Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Well hell, he ought to be used to it by now.
Well hell, he ought to be used to it by now.
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 Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Santorum wins Colorado.
Santorum wins Colorado.
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
So nobody has been paying attention to him either because he had a terrible year last year?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
heh
So nobody has been paying attention to him either because he had a terrible year last year?
heh
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
But Romney doesn't have a base. He has investors.
Ordinarily, that's the moment when the base needs rousing most.
But Romney doesn't have a base. He has investors.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
I apologize. You were right and I was wrong.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Awwwww. You two argue like you've been married forty years.
Awwwww. You two argue like you've been married forty years.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
That's pretty amazing. I'd be interested to see the numbers from places like Colorado Springs, where there are lots of mega-churches (should be good for Santorum) but also lots of money (should be good for Romney).
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
What could possibly go wrong?
I am old, because the part of me that wants to go watch the fun has no chance of winning the argument against the part of me that doesn't want to get hit with a stray bullet.
We're going to have hyped up mobs of Tea Partiers, Occupiers, the DC police, and the media all in the same city block. My main hope is that a mob of DC residents shows up and kicks the crap out of all of them.
What could possibly go wrong?
I am old, because the part of me that wants to go watch the fun has no chance of winning the argument against the part of me that doesn't want to get hit with a stray bullet.
We're going to have hyped up mobs of Tea Partiers, Occupiers, the DC police, and the media all in the same city block. My main hope is that a mob of DC residents shows up and kicks the crap out of all of them.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Yes and yes. And it was a bad night for Obama. We now have Gay marriage, contraception, and abortion all running at the top of the news and the vote last night all went that a way.
Yes and yes. And it was a bad night for Obama. We now have Gay marriage, contraception, and abortion all running at the top of the news and the vote last night all went that a way.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
So the Republican base is curling itself into a death spiral while the rest of the country moves forward, and they can't even deliver one of their candidates to their own nomination.
Yeah, that's a terrible night for Obama...
Among Republicans. And their turnout was down. And the guy on the wrong side of those issues for their base is still going to win their nomination.
So the Republican base is curling itself into a death spiral while the rest of the country moves forward, and they can't even deliver one of their candidates to their own nomination.
Yeah, that's a terrible night for Obama...
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Remember back when Romney was saying he understood Hispanics because his great grandfather lived in Mexico? About that...
Remember back when Romney was saying he understood Hispanics because his great grandfather lived in Mexico? About that...
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Should have put a smiley or something into my message to Kep, but regardless a classy gesture by a classy poster. Now if we could only get Old PO's do to the same....
I'm going to disagree with the conventional wisdom of the talking heads and throw something out here that I haven't seen written about yet. The song everyone is singing is that either Newt or Santorum need to exit the race for someone other than Romney to win the nomination. I disagree. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum have a national appeal, or the organization & cash to go head to head with The Mittster. However, much like Seinfeld and George realizing they're both half a man, but put them together and they're a complete one, Newt Santorum is a formidable alternative. How does this work?
Gingrich should win down South, thus denying Romney not only crucial delegates but the sense that he can win over the base. Santorum by virtue of being more focused + having less baggage can win in the smaller caucus states dominated by hard core righties who can't bring themselves to vote Gingrich. Pretty soon they not only make it mathematically impossible for Mittens to have enough delegates going into the convention, but they also keep him at his 1 out of every 3 states winning % which destroys both the inevitability and electability arguments that Romney's campaign has stupidly employed. So, what's the endgame? How about Gingrich and Santorum come together at the convention and run as a ticket? Say Newt as the nominee since he's 68 already and the younger Santorum as the VP candidate, setting him up for frontrunner status next time if they lose. Give Paul a prime time speaking engagement in exchange for his support and they're off to the races.
Should have put a smiley or something into my message to Kep, but regardless a classy gesture by a classy poster. Now if we could only get Old PO's do to the same....
I'm going to disagree with the conventional wisdom of the talking heads and throw something out here that I haven't seen written about yet. The song everyone is singing is that either Newt or Santorum need to exit the race for someone other than Romney to win the nomination. I disagree. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum have a national appeal, or the organization & cash to go head to head with The Mittster. However, much like Seinfeld and George realizing they're both half a man, but put them together and they're a complete one, Newt Santorum is a formidable alternative. How does this work?
Gingrich should win down South, thus denying Romney not only crucial delegates but the sense that he can win over the base. Santorum by virtue of being more focused + having less baggage can win in the smaller caucus states dominated by hard core righties who can't bring themselves to vote Gingrich. Pretty soon they not only make it mathematically impossible for Mittens to have enough delegates going into the convention, but they also keep him at his 1 out of every 3 states winning % which destroys both the inevitability and electability arguments that Romney's campaign has stupidly employed. So, what's the endgame? How about Gingrich and Santorum come together at the convention and run as a ticket? Say Newt as the nominee since he's 68 already and the younger Santorum as the VP candidate, setting him up for frontrunner status next time if they lose. Give Paul a prime time speaking engagement in exchange for his support and they're off to the races.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Interesting idea.
It all sets up a dynamic where if Romney pivots to hit Santorum, Newt can sucker punch him from behind, and vice versa. Keep Paul around, too, since neither Newt nor Santorum has libertarian or youth appeal. Play this like Qix -- keep cutting out boxes of territory and get to 50%+1:
But to do that, they would have to burn all their bridges as far as begging Romney for the veep slot. Newt has already done that, but you get the feeling Santorum is still kissing Romney's tush (er, to speak) to keep himself alive for the ticket.
Thinking about it, it might not even hurt the GOP for the general. I mean, where's all the big money going to go, Obama? If for no other reason they are going to back the Republican to keep stacking the Courts.
Interesting idea.
It all sets up a dynamic where if Romney pivots to hit Santorum, Newt can sucker punch him from behind, and vice versa. Keep Paul around, too, since neither Newt nor Santorum has libertarian or youth appeal. Play this like Qix -- keep cutting out boxes of territory and get to 50%+1:
But to do that, they would have to burn all their bridges as far as begging Romney for the veep slot. Newt has already done that, but you get the feeling Santorum is still kissing Romney's tush (er, to speak) to keep himself alive for the ticket.
Thinking about it, it might not even hurt the GOP for the general. I mean, where's all the big money going to go, Obama? If for no other reason they are going to back the Republican to keep stacking the Courts.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Couple of thoughts. Romney wins debates after Iowa...New Hampshire landslide (ok...he'd have won it if Reagan was running). Gingrich wins debates after New Hampshire...SC landslide for Gingrich when Romney had inevitability. Gingrich went soft after SC with Romney winning one on one...Romney cleaned up FL. Last debate Santorum made both Romney and Gingrich look like arguing school kids and called out Romney on healthcare hypocracy...Santorum sweeps three states. Man, debates are important.
Tough spot for Gingrich. He now has someone who is stealing the anti Romney vote outside of the south (or at least in middle America). He essentially has no chance. But does he go after Romney or Santorum? Tough call. Not every day you see a Qix reference.
Couple of thoughts. Romney wins debates after Iowa...New Hampshire landslide (ok...he'd have won it if Reagan was running). Gingrich wins debates after New Hampshire...SC landslide for Gingrich when Romney had inevitability. Gingrich went soft after SC with Romney winning one on one...Romney cleaned up FL. Last debate Santorum made both Romney and Gingrich look like arguing school kids and called out Romney on healthcare hypocracy...Santorum sweeps three states. Man, debates are important.
Tough spot for Gingrich. He now has someone who is stealing the anti Romney vote outside of the south (or at least in middle America). He essentially has no chance. But does he go after Romney or Santorum? Tough call. Not every day you see a Qix reference.
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
From that flaming liberal newsrag, the WSJ:
Political Wisdom: Does Santorum’s Sweep Spell Trouble for Romney?
By Jude O. Marfil
Rick Santorum scored a major victory Tuesday night, winning in the swing states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado in the GOP’s first multi-state voting, and putting the brakes on front-runner Mitt Romney’s ride to the GOP nomination.
At Salon.com, Steve Kornacki says Mr. Santorum’s “stunning sweep” pushes the Republican race “closer than ever to complete chaos.”
The bigger story is what amounts to a meltdown for Romney, who would like us all to believe that he’s the candidate of inevitability. But the inevitable candidate isn’t supposed to get crushed by 30 points, as Romney did in Missouri. And he’s not supposed to finish a very distant third, 10 points behind Ron Paul, as he did in Minnesota. And he’s certainly not supposed to let a candidate like Rick Santorum, who before tonight had barely been relevant since the Iowa caucuses, post the clean sweep Santorum just did. …
The results underscore the widespread reluctance to get behind Romney that continues to exist among the GOP base. Romney’s campaign can write off Missouri because of the unusual circumstances there and argue they didn’t focus much energy or money on Minnesota, but that only points to the degree to which Romney’s nomination strategy depends on attacking his rivals and overwhelming them financially.
February was supposed to be a cruise control month for Romney – a series of effortless, momentum-building victories that would marginalize his opponents and lead to one emphatic, nomination-sealing sweep on Super Tuesday. Instead, he now faces a real challenge just to make it through the rest of the month, which will include contests in Michigan and Arizona, without any more embarrassments. And the prospect of further setbacks in early March, when Ohio and several Southern states that are culturally ill-suited to Romney will vote, now seems likely.
At the National Review Online, John Fund writes about why Mr. Romney delivered “poor showing” in the first multi-state contests.
He has failed to close the deal with conservatives, who dominate the Republican party more than they did in 2008. Romney drew the ire of conservative icons Steve Forbes and Dick Armey this week when he endorsed inflation-indexed minimum-wage increases — something every free-market economist worth his chops knows would make it harder for people to get entry-level jobs. …
Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to realize he is campaigning for two jobs, not one. He is doing quite well in the race to become the Republican nominee for president, and must still be considered the strong favorite. But ever since Barry Goldwater captured the GOP nomination in 1964, the Republican nominee has been more or less the titular head of the conservative movement, the most important single component of the Republican party. It is that race that Romney is doing so poorly in, as evidenced by the willingness of many conservatives to vote against him.
Romney would help himself and his party if he realized that he will have a much higher chance of winning the general election if he reaches out to conservatives and convinces them to be enthusiastic. It’s one thing to win the vote of every anti-Obama voter in the country, but on his current trajectory Romney will fail to convince many of them to make that extra effort to get their friends and neighbors to the polls. That could ultimately mean the difference between victory and defeat — and for now Romney seems oblivious to that fact.
Nate Silver at the New York Times offers this explanation of Tuesday night’s results.
Mr. Romney’s campaign failed to make much of an effort in the contests. He did not make many personal appearances in the states, nor did he run a significant amount of advertising. And his campaign worked to diminish expectations in the day or two before the voting — a practice that can annoy voters who are undecided in the race if they feel like they are being told their vote doesn’t matter.
Why Mr. Romney’s campaign made these decisions is hard to say. One of the advantages of having a resource-rich campaign, as Mr. Romney does, is precisely that you are able to leave less to chance. Mr. Romney would have had the luxury of running commercials in Colorado or Minnesota, or of establishing a set of field offices in those states. Instead, his strategy was complacent. He gambled and paid the price, as Hillary Rodham Clinton did in the caucus states in 2008.
Fortunately for Mr. Romney, none of his rivals are in the same ballpark as Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Barack Obama, as measured by metrics like fundraising, organizational strength, or oratorical skill. But Mr. Romney is not a strong enough candidate that he can afford more nights as bad as Tuesday.
Mike Smithson at the UK Telegraph writes that Mr. Santorum’s “stunning success” makes Mr. Romney’s nomination “far from inevitable.”
It is the combination of three losses, that few had foreseen, which makes the past twenty-four hours the most significant day in the campaign so far. Colorado, which neighbours Utah with its huge Mormon population, had gone to Romney with more than 60% of the caucus votes in 2008 and it was almost inconceivable that he would struggle. As it was, he secured less than 35% of the votes even though he had built the biggest ground operation of any of the contenders.
A big problem from all of this is that it undermines two key elements that were part of the overall Romney proposition: that his nomination was inevitable, and that he was the “most electable” of the contenders. A vote share down to 17% in one of the states hardly suggests electability.
A bigger challenge for him is that a new narrative is developing: one that suggests the only way Mitt Romney can win is by bombarding his opponents with negative advertisements.
<http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/g-o-p-race-has-hallmarks-of-prolonged-battle/?hp>
From that flaming liberal newsrag, the WSJ:
Political Wisdom: Does Santorum’s Sweep Spell Trouble for Romney?
By Jude O. Marfil
Rick Santorum scored a major victory Tuesday night, winning in the swing states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado in the GOP’s first multi-state voting, and putting the brakes on front-runner Mitt Romney’s ride to the GOP nomination.
At Salon.com, Steve Kornacki says Mr. Santorum’s “stunning sweep” pushes the Republican race “closer than ever to complete chaos.”
The bigger story is what amounts to a meltdown for Romney, who would like us all to believe that he’s the candidate of inevitability. But the inevitable candidate isn’t supposed to get crushed by 30 points, as Romney did in Missouri. And he’s not supposed to finish a very distant third, 10 points behind Ron Paul, as he did in Minnesota. And he’s certainly not supposed to let a candidate like Rick Santorum, who before tonight had barely been relevant since the Iowa caucuses, post the clean sweep Santorum just did. …
The results underscore the widespread reluctance to get behind Romney that continues to exist among the GOP base. Romney’s campaign can write off Missouri because of the unusual circumstances there and argue they didn’t focus much energy or money on Minnesota, but that only points to the degree to which Romney’s nomination strategy depends on attacking his rivals and overwhelming them financially.
February was supposed to be a cruise control month for Romney – a series of effortless, momentum-building victories that would marginalize his opponents and lead to one emphatic, nomination-sealing sweep on Super Tuesday. Instead, he now faces a real challenge just to make it through the rest of the month, which will include contests in Michigan and Arizona, without any more embarrassments. And the prospect of further setbacks in early March, when Ohio and several Southern states that are culturally ill-suited to Romney will vote, now seems likely.
At the National Review Online, John Fund writes about why Mr. Romney delivered “poor showing” in the first multi-state contests.
He has failed to close the deal with conservatives, who dominate the Republican party more than they did in 2008. Romney drew the ire of conservative icons Steve Forbes and Dick Armey this week when he endorsed inflation-indexed minimum-wage increases — something every free-market economist worth his chops knows would make it harder for people to get entry-level jobs. …
Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to realize he is campaigning for two jobs, not one. He is doing quite well in the race to become the Republican nominee for president, and must still be considered the strong favorite. But ever since Barry Goldwater captured the GOP nomination in 1964, the Republican nominee has been more or less the titular head of the conservative movement, the most important single component of the Republican party. It is that race that Romney is doing so poorly in, as evidenced by the willingness of many conservatives to vote against him.
Romney would help himself and his party if he realized that he will have a much higher chance of winning the general election if he reaches out to conservatives and convinces them to be enthusiastic. It’s one thing to win the vote of every anti-Obama voter in the country, but on his current trajectory Romney will fail to convince many of them to make that extra effort to get their friends and neighbors to the polls. That could ultimately mean the difference between victory and defeat — and for now Romney seems oblivious to that fact.
Nate Silver at the New York Times offers this explanation of Tuesday night’s results.
Mr. Romney’s campaign failed to make much of an effort in the contests. He did not make many personal appearances in the states, nor did he run a significant amount of advertising. And his campaign worked to diminish expectations in the day or two before the voting — a practice that can annoy voters who are undecided in the race if they feel like they are being told their vote doesn’t matter.
Why Mr. Romney’s campaign made these decisions is hard to say. One of the advantages of having a resource-rich campaign, as Mr. Romney does, is precisely that you are able to leave less to chance. Mr. Romney would have had the luxury of running commercials in Colorado or Minnesota, or of establishing a set of field offices in those states. Instead, his strategy was complacent. He gambled and paid the price, as Hillary Rodham Clinton did in the caucus states in 2008.
Fortunately for Mr. Romney, none of his rivals are in the same ballpark as Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Barack Obama, as measured by metrics like fundraising, organizational strength, or oratorical skill. But Mr. Romney is not a strong enough candidate that he can afford more nights as bad as Tuesday.
Mike Smithson at the UK Telegraph writes that Mr. Santorum’s “stunning success” makes Mr. Romney’s nomination “far from inevitable.”
It is the combination of three losses, that few had foreseen, which makes the past twenty-four hours the most significant day in the campaign so far. Colorado, which neighbours Utah with its huge Mormon population, had gone to Romney with more than 60% of the caucus votes in 2008 and it was almost inconceivable that he would struggle. As it was, he secured less than 35% of the votes even though he had built the biggest ground operation of any of the contenders.
A big problem from all of this is that it undermines two key elements that were part of the overall Romney proposition: that his nomination was inevitable, and that he was the “most electable” of the contenders. A vote share down to 17% in one of the states hardly suggests electability.
A bigger challenge for him is that a new narrative is developing: one that suggests the only way Mitt Romney can win is by bombarding his opponents with negative advertisements.
<http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/g-o-p-race-has-hallmarks-of-prolonged-battle/?hp>
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
You should have been around in the nineties. There was time for Klax.
Not every day you see a Qix reference.
You should have been around in the nineties. There was time for Klax.
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
The Springs went full Frothy to the tune of about 1700 votes. That's Focus on the Family's turf.
Per last night's Fark thread, Frothy was even able to carry some of the Denver suburbs. That oughta give Mittens a few sleepless nights.
The Springs went full Frothy to the tune of about 1700 votes. That's Focus on the Family's turf.
Per last night's Fark thread, Frothy was even able to carry some of the Denver suburbs. That oughta give Mittens a few sleepless nights.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: 2012 Elections Pt II: Bachmann Turned Me Into a Newt! A Newt?
Astounding drop for Romney in those three states from 2008:
Romney's vote total and pct, 2008 / 2012
CO 42k 60% / 23k 35%
MN 26k 41% / 8k 17%
MO 172k 29% / 64k 25%
Astounding drop for Romney in those three states from 2008:
Romney's vote total and pct, 2008 / 2012
CO 42k 60% / 23k 35%
MN 26k 41% / 8k 17%
MO 172k 29% / 64k 25%
- Status