mozartpc27 wrote:I am taking this as a good sign, particularly as it regards my belief that Obama can turn Missouri blue in 2012:

In Missouri, a state official told CNN that the turnout would be "significantly lower than predicted." The secretary of state's office had estimated turnout would be 23%.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/polit ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Cue jerz to tell me why I am wrong/way off base.

Because the primary doesn't matter. They have caucuses next month to start the process of awarding delegates. NYT reporter said on Twitter tonight that Obama's campaign is not expecting to contest Missouri in November.

jeffzeleny
Speaking of Missouri: In the fall, Obama is essentially writing it off, even though he lost by 3,632 votes of 2.9 million cast in 2008.

Hmmm. That was a pretty good reason, even by your standards.

Also surprised by that strategy. What worked so well for Obama last time was contesting traditional Republican strongholds, so as to maximize his financial advantage. Make the Republicans spend where they'd rather not, etc.

As it is, he has to write off the shocking 2008 gain of Indiana. How many states exactly does he expect to write off?

Romney has pulled ahead in Colorado! At the same time, I feel pretty safe in projecting Santorum as the winner. Romney romped in the Denver suburbs and Boulder, but all those counties are at 100%. Romney's likely to get crushed in Colorado Springs, which hasn't reported yet.

mozartpc27 wrote:As it is, he has to write off the shocking 2008 gain of Indiana. How many states exactly does he expect to write off?

I would say Obama should not seriously contest any states to the right of Colorado/Virginia for the time being (i.e. Indiana and North Carolina, all of the McCain states). Now, come September, if those states are play, contest away.

lol @ romney losing to santorum

So what about the dog on the car thing? I know it was a long time ago and beaten to death, but I really think it has legs (so to speak). The guy stuck his dog on top of his car and drove across the country. He later called the dog a member of his family. If Mitt treats members of HIS family that badly, how will he treat members of YOUR family? It writes itself.

We are a nation of pet lovers, especially dogs. I think they could beat him with it pretty badly, especially given the fact that he's laid off thousands of workers during his time at Bain... it just fits in with the narrative that dems would love for the voters to see. He's callous, enjoys firing people, doesn't worry about the poor, treats his own dog like shit, etc.

Mitt = Bain

Santorum IS really letting the crazy loose; frankly, it's his best gambit. And the rational republican middle, what there is of it, will be content to play rope-a-dope, voting in tepid numbers for the purportedly electable guy, waiting his (and paul's and some of newt's) rantings out into the summer, and will watch its chances of luring in independent voters strangled in the campaign season crib.

#bsgpoliticalanalysis

jerseyhoya wrote:Caucuses really are stupid things. You'd think they'd be the result of some old Southern Jim Crow thing to make it hard for black people to vote, but it's all these states full of nice, friendly white people that hold them.

Yup, because white people are only exclusionary in the South.

ffs

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Caucuses really are stupid things. You'd think they'd be the result of some old Southern Jim Crow thing to make it hard for black people to vote, but it's all these states full of nice, friendly white people that hold them.

Yup, because white people are only exclusionary in the South.

ffs

Ffs what?

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Caucuses really are stupid things. You'd think they'd be the result of some old Southern Jim Crow thing to make it hard for black people to vote, but it's all these states full of nice, friendly white people that hold them.

Yup, because white people are only exclusionary in the South.

ffs

Ffs what?

Your entire second sentence. Unless it was sarcasm and my detector is broken.

Well I'm not being sarcastic. Unlike the tradition of holding white only Democratic primaries in the South where the goal was to bar blacks from political participation, I think the motivation here is people think it's important to meet with their neighbors and discuss who to vote for and listen to speeches and whatnot before casting their ballots. However the end result is laughably low turnout, which make them seem like something that ought to be the remnants of Jim Crow and not folks with annoying nasal accents taking their civic duty seriously.

jerseyhoya wrote:Well I'm not being sarcastic. Unlike the tradition of holding white only Democratic primaries in the South where the goal was to bar blacks from political participation, I think the motivation here is people think it's important to meet with their neighbors and discuss who to vote for and listen to speeches and whatnot before casting their ballots. However the end result is laughably low turnout, which make them seem like something that ought to be the remnants of Jim Crow and not folks with annoying nasal accents taking their civic duty seriously.

Alright, I understand your point a bit better now. But considering it was a result of wanting to get all of the menfolk together to discuss politics, and they're generally held in states where there are nearly zero black folk... um, yeah. I'm not sure that "inclusion" would be a prevailing theme.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Caucuses really are stupid things. You'd think they'd be the result of some old Southern Jim Crow thing to make it hard for black people to vote, but it's all these states full of nice, friendly white people that hold them.

Yup, because white people are only exclusionary in the South.

ffs

I think if anything you should have said "Yup, because racist are only exclusionary in the South"... he already admits that there it's predominantly white.

When wondering about the Iowa Caucasus process, you should check out the way the Democrats do it... essentially it is like a game of Red Rover. So these thing matter why? Not at all, except some of them really do end up impacting our political choices. Sometimes I think we are just too lazy to come up with a reasonable process to select the most competent leader of our country so we rely on flawed traditions (like half the laws in the former colonies displayed as law of the land daily).

Caucuses are cheaper too, so some states went to them to save money.

jerseyhoya wrote:#bsgpoliticalanalysis

it's really not that difficult if you don't overthink it

A Santorum campaign dude (Hogan Gidley) said the campaign, with regards to Michigan and Ohio, "will go pretty hardcore". Guess Gidley never Googled "santorum".

Nate compared this Republican field to the 76 field and the dem 84 field. That's not a good sign jerseyboy.

I prefer the Dem 72 field.

Also, I think these Tuesday night results might turn out to be a big deal. It seems this came out of nowhere, and none of the usual hacks had anything in the hopper prepared for this. All we're getting from the so-called experts is "Gee, not a good night for Romney."