Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, tomorrow night's CNN debate, and Super Tuesday

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

They kept teasing that the 2/22 debate "might be the last Republican debate." Does anyone actually believe that?

Neither Romney nor Santorum does particularly well in debates, so if the race goes down to those two, as it appears it might, then it doesn't seem unlikely they'll both just decide not to do anymore. This is already happening, both men pulled out of the next debate and the organizers decided to cancel it, rather then have just Paul v. Gingrich.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Lantern

It appears Santorum did not have a good debate. This comes at the worst possible time, when Michigan is basically a tie.

The New York Times is reporting that a Detroit Free Press poll showed Santorum tied with Romney in Michigan. NYT also reporting that Romney will be in Detroit this Friday. Of course, last night's debate was in Arizona. So that's Michigan and Arizona, and those states hold the next primaries on what would have been the end of the month.

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

They kept teasing that the 2/22 debate "might be the last Republican debate." Does anyone actually believe that?

Certainly, if the nomination isn't all but decided by Memorial Day, there will be a debate in California (especially as it's not so much one primary as 53 of them, each winner-take-all for 3 delegates (plus 10 for winning statewide), and some districts definitely lean one way or the other - I don't think the winner in Loretta Sanchez's district is going to be the winner in Barbara Lee's district).

What's after Super Tuesday besides the Conventions?

[elucidator]

Well, the swimsuit competition. I am seeking an injunction to forbid Newt from competing in a Speedo.

[CJJ*]

I thought Romney's line "You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want" was interesting. The Romneybot was patently not answering John King's question ("What is the biggest misconception about you?"), but just running its campaign platitude subroutine. When King pointed that out, that was the response--and the cowed King just said "fair enough".

It's a telling example of Romney's over-inflated sense of entitlement--and more evidence that our media will always defer to whatever nonsense these candidates spew. It's a little sad that Jon Stewart is just about the only person willing to call out the bullsh!t these guys spew on a daily business.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Well, the swimsuit competition. I am seeking an injunction to forbid Newt from competing in a Speedo.

Eye bleach!! Stat!

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by Jas09

As to the debate itself... I think the part that struck me is as that if either Santorum or Romney is elected we will go to war with Iran. They have left almost no doubt.

I didn't watch, but had a text-verstation with my 19 yo son. He was quite upset that

Originally Posted by #1 son

Ron Paul just said the reasonable thing I've heard in a long time about Iran and he almost got booed out of the building. I fear for my country

Paul is pretty vocally non-interventionist - does anyone know what he said? (yes, I am too lazy to look it up myself)

[Morgyn]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

I thought Romney's line "You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want" was interesting.

Isn't that essentially what Palin said at the start of her sole debate as a VP candidate? As I recall, the 'answers' she gave rarely had any relationship to the actual question asked. Of course, that was 3-odd (very odd) years ago, and my memory is fuzzy.

[Renee]

Originally Posted by Folacin

I didn't watch, but had a text-verstation with my 19 yo son. He was quite upset that


Paul is pretty vocally non-interventionist - does anyone know what he said? (yes, I am too lazy to look it up myself)

IIRC, he said that by having so many bases and so much military activity in that region, we threaten Iran and make them more likely to develop a nuclear program, and that we should get the hell out of the middle east. But I just had it on in the background and wasn't paying close attention. I believe there was more to it than that.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Renee

IIRC, he said that by having so many bases and so much military activity in that region, we threaten Iran and make them more likely to develop a nuclear program, and that we should get the hell out of the middle east. But I just had it on in the background and wasn't paying close attention. I believe there was more to it than that.

Here is Paul on Iran:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

PAUL: I disagree because we don't know if they have a weapon. As a matter of fact, there's no evidence that they have it. There is no evidence. Israel claims they do not have it and our government doesn't. I don't want them to get a weapon. But I think what we're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of -- if you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around their country, plus our submarines.

The Iranians can't possibly attack anybody. And we're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon. Now, just think about the Cold War. The Soviets had 30,000 of them. And we talked to them. The Soviets killed 100 million people and the Chinese, and we worked our way out of it.

And if you want to worry about nuclear weapons, worry about the nuclear weapons that were left over from the Soviet Union. They're still floating around. They don't have them all detailed. So we're ready to go to war. I say going to war rapidly like this is risky and it's reckless.

Now, if they are so determined to go to war, the only thing I plead with you for, if this is the case, is do it properly. Ask the people and ask the Congress for a declaration of war. This is war and people are going to die. And you have got to get a declaration of war.

And just to go and start fighting -- but the sanctions are already backfiring. And all that we do is literally doing the opposite. When we've been -- were attacked, we all came together. When we attacked the -- when we -- when we put them under attack, they get together and it neutralizes that. They rally around their leaders.

So what we're doing is literally enhancing their power. Think of the sanctions we dealt with Castro. Fifty years and Castro is still there. It doesn't work. So I would say a different approach. We need to at least -- we talked -- we talked to the Soviets during the Cuban crisis. We at least can talk to somebody who does not -- we do not have proof that he has a weapon. Why go to war so carelessly?

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

I thought Romney's line "You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want" was interesting. The Romneybot was patently not answering John King's question ("What is the biggest misconception about you?"), but just running its campaign platitude subroutine. When King pointed that out, that was the response--and the cowed King just said "fair enough".

It's a telling example of Romney's over-inflated sense of entitlement--and more evidence that our media will always defer to whatever nonsense these candidates spew. It's a little sad that Jon Stewart is just about the only person willing to call out the bullsh!t these guys spew on a daily business.

Not only that but Romney and his aides decided on the debate format which could have worked with two or three. However, with four, it looked like a group of political panelists instead of a group of Presidential candidates.

[Raygun99]

Ron Paul would probably be a very good secretary of state.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Raygun99

Ron Paul would probably be a very good secretary of state.

Ralph Nader would certainly be a very good USAG. Neither is gonna happen.

[Damuri Ajashi]

It seems like the winner at more and more of these debates is Barack Obama.

[kaylasdad99]

While I shared the disgust over Romney's just coming out and saying, "I'm going to answer the question I wish you had asked and ignore the one you actually asked," I'm still amused that when the question was "What is the greatest misconception the American people have about you?" the answer from all four of them pretty much boiled down to "The [misconception] that I can't win."

[joebuck20]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

So, is anybody watching? What's the score, schmutz-wise?

Didn't watch it last night, but I just saw some clips on the Daily Show, and it didn't look like either Santorum or Gingrich had any ash.

Though to be fair, it also looked like they were wearing pretty heavy make-up for the cameras, so it could have just been covered up.

[kaylasdad99]

It doesn't cover up. Putting Pancake over that would pretty much just brush it away. Back in the day, the hair hanging down over my forehead would tend to take care of that within a few hours.

So I guess it's not surprising that neither of them were smudged; and if they had been, at that hour of the night, a LOT of people would have called them on the ostentatious display of public piety.

[Marley23]

And it's the big day! What do people expect? It looks like Romney has been improving in the polls, although Gingrich and Santorum are likely to win at least one state each - Georgia for Gingrich, Oklahoma and perhaps Tennessee for Santorum.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Marley23

And it's the big day!

Psst. Tomorrow.

[elucidator]

The way things are shaping up, today is the day for Newt to bail and throw his support to Frothy. Tomorrow is too late. How could it be done? Money Pubbies tell Newt they will throw a bunch of money into his Super PAC, and he can keep it if he bails.

[Marley23]

Yeah, tomorrow. OK, that's sort of a different day. And Gingrich is not going to quit.

[elucidator]

Then Romney wins, decisively.

[Fear Itself]

Is it possible for Ron Paul to win in Virginia? He is the only "Not Romney" on the ballot. Do you suppose the protest vote with no other alternatives could be enough to give him a win?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Is it possible for Ron Paul to win in Virginia?

No, I don't think so. I can't find recent polls by the big national organizations, but this poll has Romey up by 35 percent. If it was just Romney and Paul in a very conservative or libertarian state, maybe Paul could win.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Marley23

No, I don't think so. I can't find recent polls by the big national organizations, but this poll has Romey up by 35 percent. If it was just Romney and Paul in a very conservative or libertarian state, maybe Paul could win.

I.e., if it were Virginia without NoVa.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Is it possible for Ron Paul to win in Virginia? He is the only "Not Romney" on the ballot. Do you suppose the protest vote with no other alternatives could be enough to give him a win?

Maybe if there appeared to be a serious chance of denying Romney the nomination, the supporters of the other two not-Mitts would have held their noses and voted for Paul to keep a few more delegates out of the Romney column. As it is, I expect GOP voters who don't actually like either Romney or Paul will just stay home.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Marley23

And it's the big day! What do people expect? It looks like Romney has been improving in the polls, although Gingrich and Santorum are likely to win at least one state each - Georgia for Gingrich, Oklahoma and perhaps Tennessee for Santorum.

I think Romney's going to be pretty happy tomorrow night. He's going to win four states almost for free: Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, and Idaho. I think Romney's going to take Ohio (so does Nate Silver now, so I'm not exactly going out on a limb here) and pull off the upset in Tennessee.

That's not the outcome I'd prefer - I'd like the bloodletting to continue as long as possible, which means I'm rooting for Santorum and Gingrich tomorrow - but that's how I see it happening. And if Romney takes Ohio and Tennessee, it really won't matter that he loses Georgia and Oklahoma, or even if he loses Alaska and North Dakota as well. (I expect he probably has good chances to win both of those too, but there's been no polling AFAIK.)

[Marley23]

I'm curious about how the delegates will break down if it goes that way. I agree that if Romney wins Ohio it has to be considered his day, and if he wins Ohio and Tennessee, that's huge.

[elucidator]

If I were sufficiently obsessive, I would already know this, but the SDMB is just as good as Google without quite so much advertising. Of the delegates being assigned by these proceedings, to what extent are they "committed" delgates. How many are obliged to vote for their guy on the first vote, but are free after that to do deals?

(Christ, there's another six months to go! I'm already fighting the urge to strip nekkid, pour honey all over myself, roll around in a pile of chicken feathers and run through the streets yelling "Greeb! Gribble! Kitang kitang kitang!"

I need some reassurance. This is as crazy as its gonna get, right? Can't get worse, right? Can't type any more, starting to twitch....)

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by elucidator

If I were sufficiently obsessive, I would already know this, but the SDMB is just as good as Google without quite so much advertising. Of the delegates being assigned by these proceedings, to what extent are they "committed" delgates. How many are obliged to vote for their guy on the first vote, but are free after that to do deals?

I don't know either, but it's not going to get that far. It looks like things are finally moving in Romney's direction even though it won't end tomorrow.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

What's after Super Tuesday besides the Conventions?

Texas, in early April

New York and Pennsylvania, in late April

California, in early June

[Marley23]

Here's the full schedule of primaries and caucuses. By my count there are 32 states and territories still to go, including Missouri again.

[elucidator]

The "That One Doesn't Count, Show Me Again" state.

[BobLibDem]

The big story tonight will be Ohio, which I think will be a repeat of Michigan and a 3-4 point Romney win. The formula is crude but effective- in any state that Romney needs and he's behind in the polls, park the Death Star overhead and carpet bomb the upstart rival with negative ads. He's like the pitcher who will keep throwing the same pitch at a batter until he proves he can hit it. Thus far no other Republican can take Romney's high heat so he's going to keep on throwing it.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

The big story tonight will be Ohio, which I think will be a repeat of Michigan and a 3-4 point Romney win.

I remember at least one reporter saying that the Michigan results augured well for Santorum in Michigan - the two states are similar demographically with the exception of Michigan's Oakland County, which went for Romney in a big way. But since then Santorum's campaign seems to have hit the skids and Romney's advantages have come to the fore.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm curious about how the delegates will break down if it goes that way. I agree that if Romney wins Ohio it has to be considered his day, and if he wins Ohio and Tennessee, that's huge.

I'd be shocked if Santorum doesn't win Tennessee. And, I'd regret not voting for him just to make Romney sweat a little more. As it was I voted for Huntsman just out of stubborness.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

It seems like the winner at more and more of these debates is Barack Obama.

That is the most prescient post in this thread.

Little did I know when I posted this thread on Febuary 21st that the President would be trash talking the Republican candidates on Super Tuesday in a White House press conference. The President was responding indirectly to what Romney and Santorum said about the Obama administration's policy on Iran. Then, in a masterful stroke, the President said, "If some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they should say so, and they should explain to the American people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be." Bravo, Mr. President!

The front page headline about Super Tuesday is a non-headline. Meaning, today we know as much as we knew yesterday. We knew Gingrich would win Georgia; Gingrich won Georgia. We knew Santorum had momentum going into Super Today; Santorum has momentum. In short, nothing happened yesterday that we did not expect to happen.

The larger question, though, is: What effect, if any, will Super Tuesday have on the Republican National Convention in August?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

We knew Santorum had momentum going into Super Today; Santorum has momentum.

It's time for the Santorum momentum talk to die. If you compete in 11 elections and win three while someone else wins 7 you cannot be said to have momentum in any meaningful way unless we're talking about backward momentum. I agree there were not a lot of surprises last night, but Romney took a big step toward winning the nomination. He now has significantly more delegates than Santorum and Gingrich (who are basically tied), and it'll be hard for anyone to catch him because most of the states award their delegates proportionally. While Santorum has embarrassed Romney a few times with close finishes, in the few states he has won, it's been with only a plurality of the vote, which means he's not getting too many more delegates than Romney. Romney has won some states by big margins. It looks like this is pretty much going to play out the way Obama-Clinton did in 2008: Obama ran up a lead, and while it was not a huge lead, it was too big for Clinton to overcome because of the way the nominating process works.

[elucidator]

Santorum doesn't have much momentum, but Not Romney is still rolling. Anyone notice that the Malign Sarah has allowed that she might just maybe be willing to accept the heartfelt pleas of her fellow Americans?

Now, Lord, I know I'm basically no damn good, but seems to me we have a common interest here....

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Anyone notice that the Malign Sarah has allowed that she might just maybe be willing to accept the heartfelt pleas of her fellow Americans?

I'm attempting not to notice because there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to give a crap. She's not running, nobody wants her, the campaign isn't going to be thrown open at the convention, and she's nobody's idea of a compromise candidate.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm attempting not to notice because there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to give a crap.

Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Sarah has some part to play yet, for good or ill...

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm attempting not to notice because there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to give a crap. She's not running, nobody wants her, the campaign isn't going to be thrown open at the convention, and she's nobody's idea of a compromise candidate.

Your analysis is entirely reasonable, sane, and rational. Therein lies the problem...

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Sarah has some part to play yet, for good or ill...

Your heart must be broken (heh), because St. Sarah has no role other than self promotion.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Your heart must be broken (heh), because St. Sarah has no role other than self promotion.

Even that can serve our ends. She can keep the Teahadists riled up, give them hope for a conservative alternative to Romney. If she can keep their hair on fire until the last moment, when Romney is nominated, it might enrage them to the point of doing something rash, like running a third party candidate that would split the Republican Party once and for all. Or, they will be so inconsolable, they won't vote.

I'm tellin' ya, if anybody can do it, Sarah can.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Onomatopoeia

Your heart must be broken (heh), because St. Sarah has no role other than self promotion.

And that's the thing: What could possibly sell more books and garner her larger Fox News contracts than the title "former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin?"

Why, being "former presidential candidate Sarah Palin," of course.

Doesn't matter if she has a Santorumsicle's chance in hell of winning as a third-party candidate, simply running would make her richer and it would allow her braindead followers to stoke her massive ego for a few summer months.

This isn't about being a brokered candidate, or sane compromise, or anything like that. It's about her. She will run if she thinks it could get her more money and attention, Republican Party be damned.

[Chronos]

Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Sarah has some part to play yet, for good or ill...

So, you think she might jump into a volcano? I'm OK with that.

[Kozmik]

Ok. Now it's the primaries on April 24th and June 5th. It's looking more and more like Romney. The question is: How much of a fight will Santorum put up?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Sarah has some part to play yet, for good or ill...

"Sanity? It was sanity that stayed America's votes. The sanity of the voters may rule the fate of many."