What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections in 3-D!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Newt and RONPAUL put in token appearances. Fig is not only winding down, but also knows that this isn't really his territory.
Click to expand...
Newt's SuperPAC (with which he is totally not coordinating) just bought $300K of TV time in Alabama as part of a $1M ad buy across the Confederacy.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Priceless said:
Many TV outlets left the Frothy speech to announce that Romney had won Arizona. That's going to leave a mark.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's bad. You are supposed to let the loser talk first, but since this isn't a concession I guess those rules don't apply.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Priceless said:
Newt's SuperPAC (with which he is totally not coordinating) just bought $300K of TV time in Alabama as part of a $1M ad buy across the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
Did not Adelson just give him another $10M? Go all in, boy. Those subtextual anti-Mormon ads aren't gonna make themselves!
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

huskyfan said:
When don't know what "Democrat Party" means it makes you look A) clueless and B) like you don't know your political history
Click to expand...

I know my political history just fine. Maybe you need a refresher.

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

huskyfan said:
hello? that's why geezer used it.
Click to expand...
And I was pointing out that if he wanted to be accurate, he wouldn't. But as I have said previously, I see now that he doesn't care about being accurate.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

and now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.....

What happens in the South with Santorum and Newt? I can't say I have paid much attn to the Confederacy.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Priceless said:
No, one was an exit poll from the GOP primary. The other is registered voters. While the poll you cited may be accurate for GOP voters, the general election will be among ALL voters, not just those that voted in the Republican primary (sorry).
Click to expand...

It took me a day, but now I understand what you're saying. I wasn't trying to deceive about the poll coming from future participants in the general election next fall. I wasn't trying to tie them together at all. It's actually likely that you're right, it was taken in exit polls from yesterday's primary. I guess I probably should have figured out the methodology and posted it with the results.

Thanks for standing on that wall shooter.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

leswp1 said:
and now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.....

What happens in the South with Santorum and Newt? I can't say I have paid much attn to the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Newt is wrecking Santorum's candidacy and giving Mitt a free ride into the nomination. Newt and Santorum may win a few more states but Romney has the inside track.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Here is Arizona they were calling the primary even before the polls were closed. Some relatives were going to vote and they heard on the radio on the way to the polling place that Romney had won Arizona (which is a winner take all state). Not a huge deal, as Romney was always a likely winner here, but still a poor show to call it before people had voted.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Nice run by Santorum, but I don't get how he came this close in the first place. No problem though, as the ol' boy can do some damage come Super Tuesday. I hear The Mittster is now begging for small donations as he's burned through his campaign cash from his usual heavy hitters. Guess he should find his own casino mogul to suck up to.

BTW - The Democrat vs Democratic thing is just stupid. Back during the Bush Admin Karl Rove or somebody thought this label would be a winner for them. It isn't. Its just stupid so who cares which term is used?

Onto Maine. I thought Snowe did a good job, but this is a grade A disaster for the GOP. Look at it this way: There are now 3 seats likely to flip, which will net +1 for the GOP in the Senate. The next tier of races is MA, MO, and MT. Lets say the GOP goes 2 for 3 again. Now they're still at 49 and need two more in the event of an Obama win. Tier 3 is NV, VA and WI. Okay, lets say they still 2 out of 3 a third time. That gets them to 50 and I don't know where they go from there. Previously the GOP had a pretty good shot of winning the Senate even in the event of a narrow Obama victory. Now they need a GOP President or I don't see some of these races (WI, VA, NV, MA) going their way.

AMC said:
It seems like the Democratic Party prefers numbers to cohesion- they're more willing to suffer a Nelson or a Blanche Lincoln voting with the Republicans occasionally if it means they hold an overall majority.

On the other hand, the Republicans seem to prioritize cohesion to strict numbers. They'd rather not have moderates, but put forth a pure party line.
Click to expand...

This is a flip from previous years where the GOP was much, much better about putting up with some moderates to retain their majority. Repubs weren't thrilled in the 90's with Jeffords, Collins, Snowe, and Chafee but that pretty much gave them their Senate majority so they weren't run out of the party. I think today's Tea Party driven GOP would rather lose than moderate.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Bob Gray said:
I thought we got past that idea back in JFK's day?
Click to expand...

That makes me want to throw up. :p

Seriously though, that is in relation to Frothy's original statement: "He also said that he felt like he did not want to be led by the few elite people in high places"

Would that not describe the Pope? Or is he not elite? Or is the Vatican not a high place? Was Frothy being literal and he meant he didn't want to be led by people on Mt. Washington? Because I'm totally down with that...those people are a bunch of nerds.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Bob Gray said:
Here is Arizona they were calling the primary even before the polls were closed. Some relatives were going to vote and they heard on the radio on the way to the polling place that Romney had won Arizona (which is a winner take all state). Not a huge deal, as Romney was always a likely winner here, but still a poor show to call it before people had voted.
Click to expand...

I've always thought it was bad form to call before a race is over. It's like calling the winner of a sporting event before it's over.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Also they had early voting. Lots of people voted before the actual day. I have mixed feelings about that. What if you vote and then hear the guy/gal did say something really objectionable.

Anyone else wondering where Romney is going to keep getting cash from? He is bleeding cash to win this stuff and it is all negative. How is he going to be able to afford that type of spending through the general election. Until he poured the cash on telling everyone how awful X was he was behind in IA, FLA, NH, MI etc. How does he keep that up? There are a lot of seemingly luke warm people, not huge numbers of rabid supporters, in his corner.

ANyone know when the last time a party was this divided regarding what they wanted? I don'e ever remember anyone winning with support in the 20-30 % range but then I guess I never paid that much attention.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

leswp1 said:
Also they had early voting. Lots of people voted before the actual day. I have mixed feelings about that. What if you vote and then hear the guy/gal did say something really objectionable.

Anyone else wondering where Romney is going to keep getting cash from? He is bleeding cash to win this stuff and it is all negative. How is he going to be able to afford that type of spending through the general election. Until he poured the cash on telling everyone how awful X was he was behind in IA, FLA, NH, MI etc. How does he keep that up? There are a lot of seemingly luke warm people, not huge numbers of rabid supporters, in his corner.

ANyone know when the last time a party was this divided regarding what they wanted? I don'e ever remember anyone winning with support in the 20-30 % range but then I guess I never paid that much attention.
Click to expand...

Supposedly they're going to have a lot of enthusiasm this year and rally around the candidate because they want Obama out of the White House so bad.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Priceless said:
That makes me want to throw up. :p

Seriously though, that is in relation to Frothy's original statement: "He also said that he felt like he did not want to be led by the few elite people in high places"

Would that not describe the Pope? Or is he not elite? Or is the Vatican not a high place? Was Frothy being literal and he meant he didn't want to be led by people on Mt. Washington? Because I'm totally down with that...those people are a bunch of nerds.
Click to expand...
Don't follow that first one.

I have no reason to think Santorum was talking about the Pope. But I'm sure people will sling mud at him any way they can, including attacks on his Catholic faith.

Oh, and Mt. Washington isn't really that high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top