Romney

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ich_20_paul_18

Romney is shooting up on Intrade today.

[YOhio]

Rudy G Mitt and Newt.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70486.html

[Surfah]

Rudy G Mitt and Newt.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70486.html

Zany isn't the type of language a candidate should be using? And he was deeply offended by Romney calling Newt that? That is freaking hilarious.

[oxcoug]

Rudy G Mitt and Newt.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70486.html

As a former Democrat, then Independent, then Republican (hey, what's left?) who joins Newt in the three-marriage club w/ living ex wives who don't like him - it's easy to see how he and Newt wld get along.

[LA Ute]

Annnnnnnd after repeated upper cuts and body blows Gingrich begins to bleed.....

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...rt-iowa/258131

It was only a matter of time.

[Jacob]

Zany isn't the type of language a candidate should be using? And he was deeply offended by Romney calling Newt that? That is freaking hilarious.

I was just about to post the same thing. Offensive to call someone zany (even when you don't single anyone out) but in the same breath you accuse a guy of having no principles, no core, etc?

As for the polls, I've been saying for months that they are totally meaningless. They were meaningless when Perry surged, they were meaningless when Cain surged, they were meaningless when they showed Romney at the top. Nothing matters until people vote.

But I am continually amazed at how seriously the news media take these wildly fluctuating polls. And then legitimate journalists make comments about how so-and-so needs a strong 2nd or 3rd place in Iowa. Or Romney will win NH, but he needs to win by X amount. What if so-and-so wins but doesn't meet expectations? I mean, what expectations? The expectations that you just made up because you needed something to say about the newest outlier of a poll? It's all quite ridiculous.

[woot]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

The usual caveats about me not paying attention to this stuff apply, but it does seem like this is setting up really well for Ron Paul. The nomination still seems really unlikely, but he might end up having a big impact.

Which reminds me, our system of "first past the post" is dreadful. Dreadful! It irks me to no end that FPTP is demonstrated to be inferior in just about every way and yet there's no way it'll change. It gives the people too much ability to vote their minds instead of choosing between the two entrenched powers, neither of which, as a result, has any motivation to not suck.

[Jacob]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

The usual caveats about me not paying attention to this stuff apply, but it does seem like this is setting up really well for Ron Paul. The nomination still seems really unlikely, but he might end up having a big impact.

Which reminds me, our system of "first past the post" is dreadful. Dreadful! It irks me to no end that FPTP is demonstrated to be inferior in just about every way and yet there's no way it'll change. It gives the people too much ability to vote their minds instead of choosing between the two entrenched powers, neither of which, as a result, has any motivation to not suck.

That article had the exact type of statement I was just saying I can't stand:

Yet Galen also added: "If Paul wins, then whoever comes in second -- assuming its Gingrich or Romney -- will 'win' having beaten the other. So, whoever comes in third under this scenario is the loser."

Ridiculous. He is correct that the media will frame it just that way. But, while voters are pretty dumb, they're not that stupid.

[Green Monstah]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ney-now-on-top

My faith in polls continues to hit the shits, but I find this to be interesting. Apparently, latest poll has Romney on top.

In '08 (I lived in Iowa), Eastern Iowa seemed very pro-Romney.

If he wins Iowa and NH, I think he almost certainly seals the nomination.

[woot]

That article had the exact type of statement I was just saying I can't stand:


Ridiculous. He is correct that the media will frame it just that way. But, while voters are pretty dumb, they're not that stupid.

I don't know, man. I seem to remember a poll that actually did have Ron Paul in the lead, and the media all treated it exactly like that. It was mocked on the internet, of course, but I don't think Paul even registers as an option for most Republicans.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...uestioned.html

They've really cornered Romney now.

Apparently Romney lived in the mission home for six months. Did anyone on this board know that mormon missionaries live in luxury?

Here's my favorite part:

“It had beautiful stained glass windows, including a woman with bare breasts, which raised some eyebrows,” said Mr Eastman. “The windows depicted the four seasons,” said Mr Anderson. “Summer was lightly dressed, let’s put it that way”.

[Jacob]

I don't know, man. I seem to remember a poll that actually did have Ron Paul in the lead, and the media all treated it exactly like that. It was mocked on the internet, of course, but I don't think Paul even registers as an option for most Republicans.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

[woot]

I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

Implicit in my post was supposed to have been the idea that the voters really are "that stupid". Then again, I'm not sure that assuming that Ron Paul is irrelevant even when he's leading a poll is actually stupid.

[Jacob]

Implicit in my post was supposed to have been the idea that the voters really are "that stupid". Then again, I'm not sure that assuming that Ron Paul is irrelevant even when he's leading a poll is actually stupid.

OK. I agree that it's not "that stupid" to dismiss Paul right now. But my post was more about if Paul actually wins the caucas. Assuming Ron Paul wins Iowa, I don't think New Hampsherites will be discussing how the real winner of Iowa was whoever finished number 2. History seems to support the idea that New Hampshire isn't very interested in who won Iowa. Likely even less interested in who the 2nd place/"real winner" was.

[woot]

OK. I agree that it's not "that stupid" to dismiss Paul right now. But my post was more about if Paul actually wins the caucas. Assuming Ron Paul wins Iowa, I don't think New Hampsherites will be discussing how the real winner of Iowa was whoever finished number 2. History seems to support the idea that New Hampshire isn't very interested in who won Iowa. Likely even less interested in who the 2nd place/"real winner" was.

Yeah, that would really give Fox (and maybe the other outlets? Not sure if it was just them) something to think about if Paul wins Iowa. I'm sure they'll be tempted to disregard him entirely, but if there's any chance that he could morph into a legit candidate after that, it would seem risky for them to continue pretending he doesn't exist. I hope it happens.