Is Gingrich a spoiler?
Ohio map
With Romney winning the urban Ohio vote, and completely losing every rural Ohio county the general election with Romney will be interesting.
Before anyone asks why I didn't include Paul, there is no way he he would agree. He is running to preach his message, rather than a legitimate chance to win.
rules from winner take all when you win a state,
to the splitting of the delegates among those who
ran. The Dem's use that against them every day:
Oh look, Romney is so weak he can't even win
the vote of his own party.
you think a republican will be deciding who is sec of hhs in 2013?
no way.
obama will
I think if the Republicans could find a decent candidate they could have a chance. Certainly the choice of the running-mate will matter. Sarah Palin was an interesting choice for 2008 that probably picked up a bunch of women Republican voters but turned off others.
Quote: WizardUnless Santorum or Gingrich drop out they will continue to split the right wing of the party and Romney will win easily. My advice to Santorum and Gingrich would be to agree that one of them has to drop out and then cut cards for who will do it.
The problem with cutting cards is Gingrich's strength is in the Deep South. But since a cardboard Republican will win the general election in those states, his strength is of no particular use. As usual, the election will probably be deeply reliant on Florida and Ohio. Since a Romney Santorum candidacy is likely, both candidates need to remain in the public eye, and not bloody each other too much.
Quote: buzzpaffIt's time for a late entry. Now that he has lost so many sponsors, surely Russ Limbaugh is thinking about entering the race.
Rush says he can't afford the pay cut.
Quote: buzzpaffIf he loses a sponsor or two more, that might not be a factor.
Thats funny. Do you have any idea how many sponsors
lined up at Rush's door to replace the ones that left? He
turns down million in revenue a year because everybody
wants to be on his show. He won't sponsor GM or GE,
for instance, because of political reasons. He was a big
supporter of GM until Obama bought it.
Quote: boymimbo
I think if the Republicans could find a decent candidate they could have a chance. Certainly the choice of the running-mate will matter. Sarah Palin was an interesting choice for 2008 that probably picked up a bunch of women Republican voters but turned off others.
This story gets told every election, "Oh, these guys are terrible, nobody can beat 'x,'" and every election you learn you have to run with who you have and that is it. Obama was a completely unaccomplished senator, Hillary got where she was because she was Mrs. Bill Clinton, and it goes on. It will be a referendum on Obama, plain and simple. Neither Romney, Rick, or Newt are far enough off the mainstream (unless you think Obama is a centrist) to not be able to take it all in November. Remember, Obama had an adoring media, all the energy on his side, an unpopular incumbent of the opposing party, the trend of party fatigue, a financial collapse, and a John McCain who acted as if he didn't care if he won. He had all of this on his side and it took until weeks before the election for his polling to go over 50% and he still only got 53% of the vote. Since then there have been major votes against Democrat Party candidates everywhere.
Palin was the only thing that gave McCain's campaign any energy at all. Proof she was a threat was they compared her to Obama. Not her to Biden and not Obama to McCain. And unlike say Hillary, Sarah never cried abouyt being attacked by men who, "don't like strong women." She jusgt kept fighting.
Obama's approval just hasn't reached and maintained above 50% since the honeymoon period. His storng support has also been weaker than his strong dissaprove. His record in office shows little to point towards. In fact, it is a "target rich envrionment" as long as whoever the GOP noiminee is actually goes on the attack and doesn't act afraied of being called a "racist" for bringing it up.
Quote: AZDuffmanHis record in office shows little to point towards.
Candidates run on promises. Incumbents have to run on
their record. Ask Jimmy Carter. Ask Obama the day after
the election.
Quote: EvenBobIt would be over now if they hadn't changed the
rules from winner take all when you win a state,
to the splitting of the delegates among those who
ran. The Dem's use that against them every day:
Oh look, Romney is so weak he can't even win
the vote of his own party.
It's a good method to have. Winner takes all means you push it towards winning the big states, whereas a proportional system means every state and vote counts for a candidate.
The Democrats are barking at the wrong target if they are saying that.
Quote: thecesspitThe Democrats are barking at the wrong target if they are saying that.
They say it every day. Yesterday one of them
was crowing that how can Obama lose when
they Right can't even elect a nominee.
Quote: EvenBobThey say it every day. Yesterday one of them
was crowing that how can Obama lose when
they Right can't even elect a nominee.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Clearly the Right can, as they are doing so right now. The primaries should not be a simple anointment. Is he really a -Democrat-? ;)
These debates and processes are kinda important to the whole process in American politics, as they set out the agenda, even if the party loses the presidential race.
Quote: EvenBobThey say it every day. Yesterday one of them
was crowing that how can Obama lose when
they Right can't even elect a nominee.
Actually, my hope is states see it taking longer and don't feel the urge to move their primaries up to day after Thanksgiving so they can have 8 candidates to choose from instead of 2-3. It would be nice if we had IA say around Groundhog Day then NH 2 weeks later, then the rest after that.
Obama has been a disappointment. Change did not come to Washington. Congressional approval rating is now *up* to 10%. However, there is a disdain for all politicians because of the gridlock in Washington. Romney will not improve this situation, which is why he won't win the election. He is completely out of touch with anyone but the upper crust and has made mistakes lately that illustrate that.
Most polls point to the fact that if the election was held today, Obama would beat Romney and Santorum, strong disapproval, and all.
Quote: boymimboAZ I know your particular affinity to McCain Palin. Palin did give the campaign energy, but it polarized voters in the opposite camp as well.
By "oppisite" you mean the democrats? Of course, but nobody cares about that. Politics can be like designing cars. You can have focus groups tell you what they don't like in the design, remove it all, and end up with an Oldsmobile Aurora. Or you can hear some people say they hate it but others just go goo-goo over it, then when it hits the market the people that love it drive sales ever higher--80% of people "hated" the 1992 Dodge Ram Pickup yet it over doubled sales because it made a statement.
Dole was a safe pick. McCain was a safe pick. On the left Kerry was a safe pick. Safe picks usually lose.
Quote:Obama has been a disappointment. Change did not come to Washington. Con
gressional approval rating is now *up* to 10%. However, there is a disdain for all politicians because of the gridlock in Washington. Romney will not improve this situation, which is why he won't win the election. He is completely out of touch with anyone but the upper crust and has made mistakes lately that illustrate that.
Anyone who believes "change" will come to Washington based on electing one person needs to get out of Fantasyland. "Change" only comes after major, major pain. In the history of the USA this has happened at the Civil War, Great Depression, and not much else. The rest of the time is evoloutionary. I don't buy that Romney is "out of touch" anymore than Obama, a guy who has never worked in the real world, is. Obama can't even accept that you need to drill for oil to find it.
Quote:Most polls point to the fact that if the election was held today, Obama would beat Romney and Santorum, strong disapproval, and all.
Virtually always the case at this time in the cycle. Carter was ahead at this point and things were REALLY bad then. Things will shape by November.
One thing I have learned in life is to never, ever say, "This time is different" because it never is.
Quote: WizardIf I had an account there I'd lay the big odds on Romney.
When, if ever, was the last time you took odds on a real world bet instead of laying them?
Quote: pacomartinWhen, if ever, was the last time you took odds on a real world bet instead of laying them?
All the time. I bet underdogs on the money line in MLB and the NFL all the time.
and a way for the electorate to send the message that they want romney to run as a conservative
instead of as the centrist that he really is.
shouldnt be a problem, he is good at selling out his principles
i still think he has an uphill battle
maybe the elders from the planet kolob will offer some advice
Romney - 415
Santorum - 176
Gringrich - 106
Paul - 47
Huntsman - 2
Some of these are non-binding. The target to win is 1144. With another 1542 delegates still up for grabs. There's a lot more Santorum non-binding votes than Gringrich non-binding votes. I am not sure what happens to delegates if the candidate removes themselves from the race (like, where do Huntsman's two delegates go?).
Quote: thecesspitI am not sure what happens to delegates if the candidate removes themselves from the race (like, where do Huntsman's two delegates go?).
I'm pretty sure the candidate who "owns" the delegates can pledge them to another candidate.
Quote: thecesspit
Some of these are non-binding. The target to win is 1144. With another 1542 delegates still up for grabs. There's a lot more Santorum non-binding votes than Gringrich non-binding votes. I am not sure what happens to delegates if the candidate removes themselves from the race (like, where do Huntsman's two delegates go?).
Generally they go to the convention and vote as selected. This is why you will see signs for the non-winner at conventions, those are being held by delegates for the other guys. Pretty much it never matters since before the "official" vote the winner is known. I think whoever "holds" them can re-direct them if there is no winner at the first vote. This is where the deal-making comes into play. Ron Paul might get a promise to audit the Fed and he could direct his delegates to vote for whoever promised it. Not sure that is official, but if you are a RP delegate you will vote as he requests in most cases. More so if he drops out after the first vote.
Brokered convention will not happen. It is just filling the news hole to talk about it.
Quote: thecesspitI am not sure what happens to delegates if the candidate removes themselves from the race (like, where do Huntsman's two delegates go?).
The general rule is that they have to vote for Huntsman on the first round. It is possible that Ron Paul or Gingrich will have enough delegates that no one has a the required 1146 by the time of the election. They are not the candidate's to give, but if he throws his support behind one candidate, then the delegates will generally follow his lead. Usually the candidate is promised some sort of role in the new government, and possibly the VP position.
IN 1924 it took 103 ballots until the candidate was selected, but since WWII all but one candidate for either party has been known before the convention. In the single case, Mondale was 40 delegates short, but some of the superdelegates voted for him so that he won on the first ballot.
Before WWII there were fewer primaries, and more caucuses, and the Democrats required a 2/3 majority practically guaranteeing a "brokered" convention.
Ohio district results
Quote: ahiromuI'm unenthusiastically supporting Romney. My biggest issue with him was epitomized last night when I looked at the Ohio district voting trends... Santorum looked like the R and Romney looked like the D (Rural went to Santorum and Urban went to Romney). I mean seriously, if you replace Romney with Obama it would make a lot of sense.
The median size state in the USA is about 4.4 million people. Perhaps a lot of the pressure would be removed if we had a dozen independent metropolitan areas. The majority of countries have some independent metropolitan areas (not part of a state). Then they could pass the kind of laws that people want in urban areas.
These 12 metropolitan areas would contain roughly 25% of the population of the nation.
New York 18,897,109 2010 USA
Los Angeles 12,828,837 2010 USA
Chicago 9,461,105 2010 USA
Dallas-Fort Worth 6,371,773 2010 USA
Philadelphia 5,965,343 2010 USA
Houston 5,946,800 2010 USA
Washington 5,582,170 2010 USA
Miami 5,564,635 2010 USA
Atlanta 5,268,860 2010 USA
Boston 4,552,402 2010 USA
San Francisco-Oakland 4,335,391 2010 USA
Detroit 4,296,250 2010 USA
Quote: pacomartinThe median size state in the USA is about 4.4 million people. Perhaps a lot of the pressure would be removed if we had a dozen independent metropolitan areas. The majority of countries have some independent metropolitan areas (not part of a state). Then they could pass the kind of laws that people want in urban areas.
An interesting concept as long as they don't trample the Constitution with restrictive gun control laws as many have already tried. I can see the problem that "the kind of laws they want" is often restricted to the city only and not the suburbs who side more with rural law concepts.
New Jersey would dissapear under such a system, absorbed into Philly and New York. Tony Soprano would need to decide where his allegience lies. I wouldn't miss having Philly in PA.
Quote:These 12 metropolitan areas would contain roughly 25% of the population of the nation.
I am suprised Phoenix Metro wasn't on the list.
And believe me, Philly wouldn't miss the rest of PA either...
Quote: AZDuffmanNew Jersey would dissapear under such a system, absorbed into Philly and New York. Tony Soprano would need to decide where his allegience lies. I wouldn't miss having Philly in PA.
I am suprised Phoenix Metro wasn't on the list.
Phoenix would have been next in population, but I don't see Phoenix at war with Arizona as much as San Francisco and Los Angeles are at war with the rest of California.
I did push the concept a little. Most countries have independent city regions, but none of them have 12. UK has London, France has Paris, China has 4 (Beijing, Tianjin, Chongking, and one other), Spain has Madrid and Catalonia. Autonomous regions are common.
But it seems as if we could amend some of the urban/rural war by giving more autonomy. NYC seems to have little to do anymore with NY state. Texas is practically a mini empire. Pennsylvania is a running joke among presidential campaign managers because the urban and rural parts of the state are so diverse.
The New York City state would consist of Northern New Jersey, most of the population of the new "Empire State", part of Connecticut, and one county in PA. It would be about the population of Florida.
Quote: WizardLatest Intrade odds:
Probability Romney wins GOP nomination: 89.2%
Probability Obama wins general election: 60.3%
If I had an account there I'd lay the big odds on Romney and also take Obama.
Its meaningless when one side doesn't have a candidate
yet. People don't know who's going to be the nominee,
of course Obama has the odds. As awful as he is, he has
a brand and people know him. Wait till Oct 10th and see
if you still back Obama.
Quote: EvenBobIts meaningless when one side doesn't have a candidate yet.
Meaningless is a strong word. Over 1/3 of the delegates have been counted, and Romney has over half. In all probability he will clinch the nomination on June 5, when California and four other states have their primary. There is only a slight chance of him clinching it sooner than June 5. The odds that it will get down to Utah or a brokered convention are very small. Neither Gingrich or Santorum has a shot at the nomination, it just depends on their compensation prize.
The financial position of the USA will be the same or slightly better by November.
So more than likely it will be Romney vs Obama with no rabbits being pulled out of hats. More than likely the world stage will not change dramatically with a new war. So while no election can possibly be a sure thing this far in advance, it is far from "meaningless".
Quote: pacomartinPhoenix would have been next in population, but I don't see Phoenix at war with Arizona as much as San Francisco and Los Angeles are at war with the rest of California.
Still suprised it is that low. Phienix basically *is* Arizona. Tuscon Flagstaff round it out, but unlike NY where the Non-NYC population is spread out in AZ when it is empty it is empty. Also the large Indian Reservations are already autonomous to a large extent.
Quote:I did push the concept a little. Most countries have independent city regions, but none of them have 12. UK has London, France has Paris, China has 4 (Beijing, Tianjin, Chongking, and one other), Spain has Madrid and Catalonia. Autonomous regions are common.
But it seems as if we could amend some of the urban/rural war by giving more autonomy. NYC seems to have little to do anymore with NY state. Texas is practically a mini empire. Pennsylvania is a running joke among presidential campaign managers because the urban and rural parts of the state are so diverse.
There are already a few "Independent Cities" like Baltimore, MD. They sit within their county, but do a lot of "county" functions themselves. As to PA that is very correct. Philadelphia has some autonomy already, it is a "City of the First Class" meaning it has a population of over 1MM. This is a PA definition, there is one city of the first class. For this, Philly residents (at least in the past) have to strongly justify need for a conceal-carry permit. Oddly, I can get one by asking and carry a gun around town there no problem. Go figure. They have other special rights and obligations no other PA city deals with. Pittsburgh now and then talks about trying to absorb the rest of the county to get the same status, a dead issue in the suburbs.
My brother-in-law's family is from there and I can sahy there are other differences in how the city can act. One family function he was saying how the city can do this-and-that and I explained how it cannot. After a "what on earth are you talking about" we realized Philly merges some "county" functions to the city and that is why neither side understood what the other was talking about, though from living that way for life he was a little more suprised than I was. (Though my job had me deal with county records, giving me more experience there)
Let Philly and NY absorb NJ into a mega-state. It really makes sense.
Quote: pacomartinMeaningless is a strong word. Over 1/3 of the delegates have been counted,
It doesn't matter, we know from past experience
that the country doesn't start taking all of this
seriously till the fall. The vast majority of
people pay no attention to politics, unfortunately.
Look at the audience numbers for network news
and FOX and Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk
radio. Its a very small part of the adult population
that pays attention.
5 of them pay attention to politics. These are average
Americans, many with degrees, including my own kids,
who know nothing about whats going on, they could care less.
I was over 40 before I started to really take an interest.
It was when Clinton was elected, before then I was not
interested.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy brother-in-law's family is from there and I can sahy there are other differences in how the city can act. One family function he was saying how the city can do this-and-that and I explained how it cannot. After a "what on earth are you talking about" we realized Philly merges some "county" functions to the city and that is why neither side understood what the other was talking about, though from living that way for life he was a little more suprised than I was. (Though my job had me deal with county records, giving me more experience there).
The "City of Philadelphia" and the "County of Philadelphia" were distinct entities until 1855 when they were merged. Philadelphia often says it was the biggest city in the country for the 1790 and 1800 census. It is true, but it is using the modern definition which didn't technically apply that early.
When the 5 boroughs merged to form New York City, they each retained their earlier county status as well. So it is the only city in the USA which encompasses multiple counties.
Most of the major cities in Virginia are "independent" of their counties. Outside of VA, I believe that only Baltimore and Carson City are independent. It is a little confusing because there is a Baltimore County as well as a City of Baltimore.
In recent decades several cities have merged their government with the county government, although they often let the independent cities within the county retain that independence. I would have to google the full list, but Virginia Beach VA and Jacksonville FL are two of them .
Hawaii doesn't have city government, and counties are the same as islands. Alaska incorporates huge regions as "city" property. Anchorage is about a million acres.
Pennsylvania's system of thousands of municipal governments, sometimes with only a few hundred people. seems archaic to me.
Quote: pacomartinThe "City of Philadelphia" and the "County of Philadelphia" were distinct entities until 1855 when they were merged. Philadelphia often says it was the biggest city in the country for the 1790 and 1800 census. It is true, but it is using the modern definition which didn't technically apply that early.
When the 5 boroughs merged to form New York City, they each retained their earlier county status as well. So it is the only city in the USA which encompasses multiple counties.
When I worked in AZ a woman there just couldn't grasp the "borough" thing, which we needed to know for mortgage tax. Nice girl, very smart, but at least twice a day she called out a county in NY and asked, "borough?" One night I took it upon myslef to explain how NYC is bigger than its counties, the only ccity in the USA AFIK that is like this.
Counties mainly seem to keep real estate records and run the jail and court system, at least in the east. In the plains they seem to be supplant the smaller towns that the east has.
Quote:In recent decades several cities have merged their government with the county government, although they often let the independent cities within the county retain that independence. I would have to google the full list, but Virginia Beach VA and Jacksonville FL are two of them .
Hawaii doesn't have city government, and counties are the same as islands. Alaska incorporates huge regions as "city" property. Anchorage is about a million acres.
Pennsylvania's system of thousands of municipal governments, sometimes with only a few hundred people. seems archaic to me.
Alaska has "boroughs" IIRC. Outside the cities it gets really empty there and nobody cares. Seems they just need *something* to be the government. In the Parishes in LA people actually take pride in their parish. Nobody form upstate NY will brag about being from "Dutchess County."
Yes, PA is archaic. The once-mighty Homestead Works of Carnegie and later US Seel spans several different municipalities. It works in some ways, you might know your mayor. But if a big employer wants to negotiate it is hard to deal with so many people.
