Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:26:48

^same for msnbc

it's amazing. this guy is such a dope. i cant believe you'd vote for him over the prez, jh

he just said hte word 'stiff'

by **Polar Bear Phan** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:27:57

dajafi wrote:Did he really just suggest it was "unexcuseable" that the manufacturing workforce has shrunk?

The reason for that is the same as why the agricultural workforce has shrunk: technology that's allowed more production from fewer workers. This is a *good* thing.

He really is a stupid motherfucker.

Starting to wonder if he isn't setting himself up as some sort of (pseudo) populist third-party candidate.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:33:08

TenuredVulture wrote:
I think rather than writing off people, you go and talk to them. Right now, only one side is talking to them. The other side claims to be talking for them. But that claim actually doesn't seem to have any empirical grounding. Over the last 40 years we've seen an erosion of economic security and stability regardless of which party is in charge.

they may be talking to them, but it seems not all that many of the listeners are interested in them doing it how they're doing it

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:34:04

Thank you KID ROCK

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:35:08

dajafi wrote:Did he really just suggest it was "unexcuseable" that the manufacturing workforce has shrunk?

The reason for that is the same as why the agricultural workforce has shrunk: technology that's allowed more production from fewer workers. This is a *good* thing.

He really is a stupid motherfucker.

c'mon

he's talking to people, & shit

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:44:11

speaking of guys talking shit

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:46:05

mitts got a lot of plans he wants to put on the table for everyone to see

must be he can't find a table

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 23:48:18

Pleasantly not horrified by that speech

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 02:00:35

Ohio is going to be really interesting. So far everywhere Romney has played big he has won except for South Carolina (and Iowa I guess but that was close enough), but Santorum's starting with an edge in the polls. We'll see who says the more dumb stuff over the next week, but it seems like a real coin flip right now. Santorum is up a bit in the polls and represented a neighboring state in Congress that has a lot demographically/economically in common with Ohio. Romney's got a bit of momentum now, will outspend Santorum and Ohio is a closed primary so there will be no mischief making by Democrats (Romney won Michigan Republicans by 11% today).

If Gingrich does actually get money from Adelson and focuses on Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma, I think it'd be hard for either him or Santorum to come out of Tuesday with more delegates than Romney on the night. But if Santorum can win Ohio, he'll get the better coverage from the media regardless of delegate count. Then the next contests are in Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama, which could give him a bit of momentum and actual real life delegates.

It seems hard to game out a way for Santorum to actually get enough delegates to win this thing outright without (another) major momentum shift, but he could make it last until the end of April and maybe longer.

Another thing from tonight is Santorum is still having trouble in primaries, doing a few points worse against Mitt than in the final polls in both MI and AZ. A lot of that is down to the fact that he doesn't really have a campaign so he's not banking early votes like Romney, and also it might show Santorum's appeal to mainstream GOP primary voters isn't really all that even compared to Romney.

And finally, the Dems have been pointing out when turnout has been down, but it looks like turnout is up in Michigan by around 100k votes this time around. So I guess that's good.

by **thephan** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 09:13:31

I am sad. I wanted the horror of Romney losing Michigan.

by **td11** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 09:15:26

pacino wrote:why are there open primaries for people registered with another party?

with you on this but jon stewart showed a clip of Mitt from 2007 saying that he'd vote for the weaker dem candidate in MA's open primaries. it is what it is

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 09:36:33

td11 wrote:
pacino wrote:why are there open primaries for people registered with another party?

with you on this but jon stewart showed a clip of Mitt from 2007 saying that he'd vote for the weaker dem candidate in MA's open primaries. it is what it is

Don't really see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. If Romney had said "Obama cannot label Hillary's victory as illegitimate due to mischief driven Republican votes because rules allow anyone in the state to vote" that'd have been a different story.

by **td11** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 09:37:13

nah was just pointing out that while i disagree with it, "everyone does it"

by **thephan** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 09:38:19

td11 wrote:
pacino wrote:why are there open primaries for people registered with another party?

with you on this but jon stewart showed a clip of Mitt from 2007 saying that he'd vote for the weaker dem candidate in MA's open primaries. it is what it is

I think it depends where you live. There are no formal party affiliations in VA. Makes it messy as a party tries to clamp down. In VA, the upcoming primary was dominated at the end of the year with news of a GOP pledge to be signed in order to cast your vote. I was not voting anyway as I am party independent and I did not feel that my lack of affiliation gives me any rights in this matter, but I also found the dogma pretty repugnant and reminiscent of communism. How bloody ironic is that.

The GOP backed away from this requirement, for the record. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are not on the ballot, so choices are Romney or Paul.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:26:44

thephan wrote:
td11 wrote:
pacino wrote:why are there open primaries for people registered with another party?

with you on this but jon stewart showed a clip of Mitt from 2007 saying that he'd vote for the weaker dem candidate in MA's open primaries. it is what it is

I think it depends where you live. There are no formal party affiliations in VA. Makes it messy as a party tries to clamp down. In VA, the upcoming primary was dominated at the end of the year with news of a GOP pledge to be signed in order to cast your vote. I was not voting anyway as I am party independent and I did not feel that my lack of affiliation gives me any rights in this matter, but I also found the dogma pretty repugnant and reminiscent of communism. How bloody ironic is that.

The GOP backed away from this requirement, for the record. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are not on the ballot, so choices are Romney or Paul.

I'm voting in our GOP Primary solely because of the scrapped pledge nonsense. Fuck those guys.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:09:47

David Dreier retiring. That's sad.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:10:42

Popular vote thru MI & AZ: Romney 40.4%, Santorum 23.9%, Newt 21.8%, Paul 11.0%, Huntsman 1.2%, Perry 0.7%, Bachmann 0.3%, Cain 0.3%

by **drsmooth** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:20:27

jerseyhoya wrote:
Popular vote thru MI & AZ: Romney 40.4%, Santorum 23.9%, Newt 21.8%, Paul 11.0%, Huntsman 1.2%, Perry 0.7%, Bachmann 0.3%, Cain 0.3%

If/when Newt Santorum gets his stuff together he'll be one fat force

by **traderdave** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:35:29

Years from now, Rick Santorum will still be wondering why he spent the week leading up to the Michigan primary being a horse's ass. The state was totally in-play and he lost it to an elitist who changes his opinion on policy to fit his audience, had plenty of foot-in-mouth moments himself and would have been more than happy to let one of America's most important industries die. I guess the good news is that we are all going to get a 20% tax reduction and Romney's dead buddies' families will not have to pay tax on the billions those accumulated while they were alive. I would vote against Romney on that point alone as no estate tax hurts my business.

by **thephan** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:56:28

jerseyhoya wrote:
Popular vote thru MI & AZ: Romney 40.4%, Santorum 23.9%, Newt 21.8%, Paul 11.0%, Huntsman 1.2%, Perry 0.7%, Bachmann 0.3%, Cain 0.3%

Is the 2.5% for people out of the race due to early ballots or dumb people?

Archived

Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation

Re: Politics: Spreading Santorum All Over This Great Nation