The 2012 Republican Primary thread, early edition

[YOhio]

Romney does have a good lead in Michigan for the moment, but the campaigning there will get ugly if the primary is still competitive going into Michigan- as most expect it will be. The issue in Michigan for Mitt isn't pro-union or anti-union. It is pro-auto industry v. anti-auto industry. The Michigan auto industry might not exist anymore if Mitt had his way. That's a problem for many people in Michigan- even those who detest unions.

Romney is a son of Michigan and is the only candidate with a campaign presence in the state. He'll be fine there.

[LA Ute]

Tied? The RCP average has Mitt down 9.5 in South Carolina to Cain. Mitt's in second place, but if Cain falters I'd bet money you see someone else shoot up to take Cain's place who isn't Romney.

Romney will never win South Carolina. They won't vote for a weird non-Christian cultist.

In Florida, Romney is up by 2 over Cain- a statistical tie given the margin of error.

That may not last.

Romney does have a good lead in Michigan for the moment, but the campaigning there will get ugly if the primary is still competitive going into Michigan- as most expect it will be. The issue in Michigan for Mitt isn't pro-union or anti-union. It is pro-auto industry v. anti-auto industry. The Michigan auto industry might not exist anymore if Mitt had his way. That's a problem for many people in Michigan- even those who detest unions.

Unless Michigan is an open primary (I don't recall) he'll be fine. He didn't want to destroy the auto industry, but favored a structured bankruptcy. Had that occurred, the industry would still be very much around, and healthy. Retiree benefits would be sustainable, and more like what most Americans have (but still probably better).

[happyone]

FWIW, I heard Carl Rove the other day on one of the FOX shows talking about Romney's support and his inablity to get over 25%. His take was that while he is the first choice of only that 25%, he is the second choice of about 40% which will put him over the top. I don't know where he was getting the second choice nrs I didn't listen that long.

[YOhio]

Romney will never win South Carolina. They won't vote for a weird non-Christian cultist.

You anti-Mormon bigot!

[LA Ute]

You anti-Mormon bigot!

I'm just being true to my obligations of Christian discipleship. We must not allow the mainstreaming of Mormonism by the election of one of those cultists as POTUS.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Tied? The RCP average has Mitt down 9.5 in South Carolina to Cain. Mitt's in second place, but if Cain falters I'd bet money you see someone else shoot up to take Cain's place who isn't Romney.

In Florida, Romney is up by 2 over Cain- a statistical tie given the margin of error.

Romney does have a good lead in Michigan for the moment, but the campaigning there will get ugly if the primary is still competitive going into Michigan- as most expect it will be. The issue in Michigan for Mitt isn't pro-union or anti-union. It is pro-auto industry v. anti-auto industry. The Michigan auto industry might not exist anymore if Mitt had his way. That's a problem for many people in Michigan- even those who detest unions.

You have two polls that say entirely different things. I'm not sure who the hell insider advantage is. Herman Cain doesn't have the money or organization to really compete in South Carolina, Florida and Michigan. I like Herman Cain, a lot, and I also think his 999 plan isn't terrible. Ironically, I think it could end up producing more revenue for the country, I don't see why the democrats shouldn't love it. I also like the idea that it would convert a bunch of freeloaders into taxpayers. I'm tired of being part of just 53%, I want that percentage to grow since the 47% like to dictate how other peoples' money is spent. I think they should have some skin in the game. Unfortunately, I think he lacks the experience in other areas.

Again I ask, who the hell are the GOP primary voters in Michigan going to vote for if they don't vote for Romney? Also, I don't think you understand what Mitt Romney was proposing. He was proposing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the government acting providing debtor in possession financing because no one else would. "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing... In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."

What ended up happening? Chyrsler and GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The only difference was the Obama administration decided to pick the winners and losers, the bankruptcy code be damned. Maybe you can tell me why the auto industry wouldn't be around anymore if Mitt Romney had his druthers.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Romney will never win South Carolina. They won't vote for a weird non-Christian cultist.



That may not last.



Unless Michigan is an open primary (I don't recall) he'll be fine. He didn't want to destroy the auto industry, but favored a structured bankruptcy. Had that occurred, the industry would still be very much around, and healthy. Retiree benefits would be sustainable, and more like what most Americans have (but still probably better).

Don't confuse South Carolina with Iowa. The GOP voters in Iowa are a bunch of hillbillies. Many of the middle road people there are still the old midwestern democrats.

The GOP primary voters in South Carolina are more broad because the GOP is so much stronger in that state -- it covers more constituencies. Lindsay Graham is one of their Senators. Also, some would also argue they wouldn't vote for Cain because he's black. I give South Carolina more credit than that, and I think they'll look past Romney's religion.

[LA Ute]

The GOP primary voters in South Carolina are more broad because the GOP is so much stronger in that state -- it covers more constituencies. Lindsay Graham is one of their Senators. Also, some would also argue they wouldn't vote for Cain because he's black. I give South Carolina more credit than that, and I think they'll look past Romney's religion.

I'd be thrilled if you are right. I'm just remembering how Huckabee the Baptist handily beat Romney the Mormon in 2008.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'd be thrilled if you are right. I'm just remembering how Huckabee the Baptist handily beat Romney the Mormon in 2008.

McCain also handily beat Romney and he also beat Huckabee. I think that was more a function of Romney totally underperforming in Iowa and New Hampshire. He was done after New Hampshire. The establishment and moderate vote was mostly behind McCain and Romney and Thompson split the remainder. Romney doesn't have to deal with a McCain or even a Huckabee this go around. While Huckabee performed admirably in debates, Rick Perry just looks like a dumbass.

[LA Ute]

McCain also handily beat Romney and he also beat Huckabee. I think that was more a function of Romney totally underperforming in Iowa and New Hampshire. He was done after New Hampshire. The establishment and moderate vote was mostly behind McCain and Romney and Thompson split the remainder. Romney doesn't have to deal with a McCain or even a Huckabee this go around. While Huckabee performed admirably in debates, Rick Perry just looks like a dumbass.

If MR wins SC he's the nominee.

[happyone]

If MR wins SC he's the nominee.

I agree, but that is a big if...

[LA Ute]

I agree, but that is a big if...

Agreed!

[Paperback Writer]

What I don't get is how a university allows D credit to count towards major courses. It's clear that he got plenty of D credit. Anyone who has less than a 2.0 for any given semester should be on probation and after their second year, if their cumulative GPA is below 2.0 then they should be dismissed. I lost a lot of respect for aTm when I first saw that.

I don't have the answer to Rick Perry graduating from Texas A&M with a 1.9 GPA (if that is true - I assume so). As a parent of a Texas A&M student, I was made aware at new student orientation (that a parent is required to attend) that a below 2.0 GPA will land a student on academic probation (we were more concerned with the considerably higher GPA that was required to remain in my student's engineering program) and that "D" credit is not accepted for graduate credit and must be repeated to get credit.

So Texas A&M is no different then almost any other university with academic probation resulting from a sub-2.0 GPA and not accepting D credit for graduation requirements. While a below 2.0 GPA will land a student on academic probation, what is not certain at Texas A&M is what will get a student dismissed. Terms of academic probation are established and must be met but there isn't anything specific other than: Hour and grade point requirements shall be made consistent with the student’s progress toward graduation.. I would think that other universities would have similar academic probation terms that are not strictly defined but at least consistent.

A possible explanation is that a student had a poor semester(s), landed on academic probation, and then changed majors (presumably to one with no minimum cumulative GPA - if one even exists). The student then meets minimum GPA requirements set forth in his academic probation in his new major (gets a lot of C grades). But the student does not repeat the classes in his prior major that hold down his cummulative GPA to below a 2.0.

I can't believe I'm a Rick Perry apologist as there's no excuse for a 1.9 GPA (at least for someone running for high office). But since I'm giving Texas A&M a bunch of money right now - I thought I had to defend the school.

[calicoug]

You have two polls that say entirely different things. I'm not sure who the hell insider advantage is. Herman Cain doesn't have the money or organization to really compete in South Carolina, Florida and Michigan. I like Herman Cain, a lot, and I also think his 999 plan isn't terrible. Ironically, I think it could end up producing more revenue for the country, I don't see why the democrats shouldn't love it. I also like the idea that it would convert a bunch of freeloaders into taxpayers. I'm tired of being part of just 53%, I want that percentage to grow since the 47% like to dictate how other peoples' money is spent. I think they should have some skin in the game. Unfortunately, I think he lacks the experience in other areas.

Again I ask, who the hell are the GOP primary voters in Michigan going to vote for if they don't vote for Romney? Also, I don't think you understand what Mitt Romney was proposing. He was proposing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the government acting providing debtor in possession financing because no one else would. "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing... In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."

What ended up happening? Chyrsler and GM filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The only difference was the Obama administration decided to pick the winners and losers, the bankruptcy code be damned. Maybe you can tell me why the auto industry wouldn't be around anymore if Mitt Romney had his druthers.

Insider Advantage is a reputable polling firm. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com does great work on polling company analyses if you are interested in reading up on them and others.

Yes- Mitt proposed a structured bankruptcy. That would have ended the US auto companies because the only auto companies with capital to purchase the US assets were foreign companies. They would have been sold away at the best price available on the market. The jobs from those plants would have been relocated largely to overseas competitors or eliminated due to redundancy. There is no chance GM or Ford or other would have survived that fallout intact without government help.

I don't think we know yet who Michigan voters could support other than Mitt- but don't rule out Gingrich or Bachmann yet. I don't see Cain being successful but who knows. What I do know is that Romney has a very tough road in front of him and I don't know if he is good enough at this to walk the fine path he must walk to get the nomination.

Politicians of all stripes change positions on many topics. We all know that. But even Mitt supporters have to agree Mitt has a particularly troubled past on that point. Pick your issue- gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, privatizing social security, stem cell research, individual mandates, campaign finance, TARP, etc. He's all over the place.

His religion is another big issue for Republican primary voters. Eventually, his position at Bain will be a factor (VC companies, including Bain, oftentimes disassemble companies and lay off workers to make money- something that was an issue in his campaign with Kennedy in the 90's and will be an issue again in this jobs market). He acts robotic.

We'll see if he can pull it off, but there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical.

[CardiacCoug]

Insider Advantage is a reputable polling firm. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com does great work on polling company analyses if you are interested in reading up on them and others.

Yes- Mitt proposed a structured bankruptcy. That would have ended the US auto companies because the only auto companies with capital to purchase the US assets were foreign companies. They would have been sold away at the best price available on the market. The jobs from those plants would have been relocated largely to overseas competitors or eliminated due to redundancy. There is no chance GM or Ford or other would have survived that fallout intact without government help.

GM and Chrysler eventually went through bankruptcy anyway, no?

Mitt will just point out that he was right. The companies went through restructuring of their obligations through bankruptcy and now they can move forward. The mistake was wasting all that time and money trying to avoid bankruptcy.