It's looking more and more like Mitt Romney will end up as the Republican presidential nominee.

What does this do for a potential Clinton or Obama campaign? There are plenty of people out there who would vote for any Christian (liberal or not) over a Mormon. Does this mean a Democratic victory for sure?

~String

There are plenty of people out there who would vote for any Christian (liberal or not) over a Mormon. Does this mean a Democratic victory for sure?
Christ I knew elections were a sham , but to vote for someone simply because of his archaic religious belief raises the gullability into a whole new dimension of SHEEPibility .

Christ I knew elections were a sham , but to vote for someone simply because of his archaic religious belief raises the gullability into a whole new dimension of SHEEPibility .

Unfortunately, to billions of people around the world (and a few hundred million in this nation), religion is central to all political decision making.

Not liking it is one thing. Denying it is quite another.

~String

It's looking more and more like Mitt Romney will end up as the Republican presidential nominee.

It wasn't really that hard to see it (see my post on elections in the Logical Republican thread). It boils down to 2 things:

1. Money rules politics. The person with the most money has the best chance.
2. There isn't much difference among the frontrunners even mixing up the parties. Thus for the ruling elite it makes little difference if it is a McCain or Hillary or Romney.

Hillary gets the nomination by entitlement and money. McCain would have got the entitlement from the Reps, but his stand on the war makes him unelectable, and the next person is Romney with almost unlimited money.

The rest of the candidates is for entertainment and for pretending democracy only. Between Hillary and Romney, Clinton is going to win, although there will be no difference in the outcome...

Between Hillary and Romney, Clinton is going to win, although there will be no difference in the outcome...

It's sickening.

I was talking to my dad, and he asked me who I was going to vote for and I said, "probably nobody... they all suck, and they are pretty much the same."

He was stunned (I've always been political), but I pointed out to him that my original favorite (Giuliani) was pro choice, "progressive" on gay issues, pro gun control and for a controlled exit (as determined be the commanders) of Iraq and that Hillary pretty much espoused the exact same thing, he kind-of got my point. They are all the same shitty cogs in a very, VERY corrupt machine.

~String

Interesting how Fox News doesn't talk much about Romney winning Nevada, but they are pushing the SC caucus, although there are no results yet.
The numbers are interesting though, since NV was much more important with 34 delegates and Romney winning a bit more than half, like 19. SC has only 24 delegates and that will be divided among the 3 frontrunners, so nobody winning more than 10...

So it should have been obvious that NV was more important than SC, but since it was Romney country, Fox kept quiet about it, since he is not really their choice...

It's sickening.

I was talking to my dad, and he asked me who I was going to vote for and I said, "probably nobody... they all suck, and they are pretty much the same."

He was stunned (I've always been political), but I pointed out to him that my original favorite (Giuliani) was pro choice, "progressive" on gay issues, pro gun control and for a controlled exit (as determined be the commanders) of Iraq and that Hillary pretty much espoused the exact same thing, he kind-of got my point. They are all the same shitty cogs in a very, VERY corrupt machine.
String, you're losing it. I, too, was quite disappointed at the performance of the Republicans when they controlled all branches of the government. But to suggest that there is no difference between the parties is simply not true.

Yes, the Republicans suck. They suck because far too many of them campaign as conservatives and govern as liberals, or at least as big spenders. Whereas the Democrats suck no matter what. In fact, the more they do what they say they'll do, the worse they are!

Every single Democrat running wants to raise taxes. Especially on the evil rich. They all want to give up US sovereignty, they all want socialized medicine, they all want amnesty for illegals. They all want to surrender in Iraq.

They are anti-business at the same time they decry the lack of jobs! They do everything they can to prevent new construction of houses via environmental regulations or whatever, then complain about a lack of affordable housing.

Now McCain/Hilary, not much difference; but I'd still (slightly) prefer McCain. But what's so bad about Romney? He's got executive experience as a governor and from the business world. His opinions on the issues seem reasonable.

Personally, I'm hoping for Guiliani or Romney.

And Guiliani isn't out of it yet. Wait till Florida, if he wins there, he's still in it. People are even talking about the possibility of a brokered convertion. Then, anything could happen. Someone not even running like Gingritch as the nominee.could end up the nominee.

String, you're losing it. I, too, was quite disappointed at the performance of the Republicans when they controlled all branches of the government. But to suggest that there is no difference between the parties is simply not true.

Yes, the Republicans suck. They suck because far too many of them campaign as conservatives and govern as liberals, or at least as big spenders. Whereas the Democrats suck no matter what. In fact, the more they do what they say they'll do, the worse they are!

Every single Democrat running wants to raise taxes. Especially on the evil rich. They all want to give up US sovereignty, they all want socialized medicine, they all want amnesty for illegals. They all want to surrender in Iraq.

They are anti-business at the same time they decry the lack of jobs! They do everything they can to prevent new construction of houses via environmental regulations or whatever, then complain about a lack of affordable housing.

Now McCain/Hilary, not much difference; but I'd still (slightly) prefer McCain. But what's so bad about Romney? He's got executive experience as a governor and from the business world. His opinions on the issues seem reasonable.

Personally, I'm hoping for Guiliani or Romney.

And Guiliani isn't out of it yet. Wait till Florida, if he wins there, he's still in it. People are even talking about the possibility of a brokered convertion. Then, anything could happen. Someone not even running like Gingritch as the nominee.could end up the nominee.

string knows what the fuck he is talking about. the differences between the 2 parties is mostly cosmetic.

Interesting how Fox News doesn't talk much about Romney winning Nevada, but they are pushing the SC caucus, although there are no results yet.
The numbers are interesting though, since NV was much more important with 34 delegates and Romney winning a bit more than half, like 19. SC has only 24 delegates and that will be divided among the 3 frontrunners, so nobody winning more than 10...

So it should have been obvious that NV was more important than SC, but since it was Romney country, Fox kept quiet about it, since he is not really their choice...

A vindictive part of me hopes that with Paul's showing so far against Giuliani in terms of votes and money, the media starts referring to "America's Mayor" as a longshot candidate too. :mufc:

string knows what the fuck he is talking about. the differences between the 2 parties is mostly cosmetic.
Let's see. Would you agree that the world would be exactly the same (except for some cosmetic changes) had we had:
Y2K : Gore over Bush?
1992: Bush #1 over Clinton?
1980: Carter over Reagan?
1972: McGovern over Nixon?
I could go on. But the point should be obvious. Which person/party wins the presidency can make a huge difference.

Let's see. Would you agree that the world would be exactly the same (except for some cosmetic changes) had we had:
Y2K : Gore over Bush?
1992: Bush #1 over Clinton?
1980: Carter over Reagan?
1972: McGovern over Nixon?
I could go on. But the point should be obvious. Which person/party wins the presidency can make a huge difference.

cept they both are owned by big buisness

Giuliani's chances are let's just say very dim. Florida has only 54 delegates, even if he wins with 60% that is 30 delegates and Romney has already 72 according to CNN.

Romney has actually more than the next 3 together...

Romney won NV but you'd never know it. The blatant liberal bias in the news is pathetic.:mad:

Yahoo has a HUGE story on Hillary, then Obama. There's a big pic of Hillary on their front page. In teeny tiny letters it mentions that Romney won NV. He won by a HUGE amount. No picture. :mad:
ABC has a giant pic of Hillary with her victory party. Not a word about Romney.
CNN has a big pic of Hillary as the projected winner. A small pic of Romney is halfway down the page.
MSNBC has a HUGE pic of Hillary (about 7"x7"). A tiny pic of Romney (about
2x2) is buried 2/3 the way down the page.
CBS has a big pic of Hillary and her win. NO mention of Romney. No pic.
NBC has pics of Hillary and Edwards. Nothing on Romney.
Fox has equal sized pics of them on the same line.

No media bias my @ss. :mad:

Sites/pics will change hourly. Right now they look like this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/nevada.dems/index.html
http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/?lid=ABCCOMGlobalMenu&lpos=News
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/
http://www.foxnews.com/

Tell me about it! I thought after getting in the top 3 things would change but look:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html

Paul is second place in Nevada and they still don't include him! In-fucking-credible!

I'm not surprised. Not by any of it. :mad:

Notice how the link to the Nevada results got trashed.

I mean how dare anyone making a thread suggesting that Dr. Paul could get second in a primary...

Still not surprised. :rolleyes:

What blows me away is MSNBC's complete lack of mention of Romney. He just won the NV caucus for God's sake--by a HUGE margin. :mad:

This has been their main page on their website for the past hour or so. It will change frequently:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/

Eh, I've been watching MSNBC all day, and they haven't stfued about Romney for at least an hour. Though it was nice to watch Morning Joe this morning, and see Joe complain all morning that the media refused to acknowledge that there was a republican race in Nevada and that it was so unfair that the media gets to pick and choose which elections are worthy of consideration.

I mean how dare anyone making a thread suggesting that Dr. Paul could get second in a primary...

That is American MSM for you with all their liberalism and fairness...

So far the race with pledges included:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/135/prim1vq7.png http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6302/prim2kf1.jpg

In the primaries, does a candidate "take the whole state" or can it be split (the way it should be)?

~String

In the primaries, does a candidate "take the whole state" or can it be split (the way it should be)?

~String

I believe the winner-take-all system has been completely abandoned for a proportional distribution of delegates, but some states might still have them. I'm not 100% sure. For the majority of states though, I'm pretty sure it's proportional.

From wikipedia:

"The Republican National Committee (RNC) allocates delegates to the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in four categories. Three district level delegates are given to states for each of their congressional districts. Ten additional at-large delegates are given to each state regardless of population. States earn additional bonus delegates for having U.S. Senators and governors from the Republican Party, sending a majority-Republican delegation to the U.S. House, maintaining partial or total Republican control of the state legislature, or casting a majority of their 2004 electoral vote for George W. Bush. Finally, each state automatically receives three party delegates: their two RNC delegates and the chairman of the state Republican party. Jurisdictions without Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress, (U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia) are only eligible to send at-large and party delegates. The rules and numbers of delegates are spelled out in the Republican party's Call for the Convention, which was published on November 9, 2007.

Unlike the Democratic Party, which mandates a proportional representation system for delegate selection within a state, the Republican Party has no such restriction. For states with primaries, some states choose to use the "winner-take-all" method to award delegates within a state, while others do winner-take-all within a congressional district, and still others use the proportional process. Unlike the Democratic Party, where pledged delegates support the candidate whom they are pledged, state party by-laws determine whether each delegate is pledged and for how many ballots.

In caucus states, most state parties use a two pronged process. A straw poll, often called a presidential preference poll, is conducted of the attendees at the caucus. The results are released to the media and published on the state party website. Delegates are then elected to the county conventions. It is at the county conventions that delegates are elected to state conventions, and from the state convention to the national convention. At each level, delegates may be bound or unbound to a candidate. If unbound, delegates are not obligated to follow the results of the presidential preference poll. Thus, all estimates of delegates from caucus states are dependent on state party by-laws."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_ primaries%2C_2008#Delegate_selection

In fact, I think Nevada is one of those weird ones where the popular vote is essentially meaningless to the delegates. The delegates are voted for separately.

In the primaries, does a candidate "take the whole state" or can it be split (the way it should be)?


I think Ashura is wrong and it is exactly SC and not NV that has this strange system...McCain vs. Huckabee was 33-30%, but McCain got 13 delegates and Huckabee only 3....

I am surprised you don't know this being a political junkie and after reading several of my posts where I clearly explained the split....
Although the question would be valid if you asked about counties in the state, see below.

McCain winning in SC got 13 delegates which is way more than what Huckabee got (3), although they almost got the same % 33-30.
So as the quote from Wikipedia in the post above shows, there are states with winner takes all system...

I posted this comment earlier in another thread: It seems an odd juxtaposition, but I am a total Luddite when it comes to the primary process. Every other part of the electoral system, I know very well. The Primary thing still confuse me. More than anything else: it totally bores me.

Why not just have a direct vote? Why all this "delegate" shit?

Also, is there a Democratic primary in South Carolina today? Or is all this hubbub about the Republicans just some odd fluke?

~String

I had to edit my answer because I was wrong. Wikipedia has a very good description of both sides primaries, and for simlicity's sake, they are different!!

Here is the Reps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_primaries

And the Dems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_prim aries%2C_2008

I assume all this complicated system is a relic of the past and it is high time that they simplified it and made all the primaries at the same time....

it is high time that they simplified it and made all the primaries at the same time....

Amen.

Man, I have been educating myself on the process in the last hour, and my head is spinning. It is utterly ridiculous how many systems and bylaws and rules are out there.
It is safe to say that no 2 states have similar processes. Major differences:

-openness
-date
-how they split the votes

Giuliani's chances are let's just say very dim. Florida has only 54 delegates, even if he wins with 60% that is 30 delegates and Romney has already 72 according to CNN.

Romney has actually more than the next 3 together...Yes, but the total required for the nomination is 1191. Romney has only 72. Which means he's just 6% of the way there. This race is far from over.

If Romney can parley his wins into a sense of momentum and inevitability, he may be set. But Guiliani, in a bizarre strategy, is writting off all the early primaries hoping to win in the big states and Super Tuesday.

We'll see what happens. And while I prefer Guiliani, I have no real problem with Romney. I'm hoping one of the two of them wins.

String, you're losing it. I, too, was quite disappointed at the performance of the Republicans when they controlled all branches of the government. But to suggest that there is no difference between the parties is simply not true.

Yes, the Republicans suck. They suck because far too many of them campaign as conservatives and govern as liberals, or at least as big spenders. Whereas the Democrats suck no matter what. In fact, the more they do what they say they'll do, the worse they are!

Every single Democrat running wants to raise taxes. Especially on the evil rich. They all want to give up US sovereignty, they all want socialized medicine, they all want amnesty for illegals. They all want to surrender in Iraq.

They are anti-business at the same time they decry the lack of jobs! They do everything they can to prevent new construction of houses via environmental regulations or whatever, then complain about a lack of affordable housing.

Now McCain/Hilary, not much difference; but I'd still (slightly) prefer McCain. But what's so bad about Romney? He's got executive experience as a governor and from the business world. His opinions on the issues seem reasonable.

Personally, I'm hoping for Guiliani or Romney.

And Guiliani isn't out of it yet. Wait till Florida, if he wins there, he's still in it. People are even talking about the possibility of a brokered convertion. Then, anything could happen. Someone not even running like Gingritch as the nominee.could end up the nominee.

They're all the same when it comes to foregin policy. Our middle east position hasn't changed in 35 years.

Except this time with W we actually got a POTUS with b@lls to go after the evil muslim terrorists. God knows Carter and Clinton wouldn't. :(

Except this time with W we actually got a POTUS with b@lls to go after the evil muslim terrorists. God knows Carter and Clinton wouldn't. :(

than why are we not going after bin laden with everything we have?

than why are we not going after bin laden with everything we have?

We are going after binLaden. Don't believe anyone who tells you we're not. The problem is Pakistan is hiding him very well.

Just like Iran "not building nukes". We're watching them too...

We are going after binLaden. Don't believe anyone who tells you we're not. The problem is Pakistan is hiding him very well.

Just like Iran "not building nukes". We're watching them too...

yes it is so important to get bin laden to bush that he took troops out of it to invade iraq face the evidence states that bush doesn't really care if he get osama if he did we would have never gone into iraq and he would have put everything we have into get bin laden

We needed to stop the evil muslim terrorists in Iraq from killing our troops and innocent people.
We didn't go into Iraq for anything about binLaden other than to take out his friend Saddam Hussein.

We needed to stop the evil muslim terrorists in Iraq from killing our troops and innocent people.
We didn't go into Iraq for anything about binLaden other than to take out his friend Saddam Hussein.

saddam and bin laden hated each either. there were no major terrorist activities against the us in iraq until after we invaded face it the evidence is against you bush doesn't really care about gett the people who attacked us on 9/11.

saddam and bin laden hated each either. there were no major terrorist activities against the us in iraq until after we invaded face it the evidence is against you bush doesn't really care about gett the people who attacked us on 9/11.

We've been through this before. They were friends. How else do you explain the ring? :confused:

How could there have been "major terrorist activities against the US in Iraq" before we got there? :confused:

We will get binLaden. And when we do, Saddam Hussein's hanging will look like a day in the park.:yay:

Yes, but the total required for the nomination is 1191. Romney has only 72. Which means he's just 6% of the way there. This race is far from over.

True, but having primaries all over the country, it is like a sampling ground and as another poster pointed out even Ron Paul outperformed Rudy at every stop.
The momentum is certainly nopt building for him and campaign contributors withholding momney until he shows some kind of results...

Romney had a big win in Nevada, but I don't think he will win the nomination. I think it will go to McCain, who is the most palatable for most Americans.

Major differences:

-openness
-date
-how they split the votes

There is one more, I really like this one:

-how delegates are bound to the winner

Apparently, in NV they are not, thus though Romney won 19 delegates, at the convention they don't necessery have to vote for him. Talking about fucked up election system...

We've been through this before. They were friends. How else do you explain the ring? :confused:

How could there have been "major terrorist activities against the US in Iraq" before we got there? :confused:

We will get binLaden. And when we do, Saddam Hussein's hanging will look like a day in the park.:yay:

activities include planning and training and they were not friends. there was no link between the two. what ring are you talking about

I feel old when Sandy says she is sixteen or standing with a group of young men who are taller than me...over six feet. I have to wonder what the heck mothers are feeding their children....any growth hormones anyone?

activities include planning and training and they were not friends. there was no link between the two. what ring are you talking about

If you don't know about the ring then you really have no clue about the relationship between Saddam and binLaden. :rolleyes:

I feel old when Sandy says she is sixteen...

I am not 16. I just turned 42. :eek: :D

If you don't know about the ring then you really have no clue about the relationship between Saddam and binLaden. :rolleyes:



I am not 16. I just turned 42. :eek: :D

look there was no relationship between the 2 none none none

look there was no relationship between the 2 none none none

Yes there most certainly was. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about...:rolleyes:

Yes there most certainly was. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about...:rolleyes:

i had a college professor who was in army intelligence one of the people listening to the raw info and translating it. he was in the region. i talked to him bout a link between saddam and bin laden and he said there was none so your trying to tell me that you know more than an ex army officer who had the raw intel from the region.

The Pentagon posted a document [pdf] *online that was a letter from Saddam's intelligence agency proving alQaeda was cozy with Saddam and the Taliban. It says binLaden was in contact with Baghdad, and mentions he visited. The documents also show a picture of alZarqawi.

We could capture binLaden in Iraq and libs still would never concede Bush was right to invade. :rolleyes:

* Pentagon doc# CMPC-2003-001488

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts?page=1,50

binLaden tried to buy the pearl of Allah for Saddam. You don't buy a
$60 MILLION trinket for someone you don't know. :rolleyes:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41170

The Pentagon posted a document [pdf] *online that was a letter from Saddam's intelligence agency proving alQaeda was cozy with Saddam and the Taliban. It says binLaden was in contact with Baghdad, and mentions he visited. The documents also show a picture of alZarqawi.

We could capture binLaden in Iraq and libs still would never concede Bush was right to invade. :rolleyes:

* Pentagon doc# CMPC-2003-001488

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts?page=1,50

binLaden tried to buy the pearl of Allah for Saddam. You don't buy a
$60 MILLION trinket for someone you don't know. :rolleyes:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41170

cia intel officers have said there was no link. and your sources tend to be bias. give me some from one of the news wires i will beleive it worldnetdaily nope

Yeah, the liberal-biased media/newswires that want us the hell out of Iraq would be a great source. Not. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the liberal-biased media/newswires that want us the hell out of Iraq would be a great source. Not. :rolleyes:

almost all the tv news including your fox news gets a good deal of there info from the news wires. and there is no liberal bias in the news

...there is no liberal bias in the news

More kool aid to go with the tin foil hat? :rolleyes:

More kool aid to go with the tin foil hat? :rolleyes:

well if you take the dishonest stance that you do that the right wing is the center than yes there is liberal bias if you have the middle as the middle no there is not

:confused: :confused: :confused:

:confused: :confused: :confused:

why am i not suprised