Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Tmutarakhan]

McCain?

Lol no I dont believe so

McCain did divorce his first wife while she was ill, but not out of political ambition (more that he was in bad mental shape after years in a Hanoi prison, and she couldn't cope with it). Gingrich is the one who ditched his dying wife for a younger, prettier model better suited to his ambitious self-image.

Late breaking news from Iowa: one precinct made a copying error, it turns out, crediting Romney with 22 votes when he actually got 2. Thus, Santorum did not lose by 8; he won by 12. The Iowa Republican party, however, will not correct its "official" tally: as we know, they do not care about recounting until it is right.

[Maurepas]

Lol no I dont believe so

McCain did divorce his first wife while she was ill, but not out of political ambition (more that he was in bad mental shape after years in a Hanoi prison, and she couldn't cope with it). Gingrich is the one who ditched his dying wife for a younger, prettier model better suited to his ambitious self-image.

Late breaking news from Iowa: one precinct made a copying error, it turns out, crediting Romney with 22 votes when he actually got 2. Thus, Santorum did not lose by 8; he won by 12. The Iowa Republican party, however, will not correct its "official" tally: as we know, they do not care about recounting until it is right.

Heh heh, Republicans never felt that voting was all that essential to the process.

[Alien Space Bats]

Essentially, that was what I was getting at. There's no way the current level of partisanship and antagonism can be sustainable without significant changes to the political process.

it would be good if the republcan party could sequester its ugly stupid base or dump it entirely leaving it to form a new "john birch party". then we could have a moderate party and a progressive party dedicated to moving the country forward with good ideas that are good for the american people.

Actually, that's what I envision in the event of a Republican defeat: The only thing is that, under the Seventh Party System, both of those parties - the moderate one and the progressive one - would be part of the same party.

Essentially, the two parties you'd like to see would be the two "wings" of the Democratic Party. Every two years they'd work together to keep the crazies on the right in check, and then when everyone got back to Washington, they'd negotiate with one another to set policy goals and enact legislation for the rest of that legislative session. The compromise and cooperation needed to run the government would occur within the auspices of a "big tent" Democratic Party, and the kind of "new partisanship" President Obama called for would be achieved by cooperation and consensus-building between the two.

The alternative, of course, would be for business interests and far-right fundamentalists to do the same thing within the auspices of the GOP, while the far left opposition struggled to stop them through the auspices of a marginalized Green Party or a crypto-Green Democratic rump. Every election cycle there would be confrontation between the left minority and the ruling party, resulting in the defeat of the left; between elections, policy would be made in smoke-filled rooms through negotiation between the various Republican factions while the left got their skulls bashed in out in the streets in protests, general strikes, and direct action.

Either way, I see a generation in which primaries and intra-party negotiation matter more than fall election results, and in which the marginalized faction - either far left or far right - is reduced to disaffected action in the streets.

[Allrule]

I could see the Republican Party splitting into two parties: far-right and so-far-right-you've-circumnavigated-the-planet. What would a Democratic schism look like? Blue Dogs vs. progressives? How would it come about? Outspent by Republicans' corporate backers thanks to the Citizens United case? Attempting to move even further right of center? Voters just plain giving up on them as a viable opposition to Republicans because their spines are made of aerogel?

It's not that I foresee three or more parties emerging from such a realignment; it's that I foresee the winner of the next election as emerging so utterly dominant that effective opposition will more or less disappear for a generation.

If the Democrats win - and I currently (very tentatively) think that they will - then the Republican response will be to say that it was because they nominated a "Massachusetts moderate" (Romney) and not a "true conservative" (like Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, or Rick Santorum), The resulting cat-fight and purge will result in what's left of the moderate "wing" (really more of a splinter at this point) getting purged for the sake of "purifying" what's left.

At that point, we will have a "big tent" Democratic Party and a small, embittered Republican "rump". Over time, the Democrats will end up dividing into far left Greens and/or crypto-Greens and a larger, more pro-business center that will absorb the former Republican center. It's unlikely that these two "parties" will actually be all that distinct; they'll probably simply be two factions within the same party that will collaborate to keep the radical remnants of the GOP marginalized at election time and then spend the time in between arguing over policy within the halls of power.

A Democratic defeat produces the opposite result: The far left, angry at the spinelessness of the Democratic center, goes into open rebellion and storms out to fight the GOP itself through protests, strikes, and direct action. Under this scenario, it probably emerges as a full-blown party of is own and the Democratic Party withers into uselessness. The resulting "big-tent" GOP fights internally over just how much right-wing social engineering to allow the far right to endulge in while actively disenfranchising and emasculating the working and middle classes.

In other words, the politics of Japan pre-2009?

[Angleter]

According to Santorum, not only was there a 20 vote discrepancy in his favour, but a 21 vote discrepancy towards Romney somewhere else, balancing it all out. Oh dear.

[AiliailiA]

it would be good if the republcan party could sequester its ugly stupid base or dump it entirely leaving it to form a new "john birch party". then we could have a moderate party and a progressive party dedicated to moving the country forward with good ideas that are good for the american people.

Actually, that's what I envision in the event of a Republican defeat: The only thing is that, under the Seventh Party System, both of those parties - the moderate one and the progressive one - would be part of the same party.

Essentially, the two parties you'd like to see would be the two "wings" of the Democratic Party. Every two years they'd work together to keep the crazies on the right in check, and then when everyone got back to Washington, they'd negotiate with one another to set policy goals and enact legislation for the rest of that legislative session. The compromise and cooperation needed to run the government would occur within the auspices of a "big tent" Democratic Party, and the kind of "new partisanship" President Obama called for would be achieved by cooperation and consensus-building between the two.

The alternative, of course, would be for business interests and far-right fundamentalists to do the same thing within the auspices of the GOP, while the far left opposition struggled to stop them through the auspices of a marginalized Green Party or a crypto-Green Democratic rump. Every election cycle there would be confrontation between the left minority and the ruling party, resulting in the defeat of the left; between elections, policy would be made in smoke-filled rooms through negotiation between the various Republican factions while the left got their skulls bashed in out in the streets in protests, general strikes, and direct action.

Either way, I see a generation in which primaries and intra-party negotiation matter more than fall election results, and in which the marginalized faction - either far left or far right - is reduced to disaffected action in the streets.

That's a very strange vision you had.

Are Parties really that strong, that the defeat of one major party leads to One-Party rule? It's a horrible prospect: voters going to the polls have a choice between the factional representative which the Ruling Party has seen fit to run in their district, or a wasted vote for some other candidate who cannot win.

No. The two-party system would break. If the One Party was Democratic, a third party would arise (Tea Party, Whig Party, whatever voters could choose which didn't railroad them into supporting a faction of the One Party) ... or if the One Party was Republican then the Greens or the Socialist Party.

You don't get rid of Two Party so easily. It's institutional. It follows directly from the electoral method (one member geographical representation) and the institution of Democratic and Republican parties would crumble before it would devolve to One Party.

[Ashmoria]

Sorry, which was the one who divorced his wife because she was "not young or pretty enough to be the wife of a president" while she had cancer?

and he wasnt even running then.

newts first wife was his highschool geometry teacher. once newt had a few more options he decided that his ticket out of his original family just wasnt good enough any more.

cancer really didnt have anything to do with it.

[Ashmoria]

why do people like ron paul so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

delusion.

they fixate on "legalize drugs" and "get out of afghanistan immediately" (and maybe "go on the gold standard") and ignore all the rest.

[Ashmoria]

Actually, that's what I envision in the event of a Republican defeat: The only thing is that, under the Seventh Party System, both of those parties - the moderate one and the progressive one - would be part of the same party.

Essentially, the two parties you'd like to see would be the two "wings" of the Democratic Party. Every two years they'd work together to keep the crazies on the right in check, and then when everyone got back to Washington, they'd negotiate with one another to set policy goals and enact legislation for the rest of that legislative session. The compromise and cooperation needed to run the government would occur within the auspices of a "big tent" Democratic Party, and the kind of "new partisanship" President Obama called for would be achieved by cooperation and consensus-building between the two.

The alternative, of course, would be for business interests and far-right fundamentalists to do the same thing within the auspices of the GOP, while the far left opposition struggled to stop them through the auspices of a marginalized Green Party or a crypto-Green Democratic rump. Every election cycle there would be confrontation between the left minority and the ruling party, resulting in the defeat of the left; between elections, policy would be made in smoke-filled rooms through negotiation between the various Republican factions while the left got their skulls bashed in out in the streets in protests, general strikes, and direct action.

Either way, I see a generation in which primaries and intra-party negotiation matter more than fall election results, and in which the marginalized faction - either far left or far right - is reduced to disaffected action in the streets.

That's a very strange vision you had.

Are Parties really that strong, that the defeat of one major party leads to One-Party rule? It's a horrible prospect: voters going to the polls have a choice between the factional representative which the Ruling Party has seen fit to run in their district, or a wasted vote for some other candidate who cannot win.

No. The two-party system would break. If the One Party was Democratic, a third party would arise (Tea Party, Whig Party, whatever voters could choose which didn't railroad them into supporting a faction of the One Party) ... or if the One Party was Republican then the Greens or the Socialist Party.

You don't get rid of Two Party so easily. It's institutional. It follows directly from the electoral method (one member geographical representation) and the institution of Democratic and Republican parties would crumble before it would devolve to One Party.

no there would be 2 parties but they would be 2 reasonable parties with members acting in good faith to reconcile 2 differring but ....benevolent...attitudes toward government. today we have one party that wants to make the country better and one wrecking ball.

[Dracoria]

no there would be 2 parties but they would be 2 reasonable parties with members acting in good faith to reconcile 2 differring but ....benevolent...attitudes toward government. today we have one party that wants to make the country better and one wrecking ball.

And which is which depends on your party affiliation, much as it did under the last president when things were reversed. :|

[Ashmoria]

no there would be 2 parties but they would be 2 reasonable parties with members acting in good faith to reconcile 2 differring but ....benevolent...attitudes toward government. today we have one party that wants to make the country better and one wrecking ball.

And which is which depends on your party affiliation, much as it did under the last president when things were reversed. :|

well no

only one party is trying to reduce the size of government until it can be drowned in the bathtub.

[Dracoria]

And which is which depends on your party affiliation, much as it did under the last president when things were reversed. :|

well no

only one party is trying to reduce the size of government until it can be drowned in the bathtub.

They talk the talk, but when was the last time the Republican party actually -did- trim the government by much? Closest it came was when Newt was younger, a little less crazy, and in Congress.

[Ashmoria]

well no

only one party is trying to reduce the size of government until it can be drowned in the bathtub.

They talk the talk, but when was the last time the Republican party actually -did- trim the government by much? Closest it came was when Newt was younger, a little less crazy, and in Congress.

uhhuh

thats why they are a wrecking ball. when they are in power they go crazy with boondoggles and when they are out of power they do everything they can to stall the government.

they blocked the appointment of the GOVERNMENT PRINTER so long that he had to be recess appointed. wtf?

[Dracoria]

They talk the talk, but when was the last time the Republican party actually -did- trim the government by much? Closest it came was when Newt was younger, a little less crazy, and in Congress.

uhhuh

thats why they are a wrecking ball. when they are in power they go crazy with boondoggles and when they are out of power they do everything they can to stall the government.

they blocked the appointment of the GOVERNMENT PRINTER so long that he had to be recess appointed. wtf?

He'd have been recess appointed with the rest anyway. Bush did the same thing a few times for controversial appointments skirting Congress. So did Clinton, the other Bush, Reagan...

[Ashmoria]

uhhuh

thats why they are a wrecking ball. when they are in power they go crazy with boondoggles and when they are out of power they do everything they can to stall the government.

they blocked the appointment of the GOVERNMENT PRINTER so long that he had to be recess appointed. wtf?

He'd have been recess appointed with the rest anyway. Bush did the same thing a few times for controversial appointments skirting Congress. So did Clinton, the other Bush, Reagan...

controversial is why john bolton was recess apponted ambassador to the UN.

but the PRINTER? what could possibly be controversial about that? did he vow to use a bad font for republican bills??

[Cannot think of a name]

uhhuh

thats why they are a wrecking ball. when they are in power they go crazy with boondoggles and when they are out of power they do everything they can to stall the government.

they blocked the appointment of the GOVERNMENT PRINTER so long that he had to be recess appointed. wtf?

He'd have been recess appointed with the rest anyway. Bush did the same thing a few times for controversial appointments skirting Congress. So did Clinton, the other Bush, Reagan...

And what was controversial about the government printer?

[Dracoria]

He'd have been recess appointed with the rest anyway. Bush did the same thing a few times for controversial appointments skirting Congress. So did Clinton, the other Bush, Reagan...

controversial is why john bolton was recess apponted ambassador to the UN.

but the PRINTER? what could possibly be controversial about that? did he vow to use a bad font for republican bills??

Trying to look this up, was it in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses and simply dragged their heels? Because it doesn't look like that position was appointed since. Some linkage would be appreciated.

[Ashmoria]

controversial is why john bolton was recess apponted ambassador to the UN.

but the PRINTER? what could possibly be controversial about that? did he vow to use a bad font for republican bills??

Trying to look this up, was it in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses and simply dragged their heels? Because it doesn't look like that position was appointed since. Some linkage would be appreciated.

dems controlling the senate has nothing to do with it. the republicans blocked it, the pres recess apponted one guy now has had to recess appoint again.

when the dems had control of congress the repubs used it to slow down the wheels. the dems werent willing to engage in a 2 or 3 week battleto overcome fillibuster of the head printer when they had more important things to fight through fillibuster for.

even though there are PLENTY of actually controversial appointments that they could block. instead they have kept key agencies without heads and the federal judiciary decimated by blocking appointments of people they have no problems with.

[Kazomal]

Trying to look this up, was it in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses and simply dragged their heels? Because it doesn't look like that position was appointed since. Some linkage would be appreciated.

dems controlling the senate has nothing to do with it. the republicans blocked it, the pres recess apponted one guy now has had to recess appoint again.

when the dems had control of congress the repubs used it to slow down the wheels. the dems werent willing to engage in a 2 or 3 week battleto overcome fillibuster of the head printer when they had more important things to fight through fillibuster for.

even though there are PLENTY of actually controversial appointments that they could block. instead they have kept key agencies without heads and the federal judiciary decimated by blocking appointments of people they have no problems with.

Partly, but it's partly part of their decades-long overarching plan to cram the judiciary with GOP ideologues and co-conspiritors in order to further reduce the importance of the elected government.

That's why we lose all the damn time. We don't have over-arching, long-running plans, and we're rarely on the same page. The Dems could do with some UK-style party discipline.

And the US as a whole could do with the UK-style publicly funded elections.

/offtopic

[Dracoria]

And what was controversial about the government printer?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/GPO-Chief-Will-Need-to-Step-Down-Soon-211153-1.html

Looks like it was, yes, two Republicans holding back the nomination, but both removed said hold. After that, other objections popped up. Does appear there were a few controversies in there, though nothing huge. Payment anomalies and worry over how his views of the private-public business relationship, the latter of which I suppose could be seen as similar to Bolton's view of the UN.

[Cannot think of a name]

And what was controversial about the government printer?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/GPO-Chief-Will-Need-to-Step-Down-Soon-211153-1.html

Looks like it was, yes, two Republicans holding back the nomination, but both removed said hold. After that, other objections popped up. Does appear there were a few controversies in there, though nothing huge. Payment anomalies and worry over how his views of the private-public business relationship, the latter of which I suppose could be seen as similar to Bolton's view of the UN.

If your name was Stretch Armstrong perhaps...

[Dracoria]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/GPO-Chief-Will-Need-to-Step-Down-Soon-211153-1.html

Looks like it was, yes, two Republicans holding back the nomination, but both removed said hold. After that, other objections popped up. Does appear there were a few controversies in there, though nothing huge. Payment anomalies and worry over how his views of the private-public business relationship, the latter of which I suppose could be seen as similar to Bolton's view of the UN.

If your name was Stretch Armstrong perhaps...

Concerns over how Boarman would handle partnerships accounting for 60% of the GPO's work do not equate perfectly to concerns about how Bolton would handle 100% of the partnership with the UN, but it appears fears on both sides were unfounded as both the GPO's business contracts and the UN building are still standing.

[New Conglomerate]

Are Parties really that strong, that the defeat of one major party leads to One-Party rule?

Parties are the strongest they've ever been, and the amount of partisanship that we're seeing now has never really reached these levels before. It's unsustainable. Besides, an entire party has dedicated it's mission to defeating an incumbent president. If they fail, they suddenly have no purpose whatsoever and infighting results. Another party has dedicated itself to staying in power and preventing the other side from destroying whatever the country supports. If they lose, infighting will result.

This is how American Politics have always worked. Short periods of two-party rule are separated by long periods of dominant-party rule.

[Tmutarakhan]

According to Santorum, not only was there a 20 vote discrepancy in his favour, but a 21 vote discrepancy towards Romney somewhere else, balancing it all out. Oh dear.

Santorum wasn't actually saying it *was* that way, but that it could easily be so; basically, that he doesn't really care what the actual result was.

[Aeronos]

why do people like ron paul so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

delusion.

they fixate on "legalize drugs" and "get out of afghanistan immediately" (and maybe "go on the gold standard") and ignore all the rest.

A better response would be "The only Republican who's not a fascist-with-a-new-name [bar Huntsman]" lol.

In a way it's fairly similar to Obama. We all thought "Finally, a Democrat who's non-partisan enough to make things better, whilst promising some key features for America that it could do with", but we forgot to look through the electioneering spin and realise he's just the usual top-down crony capitalist that composes the status quo.