The Politics Thread

[Roman]

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Max]

I see some folks have really gone into overdrive trying to save face for Obama's 57 state comment. (By the way, even if there were 57 primaries and caucuses, that still doesn't explain his error, given that he suggested there were three additional states he did not visit; by the reasoning provided by some above, one would thus assume Obama was referring to a total of 60 contests.)

The major reason why I made such a big deal about this whole thing was because holy hell broke loose when Dan Quayle (who, in contrast to Palin and Bachmann, is not someone who views ignorance as a badge of honor) misspelled "potato." The way the Democrats and the media acted was that this mistake alone made Quayle unfit to serve as dog catcher.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Max

[Scotty]

As George W. Bush would say:

"They misunderestimated me."

—Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

[ReddFoxx]

No overdrive, just stating facts. I'm not sure why something that happened over four years ago is really relevant at this point. If you really think the President actually thought there were 57 states, then good for you, but a Google search will show how many primaries and caucuses there are.

As for Quayle, he had a reputation of being dim even when he was in the Senate, so the misspelling thing was not what earned it for him.

[Max]

Of course I realize that Obama knows there are 50 states. I was just upset about the huge double standard that the "conservatively biased" media has whenever a Republican makes an embarassing gaffe versus occasions when a Democrat (and Obama in particular, since he has been the ultimate media darling since he first became famous in 2004) makes one.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Max

[DRW50]

Like how the media pounced on Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."

[Roman]

Perry just dropped out. One less clown in the circus.

[Max]

Good riddance. Regardless of one's political views, it is undeniable that Perry ran the worst campaign out of any of the 2012 contenders. That's because (after being hyped by the far-right as the next Ronald Reagan) he was leading in the polls the moment he entered the race in August, but then continuously dropped after those horrendous debate performances. His campaign was over the moment he said "oops."

Though Perry didn't have much support at the end, this is obviously not good news for Romney, as the far-right vote will be less fractured. (I honestly don't think his endorsement of Gingrich will mean anything, though.) I must say that is was odd that both Huntsman (who was the best choice for president) and Perry dropped out in mid-stream (they looked foolish by not waiting until at least the next contest) ; ususally, a candidate withdrawls the day after doing poorly in a primary or caucus.

I know that a huge deal was made by the Bush campaign and the right-wing media outlets (like FOX News and The Wall Street Journal) over that comment, but I don't recall the vast majority of the media condemning Kerry for that gaffe. If anything, the mainstream media tried to suggest that it was proof that Kerry understands "nuances" (and is thus better equipped for the presidency) unlike the "simplistic" Bush who only sees things in black and white.

[Max]

I forgot to add the other big story of the day: it turns out that Santorum actually won IA (by 34 votes)! All my predictions regarding IA were correct (and as I previously stated, I am often wrong on my predictions).

Romney seems to be sinking fast in SC, although I really don't know who will win that primary. As long as both Santorum and Gingrich both stay in the race, however, I don't see how Romney can lose the Republican nomination.

[DRW50]

Gingrich continues to get media adulation, probably for a shell game effect, to make it seem slightly less guaranteed that Romney will win. For someone who loves to rag on the media, Newt would have never had any chance without them.

There's a lot of focus on last night's debate but I doubt it matters much in the long run. Or short run.

This talks about media coverage of Perry and Huntsman, vs. reality.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71694.html

[DRW50]

Gingrich won the South Carolina primary. This had been forecast as a tight race, but Gingrich won in a blowout.

Overall I think this is good for Republicans - it keeps the story on their party and adds excitement, it toughens Romney up.

This is a fascinating take on the result, although the bewildering idea that the GOP is waiting for someone to jump in or that Mitch Daniels - who is disliked by many in the part for his comments about a "truce" on social issues and is mostly just known as a forgettable governor - is going to somehow show Romney up by giving the State of the Union response. Those never get anyone anything, even the ones which garner a positive response (remember Jim Webb?).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71776.html

More on Newt's win.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/99901/south-carolina-shoots-the-tv

More on this being another example of how unpopular Nikki Haley is.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71777.html

I wonder if Romney will just back out of the rest of the debates.

[Max]

This was such a humilating defeat for Romney. The biggest reason why he did so poorly was because he had terrible debate performances. (Also, while anti-Mormon prejudice didn't cause his loss, I do believe he would have had a modestly better showing if religion wasn't an issue.) And for whatever reason, SC GOP voters were duped into all the Gingrich "I'm a victim and deserve forgiveness" bullshit. The only thing that is a mystery to me is why Santorum did so terribly, given that he has a message that resonates with the religious right (yet doesn't have any personal skeletons in his closet).

If Romney loses FL, I seriously doubt he can win the nomination. (This is very worrysome, given that FL Republicans voted for Rick Scott in 2010.) I do think that there is a possibility that a brokered convention (where no candidate has enough delegates to win the nomination) could be a good thing for the GOP, because it could result in a compromise nominee that is far stronger than Romney.

[Roman]

They gave up winning the POTUS when Huntsmann dropped out. There is not one man left who can possibly beat back all of the truly negative things that has been said just to win the Republican Nom. Do they honestly think everyone is going to overlook their words and actions? if so, I have some beach front property right under the Arch.

[DRW50]

People forget easily, especially with the media convincing them to do so. I think Romney stands a very good chance of winning if he gets the nomination.

[Max]

I used to think that having a divisive primary meant certain doom in a general election. However, the Democratic experience in 2008 put that theory to rest.