Most recent poll for NH likely primary voters.

Neal Anderth wrote:Most recent poll for NH likely primary voters.

I think my bet was if it was Gingrich vs. Huntsman when it came to MA, I would vote for Huntsman, right?

Looks like I'm dodging a bullet.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:when's the last time a President was a bachelor

The one and only President to never marry was James Buchanan elected 1856 though Grover Cleveland was a bachelor when he ran for President (1884) he married while in office.

I knew someone would have access to a factlet on that one. I would have guessed no-one in the 20th C at least. You see, when Duggar was talking about Santorum's good points, he mentioned that he was a family man, who's kids were homeschooled. Only Dan Brown fans think Jesus would have been able to do that.

The Republican Party doesn't really do the super delegate thing. Of the 2,000+ delegates to the RNC only about about 450 are unpledged delegates and of those only about 120 are automatic based on party membership/position. The rest are elected.

That's still 5% automatic and 15% elected superdelegates. In a tight convention they could be in play. Especially if, say, Romney is on about 40%, Ron Paul is on 15% and the hard right candidates are on 30% combined. Romney's camp could concentrate on winning over supers and waverers and ignore the more ideologically tinged camps.

tmssteve wrote:As I see it then:

1) only taxpayers should vote;

Ok, Steve. I've let this one go long enough. THere is NO way you actually believe this. Because this is saying that you don't believe YOU should vote.

Guapo wrote:

tmssteve wrote:As I see it then:

1) only taxpayers should vote;

Ok, Steve. I've let this one go long enough. THere is NO way you actually believe this. Because this is saying that you don't believe YOU should vote.

Let me put this in context. I wrote, "I don't understand why people who are not supporters of the party should have any kind of say in selecting its candidates." To me, it is self-evident that a Party should be represented by those who register/identify/belong to that party. Their representative in an election should not be subject to the whims of other parties.

Theodore Logan responded, "Because those people pay for the elections." In other words, because the cost is borne by the citizenry, there ought to be no artificial boundaries restricting those who pay for the elections.

So, I wrote:

As I see it then:

1) only taxpayers should vote;

2) party registration is pointless as you paid for it and therefore can vote for anyone;

3) general elections are redundant.

4) Democrats should have equal say in voting for the GOP nominee. So, we could have Hillary v. Obama!

We just disagree. maybe parties should have to pay, but your approach makes the whole primary system a bit loopy.

If TL's reasoning is that paying for elections means you ought to be able to vote in whatever primary you want, then what I am saying is this: only those actually paying taxes ought to be able to vote. That's his reasoning taken to its extreme. If paying gives you the right, then only paying should give you the right.

In the bigger picture, honestly, I would be happy if only property owners could vote--even if that meant I could not vote. Why? Because the people who actually have a stake in things are more likely to vote cogently than those who do not. I would accept any system that reduces the number of "know-nothings" who get to vote.

However, in context, what I was saying is that by TL's logic only those who pay taxes should get to vote. The concept of a "party" is nullified by this sort of open voting.

Steve, I didn't isolate the quote to avoid the context. I understand the context.

You answered my question. The problem with taxpayer only voting is that everyone (except those on ANY government payroll) pays taxes at some level, but not everyone does at the same. That would eliminate all government employees from voting.

Then what about people with tax exempt (but privately funded) income? They pay local taxes through sales, but not federal income taxes. Should they only vote in local elections?

And how do you determine this? Steve, do you really want the IRS to oversee our elections? Has it come to that?

I understand the merit based idea, but the reality is more important. I hope Bush people realize one thing: Obama is only possible because of GWB.

Few people are actually property owners. They have mortgages. Banks get to create money and thereby own the vast majority of property. Then the public is responsible for bailing out the banks that own their properties. Why don't we just cut out the banks?

Neal, is that what you got out of DF's statement? Really? Come on... You know that a property owner is one who is deeded as owner. The bank holds the mortgage, but the owner is the one paying the mortgage.

I would hope you are above the nit-picking...

This whole non-issue can easily be bypassed by the simple expedient of not expecting all public expenditure to apply to all citizens equally. The fact that the party primaries are publicly funded is an irrelevance, it doesn't follow that all taxpayers should be entitled to vote in them as a result. In fact, they don't have that right anyway, even in states which have open primaries, because you can only vote in one primary or the other.

Steve's basic point about the absurdity of open primaries is a valid one. He wasn't arguing for the franchise to be removed from all non-taxpayers so this whole conversation is a waste of time.

I see that Huntsman is now running third in New Hampshire....
and the only one trending up.
Probably too late though.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Don't you mean Santorum? Hunstman has slipped back from his pre-Xmas level of 12-13% to under 10%. Santorum was on lower figures than Santorum and is now leading Gingrich and Huntsman in the battle for 3rd.

On the primaries/voting/paying debate, I think there are various cases that could be made. A lot depends on what the process is for, from your point of view. An internal process, or one only open to Party supporters, means that the eventual candidate is a clear representative of the Party. But it has the drawback of potentially coming from an echo-chamber and ignoring the wider political debate. An open process may lead to a more electable candidates but maybe not one that actually comes from the true party stance.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with taxpayer-funded primaries. Because I would object to paying towards the processes of a party I don't support, and because I would not want the processes of the party I support to be too tainted by State involvement (and vice-versa). The way that the French Socialists did it last time (based on the method used by the Italian centre-left a few years ago) was to hold their own national primary - so not using State apparatus - open to anyone providing that they were a Party member or paid a nominal fee (1 Euro) which covered the costs and raised money for later campaigning).

(the question of a 'property qualification' for voting is one that I thought had been addressed about 100 years ago)

I looked at Suffolk where he's gone, in the dailies, 8, 9 11....
Maybe he'll get an additional boost from his debate performance.
If he does finish third he'll get to go to Florida anyway... I think its interesting that he's really the most conservative fiscally, but gets excluded because of his liberal views socially.

Anyone else get the sense that Newt Gingrich has somehow turned into some kind of caricature from a WW2 propaganda film? I watched most of the debates Sat/Sun and have seen him in numerous interviews. It seems to me he's gone "kamikaze." There is a purpose, a fixation, and almost a glee at the idea of blowing up the USS Romney, no matter what happens to him.

In a word, he seems "crazed."

Usually the first Kamikaze did not make a hit. I look for Santorum to gain more traction...

bbauska wrote:Usually the first Kamikaze did not make a hit. I look for Santorum to gain more traction...

Would you agree though that Newt has sort of taken leave of his senses? It's just bizarre.

The most interesting thing to me is how Huntsman finishes in NH. I think if it's not in the top 3, he's done. If he finishes fifth, he needs to drop out.