TIS - It's dorky and funny in an akward way, but I wouldn't call it a gaffe. We've set the standards high after Obama met Al Green.

THIS is what I call a Romney Gaffe today, and he's innocent for once. His wife Anne Romney said this in her best unintended Teresa Heinz Kerry impersonation:



According to their released tax returns, the Romneys made $20.9 million last year and are estimated to be worth nearly $250 million. She's rich alright. In Tone Deafness.

What's up with that family whenever they talk about money? Officially it's not just ole Willard who has this problem. I know both candidates this fall will be framed as the country club elitist, but the Romneys are feverishly waving their membership cards. Not because they're clueless, they just don't give a shit because they're not going to be penalized for such antics.

They're the Lindsey Lohan of politics.

~I was going to say Paris Hilton, but that's Newt.

Well I know that's the endorsement I was waiting for...
Romney gets endorsement

I was thinking about this recently, but I have decided that once I finish up my semester I am going to volunteer on Obama's campaign (wkns idk yet) to make some calls to a few crazy gun-toting hillbillies (no offense to anybody) in battleground states and convince them to vote for Obama, or do anything else to help with the cause. I want to make sure I do my part and ensure his reelection goes through, the level of stupidity/ridiculousness in terms of actual viable policy solutions that are coming from the Republican party makes me even more afraid if one of them gets elected.

Plus you can never be too sure with the GOP, they always run a mean efficient/effective campaign and you cant count them out.

Barbara Bush No Fan of the Presidential Campaign



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community...ence-at-smu.ece

Wall Street Journal yesterday wrote that support for Romney is firming up with "likely" GOP voters, including self-described nservatives. He's got 38% vs. 32% for Santorum. Article also says many have been turned off by the ugliness of the campaign.

What this tells me is that 62% of likely GOP voters don't want Romney, and that he can't count on them falling in behind him if and when he gets the nomination.

Tonight, I'm intrigued by seeing how he does with blue collar/working class whites in Ohio and Evangelicals everywhere. He's lost the Evangelical vote in every primary so far.

EDIT - Newt won Georgia and Mittens won Virginia, though the latter is not very impressive considering both Newt and Santorum failed to make the VA ballot. (Ever bragged about beating up a kid with asthma? Of course not.)

Mittens lost the evangelical vote in Ohio by double digits, but wins them in Virginia. Mittens also lost the Independent vote in both primaries. Paul is losing by 20 in VA (better performance than I expected honestly), but he's edged out Mittens for the under-$50,000 income vote.

At least Mittens won the abortion vote.



And as someone from Tennessee, I can partly confirm this exit poll:

Obama will win because all the minorities, homosexuals, feminazis, and intellectual elites will be out in full force in November.

I'm serious. I see it with my own two eyes in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

These southern states have been overwhelmed by minorities and northerners(Italians and Jews from NY area who are mostly leftist Democrats). Especially Florida.

And if Florida is lost, so is the election.

This is why I'm sure Obama will win.

At the same time, I don't see how the Democrats can ever run with a white male candidate again. They're now committed to running anybody but a white male from now on.

Yeah those Feminazi "sluts" sure love to stuff the ballot box inbetween sex taped romps.

As for gay voters, McCain actually apparently won the highest % of self-described gay voters ever for a GOP candidate. I like to believe, with no empirical evidence backing me up, that if Equal Civil Rights becomes the status quo and no longer an arena of issues, the vote will split roughly between the parties. This isn't tribalism like with African-American or Evangelical voters.

And intellectual elites? I'm reminded of Pauline Kael's apocryphal complaint that she didn't understand how Nixon won re-election because everybody she knew voted McGovern.

Or my favorite: During either '52 or '56 (can't remember which year) at a campaign stop, a woman yelled out to Adlai Stevenson: "Don't worry. All the smart people will vote for you!" He retorted: "I can't win just with them!"

I think you get my point I'm driving at with the "intellectual elite" voting bloc.



Florida has been a Yankee colony since...God knows when. That's not news. (I'm ashamed to say that there are probably more Jets fans in South Florida than Dolphin fans.) But save for Virginia and North Carolina, the rest of the South is still whistlin' Dixie. (And even then, describing VA and SC as lost in your viewpoint is a big taffy stretch.)

And I wouldn't necessarily call Florida a dealbreaker. Not as many Electoral Votes, but if I'm Republican, I would consider Ohio to be much more important for morale because of this one fact: No GOP President has been ever elected without winning Ohio. Until somebody inevitably does.

Come to think of it, I'm willing to bet good money that Mittens won't win Massachusetts this fall. When was the last President elected who failed to win his home state? Until somebody inevitably does.



I don't want to type bad words, so I'll instead say this: Four years out, Andrew Cuomo rather looks promising as a '16 national candidate. Not saying he will, but he's been mentioned more than once.

I don't like the guy, but I'll give Santorum this: He's fighting to the razor margins with Mittens in Ohio, despite being outspent 5-1 by him.

EDIT - Turnout estimates in GA, MA, OK and VA all lower than in '08. Only in VT is turnout expected to be up from '08. (27% spike in Evangelical vote in VT compared to '08.)

Voter turnout in Virginia? 5.5%.

I'm pretty sure we won't get these caucuses again in the GOP primaries in future elections. At least not this scheduled or formulated or booked.

Trivial Pursuit fodder: Only time a candidate has won the general election despite losing his home state was Polk in 1844. (Last general election too when "election day" was held on different dates in different states.)

EDIT - Fun Fact: Romney will win 2/3rds of the OH delegates despite winning the primary by a razor-thin margin because...something.

EDIT 2 - Wilson lost New Jersey in his 1916 re-election.

ronnierocket,

First of all, Southeast Florida(not entire state) was always Yankee country. Now the northerners and minorities are taking over the entire state. That's why Obama won Florida by three points.

I hope you understand that Santorum is a Catholic and an Italian which will make it impossible for him to be on top of the GOP ticket. Everyone should know that by now.

Cuomo in 2016? I don't think an Italian can be on top of any parties' ticket? Do you? This country will never have an Italian President. And the Democrats are not going to put any white male on top for decades. They are the party of the minorities and big feminism.

I would blame that more on scared old people. (Are there any other kind?)



The reason he won't be on top of that ticket isn't because he's Catholic, it's the other C: He's Cuckoo.



Like how we'll never have a black President or a Catholic President or never another Southern President or movie star as President? Have faith.



If you say so Rush.

What's the problem of Americans with "elite" politicians?
If you want someone to run a company or a university, you're also looking for someone who's among the best. But when it comess to the country, everybody seems to scream if the candidate had a good college education.

I can't say how particularly American it is not having lived elsewhere but it's a silly but oft effective little tactic. Taking the long view it goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson. In modern times it can be traced back to people like Nixon, Agnew and George Wallace. There is a mild belief, probably shared by many Americans regardless of political affiliation that college is not the only or even always the best way of obtaining useful knowledge. College grads, after all do a lot of stupid things.

Politicians often attempt to appeal to this and pander to darker impulses of resentment and ideas about "real masculinity" and so on by pretending that they stand with the "real Americans" against those (presumably effete) "egghead liberals" or "college grads that think they're so smart". Ironically, without fail, the people that talk like this are college grads and often like Santorum grad school or professional school grads as well. Heck, both movie versions of "Straw Dogs" touched on this trope.

Well Super Tuesday was quite interesting no? For a while there it actually seemed that Santorum might win Ohio. All their speeches were too long but Newt sounded like he's in it for the win. And the clown show continues.




TIS

Mitt will limp to the finish line. He'll pander by picking a neocon running mate. Obama will win over thirty states in November.

Thanks to gays, feninazis and the intellectual elite.

For sure. We are the champions.

Since it hasn't stopped being funny (or revelant), I'll describe last night as Mittens once again winning by default. I'll repeat what I posted earlier: he outspent Santorum 5-1 in Ohio, and barely beat him by a nose hair. He's got the momentum of a zombie from THE WALKING DEAD.

I mean he had trouble beating Rick Santorum. This was a guy who lost his Senate re-election by what, 17 points? Until Iowa*, he was never considered a serious contender and recently you can understand to a degree why. He's not a great politician or telegenic candidate on the stump to say the least, he's too far right-wing for even several right-wingers. (He picked a fight with JFK's corpse and lost.) By all media accounts, Mittens won his debate against him.

He had the organization of a soccer mom's mini-van with a budget that could be stacked neatly inside a shoe box. (They failed to get him on the ballot in Virginia and even if he had "won" Ohio, he still would've lost most of the delegates.) All his momentum was based off the conservative grassroots, grasping at any would-be hero against Mittens.

Long story short, Mittens should've buried him with superior organization, more money, and well being the less-psycho candidate compared to Santorum. Yet he lost the Independent vote to the psycho. He's got everything going for him except himself. It's really an epic big budget turd polishing operation.

This isn't Obama beating Hillary. More like imagine if Obama had trouble defeating Dennis Kucinich.

*=He was screwed out of that win by a Iowa GOP beholden to Mittens. Even when he officially got his "win," nobody cared anymore.

This isn't Obama beating Hillary. More like imagine if Obama had trouble defeating Dennis Kucinich.



Ha ha ha, good comparison. Btw, Kujcinich lost to Kaptor I hear?? I don't know anything about Kaptor, but was that expected I wonder?

Oh, and btw, I don't remember exact figures BUT Mitt spent "millions" more (of course) and STILL it was neck & neck.


TIS

Kucinich did lose yesterday, and good riddance to him.

Interesting: Virginia where he ran on the ballot only against Ron Paul, Mittens failed to crack 60%. Strange to dismiss a double-digit win, but he found a way.

Anyway I'm reminded of 1960 when JFK had to win the West Virginia primary and beat Hubert Humphrey to prove to his party's bosses that despite his drawbacks (Catholic, Yankee, Irish-American, too young, inexperienced), he could convincingly win with blue-collar voters. Specifically those in Dixieland.

Fox News personality Rich Lowry wrote this today:

Romney: The Candidate of 'Eh'



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/07/romney-candidate-eh/

Perfectly put.

All the time, all the ads,not to mention money...all the speculation with nearly everyone knowing how this race would end up; The political need to jump thru all the hoops, play all the games right down to the wire AND it ends up (likely) just as everyone suspected it would,a Romney win. A necessary torture I guess.


TIS

Before the primetime drama of Super Tuesday, Fox News yesterday quietly reported a poll on Latino voters.

According to them, Obama isn't just poised to retain his '08 Latino voting bloc, but is running 50/50 with Romney among the Latino McCain voters.

~Why? Three reasons: Arizona, Arizona, Arizona.

There is a kind of relentless Darwinism in the way these mediocrities have been throwing dirt on each other because they have nothing meaningful to say--making themselves and each other look foolish and turning off voters who expect better of presidential candidates. Whoever gets the nomination will lose in November. Rough justice: they were tried and found wanting. That's the good news.

The bad news: Four more years of Obama.

If you are going to bring up money, bring up Barack Hussein Obama and the huge sums of money(and media support) he had in 2008 and will have again in 2012. If Romney is disappointing you, how can you not be disappointed with Obama for not winning more states and no less than 75% of the popular vote?

I have a feeling if things go as they have been going the election in nov is going to be a very lopsided one

Calm down! I was talking about THIS primary season in which tons of money was spent. But yea, I don't like any of the Republican field and I am not disappointed in contest in the least. It's rather enjoyable.


Barack HUSSEIN Obama 2012!


TIS