Balta1701 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Good morning on the power-broker front for Mittens. Scores the endorsement of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has the governor of Iowa (who hasn't endorsed) come out and question Newt's discipline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 17, 2011 Author Share Posted December 17, 2011 Yes, just in Texas, but the only candidate that has won a national election is Obama. Not much of a chance to win a national election in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 According to the AP, Pro-Mittens third party groups are outgunning Pro-Newt third party groups by a ratio of 8 to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Des Moines Register endorses Mittens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 PPP has Newt falling into 3rd in Iowa, behind Paul and Mittens. Newt is also scrambling to get himself on the ballot in Virginia, facing a 3 day deadine for a ton of signatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I think I'm seeing about 3 Rick Perry commercials per television show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 I am glad to see my money is being spent. And by my money, I mean the $5 i sent to see how much stuff I get from each campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 The only 2 candidates to qualify for the GOP Primary ballot in the state of Virginia are Ron Paul and Mittens. None of the others submitted the required number of signatures. If this nomination fight lasts a while, that will be, um, bad, for anyone other than those 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 I would like to see states come up with a national plan for Presidential races instead of the state by state method. I understand it will cause some small states to receive even less attention from campaigns, but this always seems too random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) I would like to see states come up with a national plan for Presidential races instead of the state by state method. I understand it will cause some small states to receive even less attention from campaigns, but this always seems too random. We don't actually have a national election. We have 50 state elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 Right, and if those 50 states could agree on the same requirements, I believe it would be a nice step forward. We know who the main candidates are for the two major parties well in advance. Wouldn't it be nice if the top six or eight are on every ballot? What would it hurt? It seems like it hurts that, for example, in Virginia they will not have the same choices as someone in the next state over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 24, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) Right, and if those 50 states could agree on the same requirements, I believe it would be a nice step forward. We know who the main candidates are for the two major parties well in advance. Wouldn't it be nice if the top six or eight are on every ballot? What would it hurt? It seems like it hurts that, for example, in Virginia they will not have the same choices as someone in the next state over. I think you could also make the same argument in reverse. That the people in Virginia may be better served by Presidential candidates who actually take the time and effort to reach out to 10,000 registered voters in a state of several million. In a state wide election in a state that size, .10000 signatures requires mostly a campaign presence and some organization. If you can't cobble together a petition signing campaign over several months, why should you deserve the ballot access you seek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 26, 2011 Author Share Posted December 26, 2011 I agree for the parties knowing which candidates have a campaign presence is a good thing, I don't believe it is as valuable to the voters. In a prequel to a national election, isn't it valuable to know how every candidate performs in every state? In the general election everyone will have the same choice, shouldn't that also hold true in the primary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 26, 2011 Author Share Posted December 26, 2011 Just another thought, how do the voters in a state where the candidate is left off the ballot benefit? Their state gets ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 25, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) I think you could also make the same argument in reverse. That the people in Virginia may be better served by Presidential candidates who actually take the time and effort to reach out to 10,000 registered voters in a state of several million. In a state wide election in a state that size, .10000 signatures requires mostly a campaign presence and some organization. If you can't cobble together a petition signing campaign over several months, why should you deserve the ballot access you seek? That almost looks like a states rights argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Not fully confirmed yet, but we might well be seeing a Santorum surge in Iowa (no, someone else used the phrase first.) Rasmussen's latest poll has him pushing up to 10%, up from 6% 2 weeks ago during the Newtlet. And national polling seems to have him doing slightly better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 SS I am certainly conflicted here, but shouldn't voters in every state have the option to vote for any of that party's candidates? Why should one state be given the choice of nine candidates and another state only two? I see Rex's point that a candidate should show some organization in a state, but if someone can win a stae without much organization,doesn't that say a lot about that candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 27, 2011 -> 12:22 AM) SS I am certainly conflicted here, but shouldn't voters in every state have the option to vote for any of that party's candidates? Why should one state be given the choice of nine candidates and another state only two? I see Rex's point that a candidate should show some organization in a state, but if someone can win a stae without much organization,doesn't that say a lot about that candidate? the point is that it's the states decision how they want to make the rules, and all y'all federalists should be happy that it works that way! listen, if Newt and Perry's organizations were SO BADLY run that they didn't realize they needed more signatures to get on the ballot that's just too bad for them. The other candidates knew. This is a safeguard against badly run campaigns - which is the hallmark of a candidate that doesn't deserve to be in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) the point is that it's the states decision how they want to make the rules, and all y'all federalists should be happy that it works that way! listen, if Newt and Perry's organizations were SO BADLY run that they didn't realize they needed more signatures to get on the ballot that's just too bad for them. The other candidates knew. This is a safeguard against badly run campaigns - which is the hallmark of a candidate that doesn't deserve to be in office. Unless elected officials forge signatures to get them on the ballot in a state anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) Unless elected officials forge signatures to get them on the ballot in a state anyway... obviously most of the GOP campaigns weren't even organized enough to do THAT. That's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Perry campaign files suit for ballot access in Virginia. Perry Campaign's legal argument centers on the fact that Virginia has banned paid signature gatherers from working in Virginia unless the signature-gatherer is also eligible to vote in Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) obviously most of the GOP campaigns weren't even organized enough to do THAT. That's saying something. I don't know, I'd rather my party be disorganized versus committing criminal activities, but that is just me apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Nearly 1/2 of the campaign spending currently happening in Iowa is being done by super-PAC's. ~$5 million worth in December alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) Nearly 1/2 of the campaign spending currently happening in Iowa is being done by super-PAC's. ~$5 million worth in December alone. Iowa is so NOT worthy of that money. Time for a different state, or better yet, several states, to be first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Iowa is so NOT worthy of that money. Time for a different state, or better yet, several states, to be first. Don't worry, in a week they'll justify all this faith. By voting for Ron Paul, hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts