TenuredVulture wrote:I prefer the Dem 72 field.

yeah, that "convention '72" spoof record was the best

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

Which 76 field? The one that produced a winner or the one that included a sitting president and the most popular president of the past half century?

jerseyhoya wrote:

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

Which 76 field? The one that produced a winner or the one that included a sitting president and the most popular president of the past half century?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... ed-battle/

Instead, this race bears more resemblance to something like the 1984 Democratic contest or the 1976 Republican race. There was a favorite in each of those contests — Walter Mondale in 1984 and Gerald Ford in 1976 — and they were ahead in the delegate count more or less from start to finish.

But both contests progressed through all 50 states and were not that far from going to the convention. A few more missteps for Mr. Mondale or Mr. Ford, and the outcome might have been different.

Not saying that Romney will lose like the 76 Rep or the 84 Dem, but that the battle for the nomination could be prolonged like those. I don't think Nate says what Nightman is saying the article says.

slugsrbad 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

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.

What

jerseyhoya wrote:

slugsrbad 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

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.

What

Maybe I can explain it. In the South, if you want to explain a quirk in electoral laws, the obvious explanation is race. Specifically, to prevent African-Americans from realizing the power their numbers would ordinarily provide in a democrat system. However, in places that don't have a large African American population, such an explanation makes no sense. So the existence of caucuses requires another explanation.

Foster Friess, talking about his conception of what makes America great, makes Santorum sound downright mainstream

and he makes Romney sound like a genuine lunch bucket-totin' blue collar guy

PA has laws to restrict independents and third parties. democrats and republicans seem to be largely in cahoots at keeping their respective power. race only ever comes into play in philly states/us house districting on a state level.

i feel like majority-minority districts almost prohibit the power of minorities in this day and age.

TenuredVulture wrote:Maybe I can explain it. In the South, if you want to explain a quirk in electoral laws, the obvious explanation is race. Specifically, to prevent African-Americans from realizing the power their numbers would ordinarily provide in a democrat system. However, in places that don't have a large African American population, such an explanation makes no sense. So the existence of caucuses requires another explanation.

Yes that is what I was going for

pacino wrote:PA has laws to restrict independents and third parties. democrats and republicans seem to be largely in cahoots at keeping their respective power. race only ever comes into play in philly states/us house districting on a state level.

i feel like majority-minority districts almost prohibit the power of minorities in this day and age.

There's a pretty compelling argument that majority-minority districts prevent African-American leaders from rising beyond the House of Representatives--majority-minority districts produce representatives who are not great candidates for senator or governor. In a world where whites are increasingly willing to support candidates regardless of race the day is coming when such districts will have served their purpose. I don't think that day is here yet, but when a black guy named Barack Obama can win North Carolina (after having been elected Senator from Illinois and another black guy gets to be governor of Virginia, that day is coming plus you get Indians being governor of South Carolina and Louisiana, the days of ethnic voting are clearly numbered.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:PA has laws to restrict independents and third parties. democrats and republicans seem to be largely in cahoots at keeping their respective power. race only ever comes into play in philly states/us house districting on a state level.

i feel like majority-minority districts almost prohibit the power of minorities in this day and age.

There's a pretty compelling argument that majority-minority districts prevent African-American leaders from rising beyond the House of Representatives--majority-minority districts produce representatives who are not great candidates for senator or governor. In a world where whites are increasingly willing to support candidates regardless of race the day is coming when such districts will have served their purpose. I don't think that day is here yet, but when a black guy named Barack Obama can win North Carolina (after having been elected Senator from Illinois and another black guy gets to be governor of Virginia, that day is coming plus you get Indians being governor of South Carolina and Louisiana, the days of ethnic voting are clearly numbered.

The black guy was elected Governor of Virginia in 1989.

rubio's not the best choice to rail against the Administration's church - contraception position

not because he's not aligned right, but because he doesn't get the words out well

I mean he makes joe manchin sound cogent

this issue should probably be left entirely up to females, idk

heard that there has been a groundswell of support from lady members of conservative groups in the past couple days but i often hear things i want to

In Jim DeMint's world, we Americans don't have common goals, so we should devote ourselves to fighting one another

eat my Barrasso, Jim

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Maybe I can explain it. In the South, if you want to explain a quirk in electoral laws, the obvious explanation is race. Specifically, to prevent African-Americans from realizing the power their numbers would ordinarily provide in a democrat system. However, in places that don't have a large African American population, such an explanation makes no sense. So the existence of caucuses requires another explanation.

Yes that is what I was going for

Except you're coming from the typical northern "racist or exclusionary institutions only exist in the South" mentality. Which is absurd and is why I was being critical.

Nevermind, it really hasn't been worth this much discussion.

Jim DeMint can go suck on a pig's bunghole.

Comparing Dems vs. Republicans to people who people who just about try to kill each other on a field... and the fact that this is okay just bothers me. I have repeatedly said over the past few years that we are covering politics like we do sports teams, and that is troublesome considering what is at stake here, which is something that transcends the ideas behind the friggin' parties. In other words, We're better than this, America.

I am sick and tired of politics in this country being about anger. And let's face it, that's what it is. And the fact of the matter is it makes me angry, and then I'm just a part of the Stupidity League myself.

Also, I think the Catholic aggression towards the president is merited. They stand were they stand, even though I don't agree with their stance on contraception. They aren't going to change their minds, and forcing them to act differently than their conscience is just going to make things worse.

As a born and raised Catholic, I see the church's and many Catholics view on contraceptions as complete idiocy. You can't fight stupidity with "Oh well that's just their position". It should be confronted because it is objectively stupid.

Just to be clear, it will mandate that catholic institutions provide the option for their employees, who may not be catholic. It's not forcing catholics to get abortions themselves

Catholics use contraception.