Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Dvardis]

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.

538 agrees, although for different reasons.

Tim Pawlenty famously flubbed a line about Mr. Romney’s health care bill during an early debate. Newt Gingrich and his “super PAC” attacked Mr. Romney on his tenure at Bain Capital, but was much more reluctant to go after Mr. Romney’s inconsistencies — possibly because Mr. Gingrich has some apostasies of his own.

Ron Paul, who has perhaps the most consistent voting record of any presidential candidate in memory, has rarely gone after Mr. Romney directly. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. was more willing to, but he was a minor player during most of the campaign, and he lacked the budget to give the slick commercials he had produced on Mr. Romney’s shifts a wide airing on television.

Two rivals, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, were potentially in a stronger position to attack Mr. Romney on these grounds. But Mr. Romney’s campaign successfully executed the same bold strategy against them, shifting the conversation to highlight their own departures from conservatism. The sequence during the Feb. 22 debate in Arizona, in which Mr. Santorum was initially making an effective attack against Mr. Romney’s health care bill but Mr. Romney turned the conversation around to Mr. Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter, was the clinching moment for that strategy and may have helped Mr. Romney to win Michigan when it voted a week later.

Indeed, Mr. Romney’s issue shifts have become less and less at the top of voters’ minds over the course of the campaign; Google searches on the term “Romney flip flop” have been in steady decline since January.

[Dvardis]

But while we're here:

http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

[Farnhamia]

I can't really see it being that big of a deal, to be honest.

538 agrees, although for different reasons.

Tim Pawlenty famously flubbed a line about Mr. Romney’s health care bill during an early debate. Newt Gingrich and his “super PAC” attacked Mr. Romney on his tenure at Bain Capital, but was much more reluctant to go after Mr. Romney’s inconsistencies — possibly because Mr. Gingrich has some apostasies of his own.

Ron Paul, who has perhaps the most consistent voting record of any presidential candidate in memory, has rarely gone after Mr. Romney directly. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. was more willing to, but he was a minor player during most of the campaign, and he lacked the budget to give the slick commercials he had produced on Mr. Romney’s shifts a wide airing on television.

Two rivals, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, were potentially in a stronger position to attack Mr. Romney on these grounds. But Mr. Romney’s campaign successfully executed the same bold strategy against them, shifting the conversation to highlight their own departures from conservatism. The sequence during the Feb. 22 debate in Arizona, in which Mr. Santorum was initially making an effective attack against Mr. Romney’s health care bill but Mr. Romney turned the conversation around to Mr. Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter, was the clinching moment for that strategy and may have helped Mr. Romney to win Michigan when it voted a week later.

Indeed, Mr. Romney’s issue shifts have become less and less at the top of voters’ minds over the course of the campaign; Google searches on the term “Romney flip flop” have been in steady decline since January.

Yeah, yeah, but when you get to the general election, there's a reset button, you know? It's like an Etch A Sketch, you shake it up and start over.

[Kaeshar]

I guess its just the way they said it combined with the fact that Romney is chaotic enough that he could easily fit in as a Sea God (although probably not as vengeful as Neptune).

Anyways, in a bit from Howard Kurtz from the Daily Beast saying the Media is bored and wants to get it over with, like everybody else here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... paign.html

"Howard Kurtz: "At the cable news networks, including CNN, the only one to provide continuous primary coverage on Tuesday, the word is out that the presidential campaign is sending the ratings south. Television, in short, has pretty much decided the race is over, Mitt Romney has won, the thing is boring everyone to death, and it's time, at least for now, to move on. The campaign is occupying less front-page real estate in the major papers as well." "

While I'm inclined to agree with him in that everybody is bored, its not over until the fat lady sings, right?

Thus begins the slog until June....

Last time around, the race certainly had everybodys attention, the media is just more or less following peoples interest in it like a barometer.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

[Farnhamia]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

Yes, and you forgot the most corrupt election in our history, the 1876 Hayes-Tilden contest. That said, it's only happened three times in over 200 years. American citizens should absolutely vote. Staying home is a lazy, cowardly way to express displeasure with the process. Did you think some magical fairy was going to change the process if enough people clap their hands?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

Yes, and you forgot the most corrupt election in our history, the 1876 Hayes-Tilden contest. That said, it's only happened three times in over 200 years. American citizens should absolutely vote. Staying home is a lazy, cowardly way to express displeasure with the process. Did you think some magical fairy was going to change the process if enough people clap their hands?

Exactly. I think that Ross Perot in his 1992 campaign was in favor of elections being decided by the popular vote. Even if the popular vote has no meaning americans should still vote to show their support for the canididate they vote for.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, and you forgot the most corrupt election in our history, the 1876 Hayes-Tilden contest. That said, it's only happened three times in over 200 years. American citizens should absolutely vote. Staying home is a lazy, cowardly way to express displeasure with the process. Did you think some magical fairy was going to change the process if enough people clap their hands?

Exactly. I think that Ross Perot in his 1992 campaign was in favor of elections being decided by the popular vote. Even if the popular vote has no meaning americans should still vote to show their support for the canididate they vote for.

Yeah, well, Ross Perot ...

The overall popular vote by itself does not elect the President, but the popular vote in the individual states does. There have been very, very few cases of faithless electors, where the Electoral College vote has gone to someone other than the candidate to whom the elector was pledged. In fact, the majority of those happened because the candidate died before the electors had a chance to cast a vote.

[Ashmoria]

i think that it being total popular vote might end up in fewer people voting.

in new mexico i am one of 850,000 votes (for 5 electors) in the US im one of 130,000,000 votes.

[Zephie]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

And we'd lose anyway. We'd be living in a carbon tax dystopia.

[Tmutarakhan]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

Neither of those is correct. Al Gore "won" the electoral vote as well as the popular vote, since he was the choice of Florida voters; George Bush got awarded those electoral votes by an extra-constitutional process (like Hayes 1876). John Quincy Adams did not win the electoral vote in 1824; nobody did. The Constitution says that when the electoral vote gives no majority to anyone, the House of Representatives breaks the tie, choosing among the top three electoral-vote winners; and in this case the constitution was actually followed. There were four candidates, and Henry Clay was the odd man out; so he threw his support to Adams in return for a job as Secretary of State, which was not "cheating" exactly because there was no rule against it, though it left a very bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[Kaeshar]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

Neither of those is correct. Al Gore "won" the electoral vote as well as the popular vote, since he was the choice of Florida voters; George Bush got awarded those electoral votes by an extra-constitutional process (like Hayes 1876). John Quincy Adams did not win the electoral vote in 1824; nobody did. The Constitution says that when the electoral vote gives no majority to anyone, the House of Representatives breaks the tie, choosing among the top three electoral-vote winners; and in this case the constitution was actually followed. There were four candidates, and Henry Clay was the odd man out; so he threw his support to Adams in return for a job as Secretary of State, which was not "cheating" exactly because there was no rule against it, though it left a very bad taste in everyone's mouth.

The whole 'hanging chad' issue got in the way for Florida, remember?

[Tmutarakhan]

Neither of those is correct. Al Gore "won" the electoral vote as well as the popular vote, since he was the choice of Florida voters; George Bush got awarded those electoral votes by an extra-constitutional process (like Hayes 1876). John Quincy Adams did not win the electoral vote in 1824; nobody did. The Constitution says that when the electoral vote gives no majority to anyone, the House of Representatives breaks the tie, choosing among the top three electoral-vote winners; and in this case the constitution was actually followed. There were four candidates, and Henry Clay was the odd man out; so he threw his support to Adams in return for a job as Secretary of State, which was not "cheating" exactly because there was no rule against it, though it left a very bad taste in everyone's mouth.

The whole 'hanging chad' issue got in the way for Florida, remember?

Yes. The foundational law of the United States had been that elections are determined by figuring out who actually got more votes, as best as could be humanly determined; that principle ranks above the constitution itself, since the constitution has no legal validity except that it was voted in. The Supreme Court overruled that, without citing any precedent since all precedent was unanimously against the way they wanted to vote, saying that it was for this one case only, although the only purpose of a "court" is to enunciate generally applicable principles of law, despite statements from the founders that it would be "unthinkable" for the Supreme Court to play any role in disputed presidential elections. This was the single worst decision the court has ever made, Dred Scott not excepted; it pulled out the cornerstone, removing any basis for considering obedience to the government a moral duty rather than a pragmatic deference to preponderance of armed force.

[Hittanryan]

I wonder why americans even bother voting, the popular vote means absolutly nothing, only the electoral votes make difference in the election. In 2000 Al Gore got the popular vote but George Bush got the electoral vote, so bush won. In 1824 Andrew Jackson (who founded the democratic party) got the popular vote but John Quincy Adams got the electoral vote (because he cheated with another canididate to steal the electiono from Jackson) so he became president.

And we'd lose anyway. We'd be living in a carbon tax dystopia.

Better a carbon tax than invading Iraq for no damn reason, economic collapse, and a severe loss of standing in the world.

[Alien Space Bats]

This was the single worst decision the court has ever made, Dred Scott not excepted;

No, Dred Scott was worse. Seriously, it was way worse.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This was the single worst decision the court has ever made, Dred Scott not excepted;

No, Dred Scott was worse. Seriously, it was way worse.

This. The highest court in the "land of the free" deciding that people of a different skin color were less than people, in fact were unequivocally not people but property, remains among the darkest stains on this nation's history. It remains one of the saddest days for the cause of justice throughout the world. It remains one of the greatest sins America ever committed.

Don't kid yourselves here, Dred Scott was one of the worst things that has ever happened in America, to America. It's only because of how far removed people today are from it that anyone can say, with a straight face, that it has been overplayed or that any court decision of the last 30 years has been worse.

[Hittanryan]

This was the single worst decision the court has ever made, Dred Scott not excepted;

No, Dred Scott was worse. Seriously, it was way worse.

Yeah, it really was. They may have picked a shitty president in 2000, but that's not on the same level as declaring people property on the basis of skin color..

[Ralphonia]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter, and the night before and of Iowa I was extremely optimistic. After Frothy won, a big chunk of my optimism died, and seeing how we couldn't win Maine, Washington, or Alaska makes me feel that this election is lost for the good doctor. Most Paulites are still thinking that a brokered convention, if one happens (and it does seem at the very least likely at this stage) would lead to an outright Ron Paul victory in the second stage of voting.

But, if a brokered convention doesn't happen, I would say that Romney has the Nomination pretty much tied up. At least he won't win against Obama, and I can laugh with some satisfaction that a whole year and millions upon millions of dollars in campaigning went to utter waste.

Still, I would prefer to be a citizen under President Paul. Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

[Hittanryan]

Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

Were you around for the Patriot Act? Did that scare you as well?

[Kaeshar]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter, and the night before and of Iowa I was extremely optimistic. After Frothy won, a big chunk of my optimism died, and seeing how we couldn't win Maine, Washington, or Alaska makes me feel that this election is lost for the good doctor. Most Paulites are still thinking that a brokered convention, if one happens (and it does seem at the very least likely at this stage) would lead to an outright Ron Paul victory in the second stage of voting.

But, if a brokered convention doesn't happen, I would say that Romney has the Nomination pretty much tied up. At least he won't win against Obama, and I can laugh with some satisfaction that a whole year and millions upon millions of dollars in campaigning went to utter waste.

Still, I would prefer to be a citizen under President Paul. Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

I've gotta ask, what is it about Ron Paul that appeals to you? Be honest here. His charisma? What he believes in? You yourself just said that you don't like his blatant disregard for the constitution.

[Coccygia]

Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

Were you around for the Patriot Act? Did that scare you as well?

That was entirely different. That was the Repunlicans!*

*I have decided to leave this misspelled.

[Urcea]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter, and the night before and of Iowa I was extremely optimistic. After Frothy won, a big chunk of my optimism died, and seeing how we couldn't win Maine, Washington, or Alaska makes me feel that this election is lost for the good doctor. Most Paulites are still thinking that a brokered convention, if one happens (and it does seem at the very least likely at this stage) would lead to an outright Ron Paul victory in the second stage of voting.

But, if a brokered convention doesn't happen, I would say that Romney has the Nomination pretty much tied up. At least he won't win against Obama, and I can laugh with some satisfaction that a whole year and millions upon millions of dollars in campaigning went to utter waste.

Still, I would prefer to be a citizen under President Paul. Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

I've gotta ask, what is it about Ron Paul that appeals to you? Be honest here. His charisma? What he believes in? You yourself just said that you don't like his blatant disregard for the constitution.

He was referring to the President, not Congressman Paul.

[Jocabia]

The whole 'hanging chad' issue got in the way for Florida, remember?

Yes. The foundational law of the United States had been that elections are determined by figuring out who actually got more votes, as best as could be humanly determined; that principle ranks above the constitution itself, since the constitution has no legal validity except that it was voted in. The Supreme Court overruled that, without citing any precedent since all precedent was unanimously against the way they wanted to vote, saying that it was for this one case only, although the only purpose of a "court" is to enunciate generally applicable principles of law, despite statements from the founders that it would be "unthinkable" for the Supreme Court to play any role in disputed presidential elections. This was the single worst decision the court has ever made, Dred Scott not excepted; it pulled out the cornerstone, removing any basis for considering obedience to the government a moral duty rather than a pragmatic deference to preponderance of armed force.

Part of the issue is that neither the state or either candidate requested a state-wide recount. The only studies I've seen that actually give the election to Gore would have required that. It's significant because it means that in point of fact, Gore won Florida.

However, if you're talking about what would have happened if the Supreme Court, or any court, stayed out of it? Gore loses. The recounts they started and did not finish, when finished unofficially, favored Bush.

There should have been a statewide recount. It's hard to say why no one tried to actually get one.

The study indicates, for example, that Bush had less to fear from the recounts underway than he thought. Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study. Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through.

Bush screwed up by not simply letting things play out. He'd have won without all the drama.

In Gore's case, the decision to ask for recounts in four counties rather than seek a statewide recount ultimately had far greater impact. But in the chaos of the early days of the recount battle, when Gore needed additional votes as quickly as possible and recounts in the four heavily Democratic counties offered him that possibility, that was not so obvious.

Gore screwed up by attempting to choose the most Democrat laden counties thinking it would net him more votes. In trying to rig the outcome for himself, he actually stacked it the other way. He should have pushed for a full recount of all ballots and let the chips fall where they may.

Unfortunately, both candidates were focused on winning, not on determining what the electoral intent of the voters of Florida was.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm a devout Ron Paul supporter...

And right there, half of what is wrong with America's political climate.

[Ralphonia]

Obama is OK though, I suppose, given the circumstances, but his blatant disregard for the Constitution, such as the NDAA, scares me.

Were you around for the Patriot Act? Did that scare you as well?

I'm only 15, and during the actual implementation of the Patriot Act I wasn't that aware of it. Lately though, when I've come to be more interested in politics (although I know next to nothing other than the race, don't even know any of my state political happenings and legislature, etc.), I was indeed shocked with the Patriot Act, yes.