What's new
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!

He's been running for President for about 5 years now, and the only way he's winning is by again bludgeoning his opponents with attack ads when their poll numbers rise as a threat, and despite that, he's not slamming the door shut on guys so disorganized and dirt-poor that they didn't get their names on all ballots and don't have enough delegates available in other states on the off chance they did win. He's running states with very few campaign offices compared to what the Obama campaign did 4 years ago, meaning he's yet to build a real grass-roots level setup. Michigan had one office. He should have been building this apparatus over the last year or two since it's not like he had anything else to do.

Assuming he gets to 1144 and isn't forced into a floor fight from the sheer stubbornness of the other three, his campaign has to really step their game up or hope things go really **** up or he's going to get hammered.

I heard this about Virginia also. Because he was only facing Paul, The Mittster had one office open in the state. Obama has 5 set up already. Now I don't think that means Obama is a lock to win VA, but its going to force Romney to spend time and money there. Not sure why he doesn't use the primaries as an opportunity to set up shop in these places unless his campaign truly is running short on funds and is relying heavily on super PAC's (which can't set up a campaign office for him) to get him the nomination.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Wasn't there also the third-party candidacy of George Wallace that siphoned off traditional Democratic votes?
Yes, but it may not have changed the election result (this is one of those perennial poli sci questions, like "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?")

Wallace's plan was to throw the election to the House where he would have some room to maneuver, and he came very, very close. It's an interesting story.

The election on November 5, 1968 proved to be extremely close, and it was not until the following morning that the television news networks were able to call Nixon the winner. The key states proved to be California, Ohio, and Illinois, all of which Nixon won by three percentage points or less. Had Humphrey carried all three of these states, he would have won the election. Had Humphrey carried any two of them, or California alone, George Wallace would have succeeded in his aim of preventing an electoral college majority for any candidate, and the decision would have been given to the House of Representatives, at the time controlled by the Democratic Party.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Rush has now lost 35 sponsors. I imagine his radio show now sounds like a PBS pledge drive.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

I was amused by some conservatives calling for Santorum to leave the race as he has nothing to gain by continuing. Nothing can be further from the truth. Given that in 1980, 88, 96, and 2008 the party nominated the "next in line" candidate, why wouldn't Santorum stay in the race to amass delegates and wins in Alabama, Missisippi, Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska, etc etc - all the places that are a wasteland for Romney. No, he won't win enough delegates to counter when NY and CA go to Mittens, but who cares? As a relatively young guy, he could capitalize on a Romney loss by saying he wasn't conservative enough. If Romney wins there's no race on the GOP in 4 years anyway, so nothing lost. Worst case scenario he gets a gig on Fox or talk radio. I hear their might be a prominent slot opening up....;)
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Chellie Pingree won't run for Maine Senate: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/...ll-focus-on-1st-district-re-election-instead/

So, basically, neither Congressional district will change hands, and King will start with about a 20 point lead over Baldacci and whatever Republican wins the primary. And King is too smart not to eff that up.

So, Michaud stays out to avoid a showdown with Pingree. Pingree then stays out to avoid a showdown with King.

I knew Angus King was popular, but I didn't remember him being such a rock star. There are only 100 senate jobs in the country, and they don't change party all that often. It's kind of a major deal. Yet the Democratic party is basically folding, and giving someone else a clear path to the Senate . . . unless there were some closed-door conversations. Some quid-pro-quo along the lines of:

"Neither of us wants a LePage in the Senate. I'll (Angus) pinkie-swear to caucus with the Dems if you folks back away from this election. Collins may be weaker now without Snowe -- maybe aim your top candidates at her?"
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Worst case scenario he gets a gig on Fox or talk radio. I hear their might be a prominent slot opening up....;)
I hope he wouldn't lower himself. The thing about the Foxies and the Echo Chamber is that at the end of the day, they're turds who will say and do anything for the almighty dollar. Santorum is horrendously wrong about many things, but he seems to me to at least be honest (or as honest as any politician can be).
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

I actually think people are making too much of Rush's debacle as well. Yes, he was a little bit more of an a-hole that day than usual, and what he said probably did fit the legal definition of slander, and he obviously is not sorry about it. However, I just don't see the benefit in getting in a tizzy every time a buffoon commits buffoonery.

I will say this. I will be SHOCKED if Rush does not have a popular radio show a year from now, two years from now, five years from now... until he either decides to retire, or the idiots who listen to him and think he's not a buffoon wise up. So, you know, until he retires.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

I will say this. I will be SHOCKED if Rush does not have a popular radio show a year from now, two years from now, five years from now... until he either decides to retire, or the idiots who listen to him and think he's not a buffoon wise up. So, you know, until he retires.

that's the trouble right there. I read a blog today about how the 35 Clear Channel advertisers who asked not to be aired on his program came out of a pool of some number in the thousands of advertisers on Clear Channel. Those slots are transferred to others, some of whom have specifically asked to get more time on Limbaugh to stand up for "free speech."
You're absolutely right that the power rests with the listeners. Stations that are pressured into cancelling him cost him ears, which ultimately hurts a lot more than shuffling ad dollars around between programs. I don't have a lot of hope for improving "the tone" either. Part of the hopelessness is when you read the quotes of what Olbermann, Maher, etc. get away with saying that are swept under the rug. The media "outrage" is too politically selective to do any good.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

...or the idiots who listen to him and think he's not a buffoon wise up.

Howard Stern effect. Probably a third to half his audience are moderates and libs who listen just to hear what outrageous thing he'll say next, so they can get their daily dose of poutrage.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Howard Stern effect. Probably a third to half his audience are moderates and libs who listen just to hear what outrageous thing he'll say next, so they can get their daily dose of poutrage.
I would be that the fraction is a good deal less than that (I'm thinking around a quarter) but it is a strong point nevertheless. And even if Clear Channel shows him the door, he will have another job the next day. Or the next week. But soon enough.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Howard Stern effect. Probably a third to half his audience are moderates and libs who listen just to hear what outrageous thing he'll say next, so they can get their daily dose of poutrage.
(blows whistle) Incorrect use of "poutrage." Ten yards.

Libs who listen to Rush (if there are any) aren't feigning being offended, trust me. That's like saying Bob reads our immigration posts for poutrage. Nuh unh. That head-popping is the real thing. :)

I assume Rush's audience is about 30% true believers who mainline his brand of hatred, and 70% bored truckers with nothing else to do but run down Priuses (Pria?) between Waffle House bimbos and fenproporex hits.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

(blows whistle) Incorrect use of "poutrage." Ten yards.

Libs who listen to Rush (if there are any) aren't feigning being offended, trust me. That's like saying Bob reads our immigration posts for poutrage. Nuh unh. That head-popping is the real thing. :)

I assume Rush's audience is about 30% true believers who mainline his brand of hatred, and 70% bored truckers with nothing else to do but run down Priuses (Pria?) between Waffle House bimbos and fenproporex hits.
Listen to a steady diet of anything long enough and it will seem right and real.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Unless he loses his radio gig (unlikely) or has a slander judgment slapped against him, he wins because you're all talking about his antics.
 
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!

Unless he loses his radio gig (unlikely) or has a slander judgment slapped against him, he wins because you're all talking about his antics.
In what way does he win except with a bunch of scumbags who would have supported him anyways?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top