Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Farnhamia]

Good point. And what's to say that some state wouldn't pass a law forbidding certain people from even stopping overnight in their territory? Kind of like the "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you" signs that were occasionally seen about our fair country in years gone by.

In certain gated communities in Florida, it might be better if there were at least a sign to give fair warning.

I imagine the signs are considered to be in poor taste, so they have a rent-a-cop at the gate.

[SimNewtonia III]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

I ... words fail me.

I have only one word:

OUCH.

[Gauthier]

And more from the Maddow Blog.

It seems Mitt-A-Sketch is so desperate to get people to stop waving those plastic toys around he credit Jar-Jar Bush with saving the economy.

Romney credits Bush with preventing economic collapse

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Sums up Romney.

[Tmutarakhan]

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Sums up Romney.

I Ninja'd the Emperor! Do I win an Internet?

[Soleichunn]

They can be a howling annoyance, sure, but the question is how much that annoyance will affect votes. Put Mitt next Obama and they'll vote for Mitt every time because a Mormon flip-flopper is less terrifying to them than a socialist Muslim Kenyan.

That's not how the far right votes.

Put Mitt against Obama and they'll say, "I can't stand either one!" and just pass on down to the rest of the ballot - or not bother showing up to vote at all.

This is established voting behavior for Republicans; I base it on 35 years of direct observation. It's how the far right exercises control over the GOP; without it, they'd just become a loud and obnoxious faction on the fringe to whom nobody ever pays any attention

So you would think it likely that the Republicans would become shift to more centrist politics if there were mandatory voting (assuming it's in place with no protest)?

[Kaeshar]

That's not how the far right votes.

Put Mitt against Obama and they'll say, "I can't stand either one!" and just pass on down to the rest of the ballot - or not bother showing up to vote at all.

This is established voting behavior for Republicans; I base it on 35 years of direct observation. It's how the far right exercises control over the GOP; without it, they'd just become a loud and obnoxious faction on the fringe to whom nobody ever pays any attention

So you would think it likely that the Republicans would become shift to more centrist politics if there were mandatory voting (assuming it's in place with no protest)?

Possibly? However mandatory voting won't stop people from doing throwaway votes for some third party or someone who has zero chance of winning, though I doubt the percentage of that will be very large.

Still, it should encourage the saner parts of the voting populace to balance things out.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Sums up Romney.

I Ninja'd the Emperor! Do I win an Internet?

No, you lose a life.

[Forsher]

So you would think it likely that the Republicans would become shift to more centrist politics if there were mandatory voting (assuming it's in place with no protest)?

Possibly? However mandatory voting won't stop people from doing throwaway votes for some third party or someone who has zero chance of winning, though I doubt the percentage of that will be very large.

Still, it should encourage the saner parts of the voting populace to balance things out.

Here in NZ we talk about the wasted vote. Basically its the percentage of votes that didn't contribute to anything (this is for the party vote, mind). By anything I mean seats.

The situation exists because of our 5% thresh-hold for party votes. Any party that doesn't make 5% won't get in without an electorate seat. This doesn't help small parties and it should get cut back to 1%.

With mandatory voting you lot will also be talking about the wasted vote and won't have a solution for it.

[Kaeshar]

Possibly? However mandatory voting won't stop people from doing throwaway votes for some third party or someone who has zero chance of winning, though I doubt the percentage of that will be very large.

Still, it should encourage the saner parts of the voting populace to balance things out.

Here in NZ we talk about the wasted vote. Basically its the percentage of votes that didn't contribute to anything (this is for the party vote, mind). By anything I mean seats.

The situation exists because of our 5% thresh-hold for party votes. Any party that doesn't make 5% won't get in without an electorate seat. This doesn't help small parties and it should get cut back to 1%.

With mandatory voting you lot will also be talking about the wasted vote and won't have a solution for it.

And do you guys have a solution for it? We could look to you (or anybody else with the same problem) for the solution.

[Forsher]

Here in NZ we talk about the wasted vote. Basically its the percentage of votes that didn't contribute to anything (this is for the party vote, mind). By anything I mean seats.

The situation exists because of our 5% thresh-hold for party votes. Any party that doesn't make 5% won't get in without an electorate seat. This doesn't help small parties and it should get cut back to 1%.

With mandatory voting you lot will also be talking about the wasted vote and won't have a solution for it.

And do you guys have a solution for it? We could look to you (or anybody else with the same problem) for the solution.

Eliminate the threshold altogether. That is a bad idea though, which is why I favour cutting it down to 1%.

The mandatory vote wasted vote can only be fixed with a change to the US system so every vote ends up putting a politician in power*. One vote would be enough. That is stupid though. The best idea is to not implement mandatory voting in the first place and let people not vote if that's what they want.

*This is essentially the same as the threshold but as far as I am aware you lot don't have a party vote so more votes for a party doesn't mean more seats.

[Alien Space Bats]

So you would think it likely that the Republicans would become shift to more centrist politics if there were mandatory voting (assuming it's in place with no protest)?

A mandatory voting law would simply lead Americans to spoil their ballots in protest.

There's no point in pushing for it, and I doubt it would even pass Constitutional muster.

[Mike the Progressive]

Sums up Romney.

[Deandean98]

Sums up Romney.

[Free Soviets]

Why should I have to move because some lack-wit gets enough signatures on a petition to outlaw dykes, and President Paul stripped the Federal courts of the power to hear my grievances?

All of which assumes you're allowed to move.

Remember, if you read the Bill of Rights as a strict enumeration of our liberties (i.e., that there are no unenumerated rights), and you don't believe in incorporation besides (i.e., you believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the States), then what makes you think you're even going to be permitted to leave for another State?

I mean, where in the Constitution does it actually say that you have the right to travel and/or relocate, or to pick the State in which you're going to live?

what's really interesting on that point is that it really wasn't just assumed originally. they specifically wrote it into the articles of confederation.

[Alien Space Bats]

what's really interesting on that point is that it really wasn't just assumed originally. they specifically wrote it into the articles of confederation.

Are you speaking of the doctrine of natural rights, or the doctrine of incorporation?

If the latter, you need to remember that the Anti-Federalists specifically voted against incorporation when the 1st U.S. Congress enacted the Bill of Rights in 1789.

It was the 39th U.S. Congress that voted to make incorporation a reality in 1866; even then, the U.S. Supreme Court fought them tooth and nail for decades before finally giving in and embracing the doctrine - and then only selectively, not fully.

[The Archregimancy]

Please cut back on the smilies.

Consistent overuse of smilies can be construed as smiley spam, and may result in a formal warning.

[Forsher]

Please cut back on the smilies.

Consistent overuse of smilies can be construed as smiley spam, and may result in a formal warning.

Couldn't resist.

Now for something serious.

So you would think it likely that the Republicans would become shift to more centrist politics if there were mandatory voting (assuming it's in place with no protest)?

A mandatory voting law would simply lead Americans to spoil their ballots in protest.

There's no point in pushing for it, and I doubt it would even pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than mandatory voting a more streamlined system with shorter terms... that is what should help cause the shift to the centre. I can't remember if it was on here or somewhere else but the Democrats are seen as centre-right and the Republicans as far-right.

[Farnhamia]

Please cut back on the smilies.

Consistent overuse of smilies can be construed as smiley spam, and may result in a formal warning.

Couldn't resist.

Now for something serious.

A mandatory voting law would simply lead Americans to spoil their ballots in protest.

There's no point in pushing for it, and I doubt it would even pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than mandatory voting a more streamlined system with shorter terms... that is what should help cause the shift to the centre. I can't remember if it was on here or somewhere else but the Democrats are seen as centre-right and the Republicans as far-right.

Shorter terms? Let's see, members of the House of Representatives serve for two years (all are up for re-election at the same time), the President for four, members of the Senate for six years (one-third of the Senate is elected every two years). That seems reasonable to me. What did you have in mind?

The rationale, by the way, for the different terms in Congress was that the House should be more attuned to popular opinion and the Senate, with its longer terms, less so. The President falls in the middle.

[Grave_n_idle]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

A great piece, heavy on reliable and easily checkable facts... that will be completely ignored by the Americans who most need to pay attention to it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Honestly, I have to say that is the first gaffe that could really put locking this up before the convention in danger. There is no question that gaffe will cost delegates. The question is, how many.

And if he doesn't close it up before the convention, he's in big trouble.

And the terrible thing about the etch-a-sketch 'gaffe'... is the guy really didn't say anything new. Everyone already knows that candidates tend to 'reset' after they become the sole runner.

It's tragic that, with the incredible depth of fiction pervading this nomination process, it might be an accidental snippet of universally acknowledged truth that drops the bombshell of the season.

[Forsher]

Couldn't resist.

Now for something serious.



Rather than mandatory voting a more streamlined system with shorter terms... that is what should help cause the shift to the centre. I can't remember if it was on here or somewhere else but the Democrats are seen as centre-right and the Republicans as far-right.

Shorter terms? Let's see, members of the House of Representatives serve for two years (all are up for re-election at the same time), the President for four, members of the Senate for six years (one-third of the Senate is elected every two years). That seems reasonable to me. What did you have in mind?

The rationale, by the way, for the different terms in Congress was that the House should be more attuned to popular opinion and the Senate, with its longer terms, less so. The President falls in the middle.

I was, admittedly, thinking of the President only and cutting off a year from the term* and streamlining the election process (which I am told will never happen).

*I also oppose term limits.

[Serrland]

Honestly, I have to say that is the first gaffe that could really put locking this up before the convention in danger. There is no question that gaffe will cost delegates. The question is, how many.

And if he doesn't close it up before the convention, he's in big trouble.

And the terrible thing about the etch-a-sketch 'gaffe'... is the guy really didn't say anything new. Everyone already knows that candidates tend to 'reset' after they become the sole runner.

It's tragic that, with the incredible depth of fiction pervading this nomination process, it might be an accidental snippet of universally acknowledged truth that drops the bombshell of the season.

I can't really see it being that big of a deal, to be honest. It's absolutely expected that a nominee should do that - otherwise it'd be incredibly difficult for a nominee to be able to make himself/herself palatable enough to win an election. As a Republican myself (granted, one that isn't meaning to vote for Romney anyways) I can't see that issue becoming terrible divisive beyond the convention, which Romney should still handle just fine. It may have some impact - slight, I would imagine - on far right voter turnout, but frankly I'd much rather see the party come in a strong second by swinging towards the center than to fall harder by pandering to the fringe.

[Farnhamia]

And the terrible thing about the etch-a-sketch 'gaffe'... is the guy really didn't say anything new. Everyone already knows that candidates tend to 'reset' after they become the sole runner.

It's tragic that, with the incredible depth of fiction pervading this nomination process, it might be an accidental snippet of universally acknowledged truth that drops the bombshell of the season.

I can't really see it being that big of a deal, to be honest. It's absolutely expected that a nominee should do that - otherwise it'd be incredibly difficult for a nominee to be able to make himself/herself palatable enough to win an election. As a Republican myself (granted, one that isn't meaning to vote for Romney anyways) I can't see that issue becoming terrible divisive beyond the convention, which Romney should still handle just fine. It may have some impact - slight, I would imagine - on far right voter turnout, but frankly I'd much rather see the party come in a strong second by swinging towards the center than to fall harder by pandering to the fringe.

I don't know. ASB made a fairly good case that the far right will stay home if Romney swings too far to the center - and "too far" is not very far at all in their eyes. As you yourself well know, there is very little left of the Republican center or left (for the youngesters in our audience, yes, there were once liberal Republicans). The Base is essentially all right and far right and they don't outnumber the Democrats. If they stay home because they think Romney is going back to his old Massachusetts Obamneycare-passing, gay marriage-approving ways, the GOP is in for a very bad night on the first Tuesday of November. Especially if they really stay home and screw over the GOP in the House and Senate.

[Alien Space Bats]

I can't really see it being that big of a deal, to be honest. It's absolutely expected that a nominee should do that - otherwise it'd be incredibly difficult for a nominee to be able to make himself/herself palatable enough to win an election. As a Republican myself (granted, one that isn't meaning to vote for Romney anyways) I can't see that issue becoming terrible divisive beyond the convention, which Romney should still handle just fine. It may have some impact - slight, I would imagine - on far right voter turnout, but frankly I'd much rather see the party come in a strong second by swinging towards the center than to fall harder by pandering to the fringe.

The problem is that I can't think of a candidate who panders as reflexively or as universally as Romney does. If the guy feels inauthentic, it's because he is inauthentic; you can literally take absolutely nothing that he says at face value. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Worse, he lies about stupid little things that make no difference at all (eg., remembering Detroit's Golden Jubilee in 1946 when it happened nine months before he was born). It's so pervasive in that it touches absolutely everything about the man: His record, his tastes, his ideals, what he ate for breakfast that morning, the color of his socks, his core ideology, the length of his member, absolutely everything.

Yes, politicians pander. But Mitt is like the used car salesman who will do or say anything to get you to buy a set of wheels; every other politician in this race (or any other Presidential race I've ever seen) has something that you know they believe in, even if they can't deliver on it.

But Mitt Romney? I believe the only thing he believes in is that he wants to be President.

If you elect Mitt Romney, you will be electing a complete and total cipher, a wild card whose mind you absolutely cannot know and whose future actions you absolutely cannot predict, save that he will constantly lie to you about everything and change his program in less time than it takes for Jiffy Lube to change your oil.

Fickle, shiftless, dishonest, unreliable, narcissistic, and unable to tell the truth or stick to one lie - Mitt Romney takes all of those traditional political values and cranks them up to "11".

What is shocking was not that Rachel Maddow calls him a liar; what is shocking is that nobody else in the media does - because he obviously is one.