BROKERED CONVENTION GETTING MORE LIKELY

2 comments

Posted on 11th March 2012 by Administrator in Economy

, , , , , , , ,

Ron Paul will be in this race until the end. He will likely have 200 to 300 delegates at a brokered convention. The Republican Convention of 1860 was also a brokered convention. William Seward was the Mitt Romney of 1860. Salmon Chase was the Rick Santorum of 1860. Edward Bates was the Newt Gingrich of 1860. They all alienated factions within the Republican Party. Who could be the Abraham Lincoln of 2012? Any ideas?

Romney Really Might Not Have the Delegates by June

By Sean Trende – March 9, 2012

The Republican primary has revealed distinct geographic tendencies. Mitt Romney is dominant in New England and in the West. Newt Gingrich has run well in the Deep South, while Rick Santorum has done well in caucus states, the Great Plains, and the peripheral South (it remains to be seen whether his support has bled into Gingrich’s strength in the Deep South). That leaves the Midwest as a battleground between Romney and Santorum.

While Romney had a good night on Super Tuesday, the truth is that he did nothing to alter the basic regional nature of his support. He won handily in New England and the West, essentially tied in the Midwest, and ran poorly in the South.

Given the structure of the primary season, this portends a long slog to the nomination, and makes it difficult for Romney to wrap up the nomination early on. Consider the schedule, and the following possible outcomes:

March

The rest of this month is absolutely brutal for Romney. 

Great Plains: Kansas. Assume Santorum wins here by a margin roughly equal to that in North Dakota, and wins all the state’s districts except for the 3rd (Kansas City).

South: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. This could go either way between Gingrich and Santorum. Let’s assume that these states have roughly the results of Tennessee, while acknowledging that they could look like Georgia. Romney will probably still win the Birmingham districts in Alabama and the New Orleans districts in Louisiana, but other than that will likely be shut out.

Midwest: Illinois, Missouri. I think the former is fertile ground for Romney, but let’s assume that it is close, like Michigan and Ohio. We’ll have him split the districts 10/8. It’s hard to see Romney running any better in Missouri’s caucuses than he did in the primary, so let’s give the caucuses to Santorum with the same margins as North Dakota.

West: Hawaii. Give this to Romney, at the same rate as Alaska.

Miscellaneous: Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico. Anyone’s guess. Let’s divide evenly among the candidates. Puerto Rico is winner-take-all, so give that to Romney (who has run well with Latinos so far this cycle).

Note that Romney wins only two contests in actual states under this scenario.  That is a serious momentum-sapper. Gingrich may have dropped out by this point, or become a non-factor, but since his votes probably go to Santorum, it’s probably not relevant to our Romney-centric analysis here.

Rough delegate totals: Romney, 522; Santorum, 314; Gingrich 128; Paul 91.

April

Northeast: Maryland, D.C., New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware. Obviously, this is a nice stretch for Romney. There are some question marks here: Who is voting in the Republican primary in Jose Serrano’s 95 percent Obama district in New York? Anyway, we will model New York, D.C., and Maryland after Vermont; Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware more like Massachusetts (understanding that we’re probably being too generous to Romney with the latter and not generous enough with the former).

Midwest: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. Again, assume Wisconsin is similar to Ohio, basically a tie. I think Santorum probably wins Pennsylvania.

Rough delegate totals : Romney, 704;  Santorum, 389; Gingrich, 132; Paul 101

May

South: Texas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas. We’ll model the last three like Tennessee, though Santorum could run even better in these three than he did in the Volunteer State. The other two are anybody’s guess. Since I’d been so generous to Romney in the Northeast, I went ahead and modeled these like Tennessee. But given the strong Republican Party establishment, as well as the surfeit of wealthy suburban districts in both states, Romney really could over-perform. We’ll hedge somewhat by giving Romney 50 percent of the congressional districts in Texas, which assumes that he runs well in the suburban districts as well as the Latino districts, but that the relatively low turnout in the latter districts costs him the statewide win.

Midwest: Indiana. Modeled like Ohio/Michigan.

Great Plains: Nebraska. Modeled like North Dakota.

West: Oregon. Modeled like Washington state, though it isn’t as urbanized, and Romney could have a tougher time here.

Rough delegate totals : Romney, 845; Santorum, 575; Paul 183; Gingrich, 161.

Note that we’re almost done with primary season, and Romney only has three-fourths of the delegates he needs.

June

There are only six contests left at this point: California, New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and Utah. New Jersey and Utah are obviously Romney-friendly, while South Dakota and Montana are Santorum-friendly. California is probably Romney-friendly, as is, probably, New Mexico, but California divvies up almost all of its delegates by congressional district.

I’ve said this before, but who is voting in a Republican primary in Maxine Waters’ district? I honestly have no clue whom they would favor — and there are a lot of districts like this in California. The whites who vote in the Central Valley districts are culturally similar to Southern whites, and the mountain districts are awfully conservative as well. We’ll give Romney 42 districts, but this is probably giving him too much benefit of the doubt.

So what’s the bottom line here? Romney ends up with 1,071 delegates, still short of the nomination.  Now, there are a few important caveats.  First, there are 114 unpledged RNC delegates, who can vote for anyone.  Second, there are another 86 delegates in states that have already voted that have yet to be allocated.  Romney will probably get somewhere between a third and half of these delegates.

So a brokered convention is still a long shot, but (1) note how long it takes Romney to get into range; and (2) recall that we’ve perhaps been too generous with Romney in our delegate allocations in New York, Texas and California, especially after the brutal March he is likely about to have.

Sean Trende is Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com.



GINGRICH’S STRATEGY

8 comments

Posted on 24th February 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

Handlers Constantly Reminding Gingrich To Stay On Uninspiring, Belittling Message

February 23, 2012 | ISSUE 48•08

PHOENIX—As Newt Gingrich continues to cede ground to Rick Santorum, the former House speaker’s campaign team has responded by advising him to stay focused on the belligerent, mean-spirited message that has long been the hallmark of his presidential run, sources confirmed Monday. “Newt’s rhetoric can become abstract and idiosyncratic at times, and we have to gently remind him that he just needs to be himself, to be the Newt people are familiar with—the Newt devoid of any discernible scruple beyond his own insatiable instinct for self-promotion,” campaign director Michael Krull said Friday, explaining that whatever lies at Gingrich’s cold, depraved core is what will make or break him with voters. ”Every time he veers off course and talks passionately about about outer space or how the United States has to stop spending beyond its means, I tell him, ’Look, your greatest asset is being a remorseless asshole. Now get out there, fuck everyone over using every means at your disposal and let’s win this thing.’” Several handlers told reporters they live in fear of a gaffe in which Gingrich displays some vague semblance of humanity and completely loses his identity among voters.

RON PAUL & THE THREE STOOGES

3 comments

Posted on 13th February 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,



NEWT & MITT AGREE

5 comments

Posted on 29th January 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

BANKS ARE PEOPLE & STATE OF THE MOON

19 comments

Posted on 29th January 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

You can’t make this shit up. God help this country.

 http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/407037/january-26-2012/indecision-2012—mitt-romney—newt-gingrich-in-florida

 i support newt gingrichs idea

To the Moon, Newt!

Gingrich’s wasteful, scientifically unsound plan to put colonists on lunar soil.

By |Posted Friday, Jan. 27, 2012, at 1:04 PM ET 

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

Newt Gingrich described himself as a visionary when he unveiled plans Wednesday to create a mammoth new space program, including a permanent colony on the moon within the next nine years. Within eight years, he pledges a new Mars rocket program—specifically, a “continually operating propulsion system) capable of getting to Mars within a remarkably short time.” He also reiterated his plan to declare at least part of the moon as U.S. territory, with colonists capable of petitioning for statehood status.

There is little doubt that Mr. Gingrich believes in big ideas. Unfortunately, however, there is a difference between big ideas and good ideas. After all, being a visionary doesn’t mean abandoning practicality altogether but rather harnessing it creatively to make new things happen.

Put aside that Gingrich was speaking in Florida, the state most invested in space exploration and, by happenstance, the next up on the Republican primary schedule. Let’s consider cost first. The Apollo missions to the moon cost in excess of $100 billion in current dollars. In 2005, NASA administrator Michael Griffin estimated the cost of a program to land four astronauts on the moon by 2018 (as was then planned), at $104 billion.

Now, four astronauts is not a permanent colony on the moon. To have a permanent colony, you would have to manufacture housing, most likely underground, or at least under significant shielding, since there is no atmosphere and no magnetic field to shield against the harmful effects of cosmic rays for an extended period. Not to mention the need to build facilities for waste recycling, plus food storage and preparation. That is, unless we continually provide food and other provisions for pilgrims from Earth, creating a non-self-sustaining colony. But Gingrich has already made it quite clear, in his attacks on President Obama, that he would not like to be remembered for championing any such sort of government-sponsored food program.

So, to truly embark on such an endeavor within a decade, we would have to spend somewhere between a few hundred billion and a trillion dollars. Whether we could develop the necessary technology for such a task within a decade is an open question, although for a sufficiently large investment, it might not be impossible. However, Gingrich is vying for leadership of a party whose major rallying cry is an end to big government programs and make-work projects to stimulate the economy.

Gingrich might argue that we need not rely on government for the investment. However, without a clear business plan, it is hard to imagine private money investing $1 trillion in a program with no clear commercial goal.

Yet he did not explain precisely what he wanted to do with such a colony, or what it might achieve, besides potentially populating a new 51st state. Certainly the goal would not be a scientific one, since there is little scientific gain to be made that would justify the cost, and one could populate the whole solar system with unmanned spacecraft that could explore all the planets and their moons for this cost, as well as send up satellites that could map the heavens on unprecedented scales.

So is manufacturing his goal? But what would we manufacture on the moon that we could not do on Earth for a fraction of the cost? It is true that there may be significant otherwise terrestrially rare isotopes like helium-3 in the lunar soil, and some have argued that this would be useful for fusion power here on Earth. But since we don’t yet know how to produce fusion power on Earth, it seems a little premature to rush out on a trillion-dollar adventure to gather up potential fuel.

Perhaps we could put mirrors on the moon to beam sunlight to Earth for power. But given that currently 10,000 times the total energy used by humanity on a daily basis falls on the Earth from the sun, it is not clear that we need to go to the moon to harness more of it.

Gingrich also said during this same address that he envisions a vibrant commercial near-Earth space program for the purposes of science, tourism, and manufacturing. Once again, he didn’t bother to explore precisely what sort of program one might envisage here. It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford. Perhaps Gingrich imagines a vibrant Earth-surveying program that might help monitor climate change? No, probably not.

Not content to merely colonize the moon in a decade, Gingrich has also promised to develop a viable Mars program to begin human space exploration of that planet within the next decade. It is hard to imagine why he didn’t also promise an intergalactic starship in this timeframe as well, as long as he was being visionary.

Finally, Gingrich may not be aware that the current U.S. flags on the moon don’t mean we own it, any more than those on U.S. research stations in Antarctica mean we own that continent.

But I suppose if one is willing to suspend reality to imagine creating an imaginary new expensive, and expansive, space program from nothing in a mere decade, without raising the taxes to do it, anything is possible. It certainly seems easier to imagine populating the moon in this way than actually solving the very real problems we face on Earth today.

« Older Entries