Mr. Perry told a local pastor who had questioned whether he had changed his position on the issue. “Some powerful stories in that DVD.”
― Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:22 (twelve years ago) link
that kind of personnel move look like a huge admission of weakness, esp if there is no immediate health- or scandal-related reason to get rid of biden
Correct. Won't happen absent the latter.
I like this clemenza fellow and his support for my boyfriend, Mark Halperin.
― illegal crew member (C.K. Dexter Holland), Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:23 (twelve years ago) link
ha my friend went to a fire safety training day & the guy concluded by intoning "I've seen some powerful fires ...... on video".
― Never translate German (schlump), Wednesday, 28 December 2011 21:31 (twelve years ago) link
I think it will still be a very close race, because enthusiasm for Obama among liberals is rather tepid also.
Sure, but that's relative to whether it's support for him against Romney or against one of the more monstrous candidates, right? Romney's current attempts to slap on some monster make-up aside.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 29 December 2011 12:38 (twelve years ago) link
actually i was surprised by the comments under this breathtakingly hateful NRO post. most were aghast at the poster's condescending attitude toward aspies - or in heather mcd's awful neologism "syndroids." reliably a couple trolls like jenna let rip, another d-bag compared the autism epidemic to global warming lol/smh.
the corner has become totally dominated by trolling and appears to be un-moderated or edited these days.
― higgs boson (the deli llama), Thursday, 29 December 2011 12:53 (twelve years ago) link
i mean, jesus, even for a right-wing website that post was just monstrously insensitive. you'd think a bunch of professional christians like the nro editors would exercise a little uh empathy for people struggling w/autism.
― higgs boson (the deli llama), Thursday, 29 December 2011 13:01 (twelve years ago) link