Jump to content

Republican 2012 Nomination Thread


Texsox

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 10:53 AM)
Dan Savage, sex columnist/homosexual, came up with that one as a humerous way of responding to Santorum's hate towards the gays, and it has stuck.

 

that's what i figured. but Ron Paul is still worse, right? cause Ron Paul is the ULTIMATE hater.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 11:59 AM)
that's what i figured. but Ron Paul is still worse, right? cause Ron Paul is the ULTIMATE hater.

Going through Ron Paul's writings, yeah, he puts Santorum to shame. It's really remarkable that a guy can maintain a career with the stuff in those writings without being completely ostracized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 05:09 AM)
:lookatme

 

 

 

:hawk:

 

 

 

See ya Mr. Perry.

 

He is reassessing his campaign. I believe he is checking his major donors and seeing how far the money will last. he needs to stick around for a couple more primaries to set himself up as a serious VP candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 06:54 AM)
He is reassessing his campaign. I believe he is checking his major donors and seeing how far the money will last. he needs to stick around for a couple more primaries to set himself up as a serious VP candidate.

Wrong. He will be our next President. After all, he has never lost an election! :lolhitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:43 AM)
So apparently there was about 10% less republican turnout at the Iowa GOP caucuses this year than in 2008. I wouldn't have expected that.

If there's anything that ought to scare the Republicans, it's this.

 

In 08, there was 2 contested caucuses, so there was likely very little Democrat crossover. In 2012, the Republicans were the only contested caucus, so if Dem leaning independents wanted to cross over and vote for Paul or something like that, they could do so willingly. And yet, turnout dropped a fair amount.

 

They won 10 on the strength of a hugely motivated base. If they can't even match Iowa's turnout from 08, that is a real sign of a disaffected base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:15 AM)
If there's anything that ought to scare the Republicans, it's this.

 

In 08, there was 2 contested caucuses, so there was likely very little Democrat crossover. In 2012, the Republicans were the only contested caucus, so if Dem leaning independents wanted to cross over and vote for Paul or something like that, they could do so willingly. And yet, turnout dropped a fair amount.

 

They won 10 on the strength of a hugely motivated base. If they can't even match Iowa's turnout from 08, that is a real sign of a disaffected base.

 

That link details the numbers. Overall turnout for the GOP caucus was very slightly higher, but crossovers were higher and thus the actual number of Republicans turning out was lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 10:27 AM)
That link details the numbers. Overall turnout for the GOP caucus was very slightly higher, but crossovers were higher and thus the actual number of Republicans turning out was lower.

Ok, thanks, missede that detail (it's morning). Still, a decrease in the GOP turnout isn't a great sign for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:15 AM)
If there's anything that ought to scare the Republicans, it's this.

 

In 08, there was 2 contested caucuses, so there was likely very little Democrat crossover. In 2012, the Republicans were the only contested caucus, so if Dem leaning independents wanted to cross over and vote for Paul or something like that, they could do so willingly. And yet, turnout dropped a fair amount.

 

They won 10 on the strength of a hugely motivated base. If they can't even match Iowa's turnout from 08, that is a real sign of a disaffected base.

To put it in more of a historical context, 2008 was a record-breaking turnout year with 118,411 votes cast. According to that article, 80% were from the GOP, which would be about 94,729.

 

This year, the turnout was more than 4 years ago at 122,255. Only 75% of those were from the GOP according to that same article, which was 91,691.

 

So, putting the spin on it that turnout dropped a fair amount from a record breaking turnout is not really one that matches up with the numbers IMO.

 

I don't have the historical numbers for GOP percentage that cast votes, but here are at least the total amount of votes cast for several of the past caucuses to give a better historical context.

 

2012: 122,255

2008: 118,411

2000: 85,761

1996 (last time Republicans were running against an incumbent Dem): 90,889

1988: 108,560

1980: 106,051

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main takeaway is that the supposed uber-enthusiasm to defeat Obama isn't readily apparent from the caucus turnout numbers, but I'd toss out the caveat that it's an indirect measure and not necessarily completely predictive of enthusiasm for voting for Any Republican over Obama. There may be a significant portion eager to vote against Obama and don't really care who that other choice will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:54 AM)
He is reassessing his campaign. I believe he is checking his major donors and seeing how far the money will last. he needs to stick around for a couple more primaries to set himself up as a serious VP candidate.

hahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 09:47 AM)
The main takeaway is that the supposed uber-enthusiasm to defeat Obama isn't readily apparent from the caucus turnout numbers, but I'd toss out the caveat that it's an indirect measure and not necessarily completely predictive of enthusiasm for voting for Any Republican over Obama. There may be a significant portion eager to vote against Obama and don't really care who that other choice will be.

 

I wouldn't be surprised with the bolded part being the case. There were 41% of caucus voters that were undecided going into the day of the caucus. That is a very large number that either don't like any of the choices or don't care which one goes against Obama.

 

Personally, I was in that 41% as I am actually good with Mitt, Ron Paul, and with Gingrich (as weird as that sounds). I saw positives to each of them and negatives to each of them that make them all a wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 02:11 PM)
So the Republican choices amount to a guy who flip flops so often, he makes John Kerry seem immovable, a guy who wants to bring back the gold standard, and a guy who wants to outlaw birth control and the National Weather Service. Bumper crop, I dare say!

gimme that flip flopper any day of the week over the other two.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...