Newt just mentioned Reagan's name 4 times in one answer. Does he think mentioning his name equates to being like him? I hate when politicians do this crap.

(01-23-2012 11:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Newt just mentioned Reagan's name 4 times in one answer. Does he think mentioning his name equates to being like him? I hate when politicians do this crap.

ummmm, the debate has been over for an hour. You are obviously a glitch in the matrix

(01-23-2012 11:47 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Newt just mentioned Reagan's name 4 times in one answer. Does he think mentioning his name equates to being like him? I hate when politicians do this crap.

ummmm, the debate has been over for an hour. You are obviously a glitch in the matrix

Just ended at 9:42 El Paso time. If lottery tickets worked this way I could clean up.....maybe not me, but somebody would.

(01-23-2012 11:47 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 11:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Newt just mentioned Reagan's name 4 times in one answer. Does he think mentioning his name equates to being like him? I hate when politicians do this crap.

ummmm, the debate has been over for an hour. You are obviously a glitch in the matrix

West coast delay maybe?

I agree with you that it was nice that they weren't getting the applause and couldn't pander to the audience, but they were still pandering to the people of Florida. Maybe I'm finally getting tired of the debates since I haven't missed one yet. A lot of the same answers to the same questions by the same people at this point. If they ask something new its an annoying question about Terri Schiavo or asking Mitt about his taxes (an issue I don't care all that much about).

(01-23-2012 10:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 10:29 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Terri Schiavo questions are things I don't care about in 2012. Give me economy and foreign policy.

Oh come on. You know as people sit there unemployed the most pressing thing on their minds are DNRs.

im always surprised how many people think schiavo signed a dnr, or had a living will, or something like that. reality of course, she never did any of those things.

(01-24-2012 03:54 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 10:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 10:29 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Terri Schiavo questions are things I don't care about in 2012. Give me economy and foreign policy.

Oh come on. You know as people sit there unemployed the most pressing thing on their minds are DNRs.

im always surprised how many people think schiavo signed a dnr, or had a living will, or something like that. reality of course, she never did any of those things.

Yes...RP brought out the point on how important it is to have a medical power of attorney.

Newt...Good job
Mitt...Attacks on Newt were a fail.
Froth and Paul...got ignored but had a couple of good moments.

The loser IMO was Mitt. He failed to make any headway in this strategy of attacking Newt. Newt clearly exited the winner.

I thought Brian Williams did the best job of any moderator thus far.

Mitt definitely could have articulated his attacks better.

Newt was being paid by drug companies to lobby for Medicare Part D. Instead he let Newt spin it into "I was for it anyway and just being a model citizen by talking to my former Congressional colleagues and oh BTW I was being paid to do itlol."

Then there's the big issue in Florida, I believe the state with the highest foreclosure rate. Newt was advising apparently the chief lobbyist for Freddie Mac how to lobby effectively. You don't need to directly contact Congressmen to do that. Instead, Romney let Newt off the hook and spin it into "Congressmen X and Y said I never approached them and in exchange for the $1.6 million they paid me I basically just told them this is insane and bubbles burstlol."

Mitt's a very smart guy but he gets flustered easily and doesn't know how to talk common sense or talk plainly. Not that I care that much because a Newt win guarantees an Obama second term.

I don't assign much weight to the "I didn't talk to senator X or congressman Y" sort of disclaimer. There are only about a million ways to get it done without ever talking to senator X or congressman Y.

I do think running Newt guarantees Obama a second term. More importantly, it probably torpedoes republican hopes of retaking the senate and puts their control of the house in jeopardy (although the new census and redistricting will mean a pickup in likely republican seats and an opportunity for legislatures to make more seats safe).

That latter possibility is what really scares me. If Obama gets a democrat congress for 2 or 4 years, I think the country he will leave behind will be on the verge of being totally unlivable, and will have no chance ever to become livable again.

I think divided government is almost a necessity, quite frankly regardless of whose presidential candidate wins. I think we need each party to gridlock the nutty ideas of the other.

(01-24-2012 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't assign much weight to the "I didn't talk to senator X or congressman Y" sort of disclaimer. There are only about a million ways to get it done without ever talking to senator X or congressman Y.

I do think running Newt guarantees Obama a second term. More importantly, it probably torpedoes republican hopes of retaking the senate and puts their control of the house in jeopardy (although the new census and redistricting will mean a pickup in likely republican seats and an opportunity for legislatures to make more seats safe).

That latter possibility is what really scares me. If Obama gets a democrat congress for 2 or 4 years, I think the country he will leave behind will be on the verge of being totally unlivable, and will have no chance ever to become livable again.

I think divided government is almost a necessity, quite frankly regardless of whose presidential candidate wins. I think we need each party to gridlock the nutty ideas of the other.

I don't know Owl...There seems to be plenty of folks willing to forgive him and ready to be duped by him again. All bet's are off IMO.

I don't think Newt can get into enough contests to win enough delegates to get there without a brokered convention. And I'm sure the republican establishment will do everything possible to see that he doesn't weasel into any of the primaries he didn't file for. I think this is kinda the book tour that took a dose of steroids and got out of control.

I do think Newt can win enough to keep Mitt away from the magic number too. And I don't see Ron or Santorum getting enough either. At this point, I think that a brokered convention is the best option for republicans. Keep getting publicity right up until the final gavel. And get a shot to nominate somebody who is better than any of the front-running clowns.

(01-24-2012 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think Newt can get into enough contests to win enough delegates to get there without a brokered convention. And I'm sure the republican establishment will do everything possible to see that he doesn't weasel into any of the primaries he didn't file for. I think this is kinda the book tour that took a dose of steroids and got out of control.

I do think Newt can win enough to keep Mitt away from the magic number too. And I don't see Ron or Santorum getting enough either. At this point, I think that a brokered convention is the best option for republicans. Keep getting publicity right up until the final gavel. And get a shot to nominate somebody who is better than any of the front-running clowns.

Technically he could, but he would have to absolutely dominate the Proportional primaries and caucuses which he just won't do. The main issue for him right now is that there are ______ delegates in WTA states that he just won't win and makes his margin for error miniscule.

Basically, he are the numbers of why he won't get a majority of delegates.

As of now, he has already missed the ballots for Missouri and Virginia
Total Delegates missed==101

WTA Primaries where he won't win if challenged by Romney based on available polling(UT, MT, CA, OR, RI, NY, DE, CT, DC, MD)
Total Delegates missed==481

Caucus states where he can't win all of the delegates(IA, NV, ME, CO, MN, Mariana Islands, WA, AK, ID, ND, WY, KS, Virgin Islands, Guam, HI, American Samoa, Puerto Rico) Let's say he somehow wins half of the delegates which is darn near impossible with 3 candidates with good organizations, but still, lets say it. Begin with 431 delegates.
Total Delegates missed==215

Also add the delegates that have already been won by other candidates based on previous primaries or committed superdelegates.
Total Delegates missed==28

Because of penalties for early primary dates the number of total delegates this year is down to 2,286 and a candidate needs 1,144. Newt currently has 24 locked in delegates. He needs 1,120 out of the 2,234 remaining delegates, however, the total of the above delegates he would miss out on if Romney and Paul stay in the race is 1409. Newt needs to win 80% of those delegates. That just isnt going to happen in a contested primary season with a candidate with no organization.

Oh BTW, I left out the proportional primaries which consist of 762 delegates which he would basically have to win 90% of the delegates to have a chance of hitting the 1,144 magic number. Which is going to be difficult because some of those states he is ineligible to receive full delegate support including Tennessee.

I don't know how the republicans could feasibly nominate someone in a brokered convention that didn't run at all in the primary. It would have to be on of the 4 that actually ran.

(01-24-2012 02:05 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I don't know how the republicans could feasibly nominate someone in a brokered convention that didn't run at all in the primary. It would have to be on of the 4 that actually ran.

Once the 1st ballot is inconclusive the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want. Until 1968, nominees were almost exclusively chosen on multiple ballots.

(01-24-2012 02:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 02:05 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I don't know how the republicans could feasibly nominate someone in a brokered convention that didn't run at all in the primary. It would have to be on of the 4 that actually ran.

Once the 1st ballot is inconclusive the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want. Until 1968, nominees were almost exclusively chosen on multiple ballots.

It's not a matter of procedure. I'm aware they can vote for whomever they want after the first ballot. I just don't see how someone who did not run in the primaries could justify stepping in at the convention. I just don't think delegates would go for that.

And it's dangerous. Nominating someone who wasn't vetted in the primary process would be foolish. You never know what might come out during the general that would sink their candidacy.

I still think Romney will end up being the nominee at the end of it all.

(01-24-2012 02:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 02:21 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 02:05 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I don't know how the republicans could feasibly nominate someone in a brokered convention that didn't run at all in the primary. It would have to be on of the 4 that actually ran.

Once the 1st ballot is inconclusive the delegates are free to vote for whoever they want. Until 1968, nominees were almost exclusively chosen on multiple ballots.

It's not a matter of procedure. I'm aware they can vote for whomever they want after the first ballot. I just don't see how someone who did not run in the primaries could justify stepping in at the convention. I just don't think delegates would go for that.

And it's dangerous. Nominating someone who wasn't vetted in the primary process would be foolish. You never know what might come out during the general that would sink their candidacy.

I still think Romney will end up being the nominee at the end of it all.

I agree with all of that. I was just stating the obvious. BTW, I think the odds of a brokered or multi-ballot convention are less than 1%.

I don't see how anybody but Romney can win it on the first ballot. I just don't see how the numbers can work, as aTxT has laid out so well. I don't know whether Romney can get there or not.

I can see a divided convention saying, "Hey, we don't really like any of these guys, is there someone new that we can draft?" Would be the first of my adult lifetime, but for once a convention would be like a convention again.

If nobody gets a majority, Gingrich's delegates aren't voting for Romney or Paul, Paul's delegates aren't voting for anyone except Paul, but some of Romney's delegates might be willing to vote for Gingrich. So Gingrich has the best shot of the current crop to come out of a brokered convention with the nomination, but it's more likely a sufficient number of Romney's and Gingrich's delegates can only agree on someone like Chris Christie, or maybe Paul's and Gingrich's delegates could combine for Rand Paul.