Predictions: Who will be the GOP Candidate?

[Coito ergo sum]

I guess they basically split Michigan -- http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

A key state coming up is Washington. If Mitt wins that, he starts to pull away. And, he might seal it with a win in Georgia.

[eXcommunicate]

Primary season is too damn long.

[Ian]

I think it should be settled by gladiatorial combat.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can we just get a dictator in power and have done with it?

We know that is the natural order of things, if human history is any guide. This republican experiment is just a fad.

[eXcommunicate]

Can we just get a dictator in power and have done with it?

We know that is the natural order of things, if human history is any guide. This republican experiment is just a fad.

Not sure what you're trying to say or just attempting humor.

Regardless, I believe the extreme length of the primary calendar is a net negative for our democratic republic.

1. It disenfranchises voters. Voters in the later contests have fewer choices and the race is usually decided well before 75% of the voters get their say.

2. It breeds apathy. The longer the process is dragged on, the more people tune out.

3. It turns the whole process into a media horse race, exacerbating #2. Fuck the media. Srsly.

4. It increases the cost of running a campaign. Saved the best for last. 2008 was nearly a 1 billion dollar presidential election season. How long until we reach a 2 billion dollar election season?

[Coito ergo sum]

Can we just get a dictator in power and have done with it?

We know that is the natural order of things, if human history is any guide. This republican experiment is just a fad.

Not sure what you're trying to say or just attempting humor.

The latter. I'm getting a little sick of the process. It's a clusterfuck.

Regardless, I believe the extreme length of the primary calendar is a net negative for our democratic republic.

1. It disenfranchises voters. Voters in the later contests have fewer choices and the race is usually decided well before 75% of the voters get their say.

Yeah, but the real problem is that what used to be a wholly private affair has become quasi-public. I mean - if you and I start the "eXcommunicate Party" and people join us, who we nominate for our candidate is nobody's business but our party members. That's how the whole process was intended to be from the start - that's why the Constitution doesn't mention political parties at all.

So, there is no "disenfranchising" in the primary process, because there is no franchise in the first place. There is no right to vote in primaries. That's why some states have caucuses and straw polls. Voting isn't an issue at this point.

2. It breeds apathy. The longer the process is dragged on, the more people tune out.

On the other side of that coin, I've never in my life seen people more interested in the primary process than today. 20 years ago, this stuff hardly made the news. Now, it's obsessed about 24-7.

3. It turns the whole process into a media horse race, exacerbating #2. Fuck the media. Srsly.

Reporters, pundits and journalists - hardly any of them are worth a damn.

4. It increases the cost of running a campaign. Saved the best for last. 2008 was nearly a 1 billion dollar presidential election season. How long until we reach a 2 billion dollar election season?

Obama has a billion dollars on his own. I think we're there, dude.

[eXcommunicate]

Can we just get a dictator in power and have done with it?

We know that is the natural order of things, if human history is any guide. This republican experiment is just a fad.

Not sure what you're trying to say or just attempting humor.

The latter. I'm getting a little sick of the process. It's a clusterfuck.

Regardless, I believe the extreme length of the primary calendar is a net negative for our democratic republic.

1. It disenfranchises voters. Voters in the later contests have fewer choices and the race is usually decided well before 75% of the voters get their say.

Yeah, but the real problem is that what used to be a wholly private affair has become quasi-public. I mean - if you and I start the "eXcommunicate Party" and people join us, who we nominate for our candidate is nobody's business but our party members. That's how the whole process was intended to be from the start - that's why the Constitution doesn't mention political parties at all.

So, there is no "disenfranchising" in the primary process, because there is no franchise in the first place. There is no right to vote in primaries. That's why some states have caucuses and straw polls. Voting isn't an issue at this point.

You have some good points here, especially about the historical nomination process. However, the process has evolved into a public one, supported by state law (for good or ill). If it is to be a public process, then the current process royally sucks.

2. It breeds apathy. The longer the process is dragged on, the more people tune out.

On the other side of that coin, I've never in my life seen people more interested in the primary process than today. 20 years ago, this stuff hardly made the news. Now, it's obsessed about 24-7.

That's mostly because of the 24-hr media circus, imho.

4. It increases the cost of running a campaign. Saved the best for last. 2008 was nearly a 1 billion dollar presidential election season. How long until we reach a 2 billion dollar election season?

Obama has a billion dollars on his own. I think we're there, dude.

Agreed. And it's only going to get worse. SuperPACs. le sigh. Why do we Americans insist on doing everything the most fucked up way imaginable and then tell ourselves, "Welp! It is what it is! nyuk nyuk!" and never rally around any meaningful reforms? Sure, interest may be at an all-time high, but I think it's an interest in the wrong thing -- the process and minutia -- instead of real solutions and compromise.

[Warren Dew]

On the other side of that coin, I've never in my life seen people more interested in the primary process than today. 20 years ago, this stuff hardly made the news. Now, it's obsessed about 24-7.

On the other hand, I remember my parents obsessing about the party conventions. Me, I was like, "we know who's going to win, why do we care about the conventions?"

I appreciate the long primary process because it allows me to piece together the candidates' actual views better than I could with a shorter process. Honestly, 2000, when it was virtually impossible to tell what Gore really wanted to do with the presidency, was a vote in the dark.

[eXcommunicate]

On the other side of that coin, I've never in my life seen people more interested in the primary process than today. 20 years ago, this stuff hardly made the news. Now, it's obsessed about 24-7.

On the other hand, I remember my parents obsessing about the party conventions. Me, I was like, "we know who's going to win, why do we care about the conventions?"

I appreciate the long primary process because it allows me to piece together the candidates' actual views better than I could with a shorter process. Honestly, 2000, when it was virtually impossible to tell what Gore really wanted to do with the presidency, was a vote in the dark.

How long should it take to discern a candidate's views or whether one candidate is better than another? In the age of the Internet, it shouldn't take very long.

If I had my way, primaries would run the first Tues of April through the last Tues of June. 4 debates in March, then 1 debate in each month, April-June. Party conventions in the last 2 weeks of August. 1 VP debate in September, 3 presidential debates in Sept&Oct (the first of three including the highest polling 3rd part candidate). Election Day first Tues of November. Done. This shit should be clockwork, every 4 years.

[Coito ergo sum]

You have some good points here, especially about the historical nomination process. However, the process has evolved into a public one, supported by state law (for good or ill). If it is to be a public process, then the current process royally sucks.

That it does.

2. It breeds apathy. The longer the process is dragged on, the more people tune out.

On the other side of that coin, I've never in my life seen people more interested in the primary process than today. 20 years ago, this stuff hardly made the news. Now, it's obsessed about 24-7.

That's mostly because of the 24-hr media circus, imho.

Which is fueled by the fact that people want to watch it.

4. It increases the cost of running a campaign. Saved the best for last. 2008 was nearly a 1 billion dollar presidential election season. How long until we reach a 2 billion dollar election season?

Obama has a billion dollars on his own. I think we're there, dude.

Agreed. And it's only going to get worse. SuperPACs. le sigh. Why do we Americans insist on doing everything the most fucked up way imaginable and then tell ourselves, "Welp! It is what it is! nyuk nyuk!" and never rally around any meaningful reforms? Sure, interest may be at an all-time high, but I think it's an interest in the wrong thing -- the process and minutia -- instead of real solutions and compromise.

The hard part about "SuperPACs" is that despite their scary name, at bottom, they are just groups of people speaking their minds and paying for publication of messages. SuperPACs came to be because you can't, in a free society, prevent people from using their own money to make political messages. There is baby-bathwater problem here if we try to shut up certain message because the people expressing them are rich.

[eXcommunicate]

2. It breeds apathy. The longer the process is dragged on, the more people tune out.

On the other side of that coin, I've never in my life seen people more interested in the primary process than today. 20 years ago, this stuff hardly made the news. Now, it's obsessed about 24-7.

That's mostly because of the 24-hr media circus, imho.

Which is fueled by the fact that people want to watch it.

Sure, people want to watch, but to "learn the issues" and to educate themselves? I think not.

Agreed. And it's only going to get worse. SuperPACs. le sigh. Why do we Americans insist on doing everything the most fucked up way imaginable and then tell ourselves, "Welp! It is what it is! nyuk nyuk!" and never rally around any meaningful reforms? Sure, interest may be at an all-time high, but I think it's an interest in the wrong thing -- the process and minutia -- instead of real solutions and compromise.

The hard part about "SuperPACs" is that despite their scary name, at bottom, they are just groups of people speaking their minds and paying for publication of messages. SuperPACs came to be because you can't, in a free society, prevent people from using their own money to make political messages. There is baby-bathwater problem here if we try to shut up certain message because the people expressing them are rich.

I recognize that there is a dilemma here. I''m not going to say there is an easy answer, like "Overturn Citizens United!!!11" But I think at some point we are going to have to decide what kind of country we want, because the current state of affairs leads us towards a plutocracy (if we aren't there already). Or maybe we shouldn't do a thing... Maybe a Robocop future is inevitable based on our precious values. "Anyone can own our stock! What's more 'democratic' than that?"

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, I'm open for suggestions. However, one needs to acknowledge the agenda of all sides, not just one. And, much of the anti-Citizens United group are folks that just want a certain message shut up. They want to choose which large groups of people have an open microphone and which microphones are turned off. Should non-profit corporations get to spend money on their views, but not "for profit" companies? Unions yes?

[Ian]

Here's a fun game: "Who said it, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei or Rick Santorum?"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _old_party

[Warren Dew]

How long should it take to discern a candidate's views or whether one candidate is better than another? In the age of the Internet, it shouldn't take very long.

If all you care about is how the candidate paints himself or how the press paints him, it shouldn't take very long. If you actually want to know his real views, and thus get an idea of what he'll actually do in office, it takes much longer. Just look at how many people were surprised by Obama's support for things like the Stupak amendment, indefinite detention without trial, and even escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

If I had my way, primaries would run the first Tues of April through the last Tues of June. 4 debates in March, then 1 debate in each month, April-June. Party conventions in the last 2 weeks of August. 1 VP debate in September, 3 presidential debates in Sept&Oct (the first of three including the highest polling 3rd part candidate). Election Day first Tues of November. Done. This shit should be clockwork, every 4 years.

You don't have to pay attention to the primaries if you don't want to, you know.

[Ian]

So... Mitt Romney's back on top of the pack and headed for a rough but still inevitable victory, eh?

I'm not sure about that. FiveThirtyEight (the best election forecasting blog around) has some projections for Super Tuesday. Granted, that's four whole days away and who knows how many polls will come out before then, but here's what it's looking like right now:

Georgia
Newt Gingrich 39.4% (85% chance of winning)
Rick Santorum 27.0 (11% chance)
Mitt Romney 22.7 (3% chance)

Ohio
Rick Santorum 38.3% (81% chance of winning)
Mitt Romney 30.4 (19% chance)
Newt Gingrich 18.0 (0% chance)

Oklahoma
Rick Santorum 46.2% (97% chance of winning)
Newt Gingrich 23.8 (3% chance)
Mitt Romney 19.6 (1% chance)

Tennessee
Rick Santorum 42.4% (94% chance of winning)
Mitt Romney 22.4 (5% chance)
Ron Paul 16.2 (1% chance)

Virginia
Mitt Romney 70.8% (99% chance of winning*)
Ron Paul 29.2 (1% chance)
*Neither Gingrich nor Santorum qualified to be named on the Virginia ballot, for whatever dumb snafu reason.

Other (less important) Super Tuesday states: Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Massachusets, Vermont
(Op-Ed: Why are these less important? Because Romney used to govern Massachusets, and there's nothing for him to prove there. All the rest have puny populations, and in the case of Vermont, barely enough Republicans to form a baseball team).

So, by next Wednesday if Romney has a pitiful showing on Super Tuesday, and that story is exacerbated by the oft-mentioned caveats that his win in Massachusets was a gimme and his win in Virginia was only the result of being basically unchallenged there, what happens next? Probably what would've happened this week if he got creamed in Michigan: a desperate search to find another late-entry GOP candidate who is both 1) acceptable to conservatives as a candidate, and yet 2) potentially electable against Obama in November. Anyway, even if they were to find someone else it would remain my position that Obama is destined for re-election because, given how far to the right the GOP has drifted in recent years, these two things are now mutually exclusive.