You should stick to lauding the bond market bubble. That's at least got some hilarity value to it.

Believe me, Guapo, the idea that Ron Paul is going cause a major upset at the RNC, let alone actually get nominated is hilarious. What's less so is the idea that people who can't run a meeting (allowing an amendment to Standing Orders so that no quorom call can be made is a recipe for dodhiness) might soon run a major nation.

Still, it explains the current situation the USA finds itself in.

Do I 'laud' the bond market? Not really. I just observe what they do and what that means. I though capitalists like yourself would be more likely to laud a market. It's even a relatively free one, with auctions and floating prices and everything.

I like bringing you and Steve together. We Ron Paul supporters are uniters, not dividers.

But I really like your analysis. It's hilarious because..?


and forgive me but, the idea that the RP delegates are going to have any effect is hilarious, but the idea that they may soon run the nation is not? Make up your mind. They're either relevant, or not...

Also, I'm really interested to hear your knowledge of what Nevada is like. Let me guess, you have a neighbor whose dog was previously owned by an American who spent 3 weeks in vegas once.

Guapo wrote:Yes. I apologize.

Thanks. Two more personal apologies and we'll be all set.

I thought I linked to the 1920 Election. The primaries started in 1912, I believe (they are a stamp of the Progressive age--another irony to me, that you'd defend them). There were 20 states that went to a primary system by 1920.

I'd prefer no primaries. I'd prefer only land owners vote. However, the system is what it is and you can't change it by wishing. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, he will have destroyed the Party, ensured Obama's reelection, and done more damage to the idea that voting matters than anyone in history.

However, he won't get the nomination. The party powers won't let him. And, if he ever wants to see Rand (a much better politician) have a platform, he won't push it.

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't know.

What I do know is that having a candidate for national office who regularly failed to get even 15% of the primary vote would be a disaster. Ron Paul might get 30% of the vote in a general if he was the GOP nominee under these circumstances. I know you don't believe that, but for those of us with a stripe of pragmatism it's just reality.

You can't be serious. Defend those numbers. Go ahead, look at polling data, historical analysis, or whatever you choose. But I can't imagine that your 30% number is anything more than being pulled out of your 'stripe'.

How many States was he below 15%? When there was still a horse race, he was at 10% nationally. Following debates in which his policies are fully explained (dovish globally, hawkish budget-wise), I think he would get about 30%. Any poll that says otherwise is filled with a bunch of folks who could not pick Paul out of a lineup.

I know you think him a god (small 'g'), but I'd venture to say he has, at best, a 65% name ID. In other words, many people don't know who he is, how old he is, or what he stands for. As all those came together, he would be hurting.

I see, so you think that the RNC will make good on their threats to disallow entire state delegations? You think that would be a good thing for them? Actually, Romney has already decided to go the other way. The McCain camp chose to alienate the RP supporters, but Romney has wanted to appear to play nice. So he's sort of stuck. If he starts fighting with RP delegates, it's going to be nothing but bad press. That will kill him. He doesn't want that. Remember how a few months ago, Santorum was talking about a Rom-Ron conspiracy? Looks like Ron is playing Rom like a fiddle.

Ron Paul won't even get a chance. If delegates violate their "bound on the first vote" pledge, they will be challenged. Whatever happens, nothing that risks Romney getting the nomination on the first ballot will be permitted.

Anyway, the RNC sent a silly letter threatening the Nevada GOP with unseating the entire state delegation if they didn't sign a pledge stating they'd vote for Romney in the first round. The RP delegation is calling their bluff.

Yeah, how dare the RNC demand its delegates abide by its rules?

Imagine the press when the GOP bans 2 or 3 entire state delegations from the convention. That's not a winning strategy for the general election.

If that's all it is, it's immaterial and will make Paul look like a boorish clown. You may think it incredibly clever. However, for the millions who voted and for all who contributed, this is something akin to the beer hall putsch. It's small ball. If you want to win, win some of the votes, not rules fights.

Guapo wrote:But I really like your analysis. It's hilarious because..?

Because the description is of a meeting turned to farce, with people holding up signs, shouting at each other, handing out fake lists, changing the standing orders so the meeting is quorate even if a quorum isn't present.

I like meeting-based humour. There's plenty in Life of Brian.

and forgive me but, the idea that the RP delegates are going to have any effect is hilarious, but the idea that they may soon run the nation is not? Make up your mind. They're either relevant, or not...

It's the idea that the Republicans might run the country - they already run the House and hope to capture the Senate even of they don't get their Mittens into the White House. After all, it was a Republican meeting, not exclusively a Paulista one.

Also, I'm really interested to hear your knowledge of what Nevada is like. Let me guess, you have a neighbor whose dog was previously owned by an American who spent 3 weeks in vegas once.

Hey, I watch a lot of CSI :-)

Doctor Fate wrote:Thanks. Two more personal apologies and we'll be all set.

I wasn't admitting to your charge, I was apologizing for failing to link the election I was talking about--which was after the primary system started. I answered your question as you asked it. As for your other requested apologies, it would be helpful to clue me in on what you're referring to.

I haven't been snarky with you. I've been snarky with Danivon, but not you.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'd prefer no primaries. I'd prefer only land owners vote. However, the system is what it is and you can't change it by wishing. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, he will have destroyed the Party, ensured Obama's reelection, and done more damage to the idea that voting matters than anyone in history.

Voting doesn't matter. Your own admission is that grassroots campaigns don't matter, so just go along with whoever the party bosses pick. I've never seen such a clearly established front-runner have so much difficulty energizing his base--especially considering how Republicans feel about Obama. If Romney was such a strong candidate, why did he lose so many states?

Doctor Fate wrote:However, he won't get the nomination. The party powers won't let him. And, if he ever wants to see Rand (a much better politician) have a platform, he won't push it.

Ok, explain how. The only recourse they have right now is to ban entire state delegations. Is that your solution? If not, explain how the party powers won't let him? And why haven't they stopped him yet? Please consider the GOP rules I've linked to on multiple occasions.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yeah, how dare the RNC demand its delegates abide by its rules?

They have been abiding by the rules, and will continue to do so. Can you show me an example of where they have broken any rules?

Doctor Fate wrote:If that's all it is, it's immaterial and will make Paul look like a boorish clown. You may think it incredibly clever. However, for the millions who voted and for all who contributed, this is something akin to the beer hall putsch. It's small ball. If you want to win, win some of the votes, not rules fights.

The millions who voted. What about the millions who have yet to vote? You're saying that 5 million people get to decide who the rest of registered Republicans are allowed to vote for? Romney has a plurality right now, and that's it.

So studying the rules, playing by them and winning battles based on them is putsch? Ron Paul's strategy IS the traditional form of party electioneering. If the process is irrelevant, and all that matters is the straw vote, then the system would work that way.

But sending out operatives to try to trick state convention voters with fraudulent slates is proper and good? How does that work?

If Romney was meant to have the nomination by now, he'd have it. But he doesn't. Whose fault is that? Santorum and Gingrich are just as much to blame for that.

Jeff, why are you still banging on about this ? I really don't see why you continue to get excited about the idea of a Ron Paul convention ambush since it would obviously be a humiliating disaster for all concerned. Let's say all these mystery delegates do somehow contrive to swing it for Paul against the stated wishes of the Republican primary voters, how is that likely to make people feel who didn't vote for Paul ? Are they all just going to smoothly transfer their support to the new Republican candidate as if nothing untoward had happened ? How are the wider electorate supposed to feel about it ? A candidate who consistently polled fourth or fifth in state after state during the primaries suddenly emerges as the 'winner' after widespread use of arcane shenanigans. Who the hell is going to want to vote for Paul in those circumstances ? The Republican party would be a laughing stock.

danivon wrote:

Guapo wrote:But I really like your analysis. It's hilarious because..?

Because the description is of a meeting turned to farce, with people holding up signs, shouting at each other, handing out fake lists, changing the standing orders so the meeting is quorate even if a quorum isn't present.

I like meeting-based humour. There's plenty in Life of Brian.

Excellent. But that's not a farce.

1. re: "holding up signs" That's how a convention works in American politics. They hold up signs (or ballot sheets) in order to have a method of counting the votes. Just raising an arm is tricky. Whose to say I won't hold up two?

One of the things that is done at the beginning of a convention is determine how votes are counted. That's just how it works. Just because you've never seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's called party business. I have been involved in them.

2. re: "shouting at each other" right, and you've seen the house of commons, right?

3. re: "handing out fake lists" I agree. Romney is a turd.

4.re: "quorum" but there was a quorum. After the quorum was obtained, it was voted on that no challenges would be accepted. In fact, that rule was passed so that the party business could go on without people stalling it. You can see videos on youtube of what exactly happened at both Maine and Nevada state conventions. The Romney camp was trying to delay, delay, delay. They were the ones trying to manipulate the process--because they were sorely outnumbered.

Danivon wrote:It's the idea that the Republicans might run the country - they already run the House and hope to capture the Senate even of they don't get their Mittens into the White House. After all, it was a Republican meeting, not exclusively a Paulista one.

And because of that awful behavior, The Republicans should repudiate Romney. It's a disgrace what they tried to do.

Danivon wrote:

Also, I'm really interested to hear your knowledge of what Nevada is like. Let me guess, you have a neighbor whose dog was previously owned by an American who spent 3 weeks in vegas once.

Hey, I watch a lot of CSI :-)

Great response. And I mean that 100% sincerely. That made me laugh.

Guapo wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Thanks. Two more personal apologies and we'll be all set.

I wasn't admitting to your charge, I was apologizing for failing to link the election I was talking about--which was after the primary system started. I answered your question as you asked it. As for your other requested apologies, it would be helpful to clue me in on what you're referring to.

Email me. It's personal.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'd prefer no primaries. I'd prefer only land owners vote. However, the system is what it is and you can't change it by wishing. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, he will have destroyed the Party, ensured Obama's reelection, and done more damage to the idea that voting matters than anyone in history.

If Romney was such a strong candidate, why did he lose so many states?

Why couldn't Paul win even one?

You want to point to these as wins, but you know they're not generally regarded as such.

Ok, explain how. The only recourse they have right now is to ban entire state delegations. Is that your solution? If not, explain how the party powers won't let him? And why haven't they stopped him yet? Please consider the GOP rules I've linked to on multiple occasions.

I guess we'll have to wait until the Convention. When Paul is the nominee, you can tell me you told me so.

They have been abiding by the rules, and will continue to do so. Can you show me an example of where they have broken any rules?

They are bound on the first ballot, yes? If they abide by that, no problem. If they don't, they should be booted. Period.

The millions who voted. What about the millions who have yet to vote? You're saying that 5 million people get to decide who the rest of registered Republicans are allowed to vote for? Romney has a plurality right now, and that's it.

Which is far more than Paul has. In fact, you seem to be arguing that fighting the insiders' game and winning should determine who gets the nomination. So, a handful of Paulistas should decide who the rest of registered Republicans are allowed to vote for?

So studying the rules, playing by them and winning battles based on them is putsch? Ron Paul's strategy IS the traditional form of party electioneering. If the process is irrelevant, and all that matters is the straw vote, then the system would work that way.

Paul might convince the RNC to alter its rules with his antics. That might be good.

Sassenach wrote:Jeff, why are you still banging on about this ? I really don't see why you continue to get excited about the idea of a Ron Paul convention ambush since it would obviously be a humiliating disaster for all concerned. Let's say all these mystery delegates do somehow contrive to swing it for Paul against the stated wishes of the Republican primary voters, how is that likely to make people feel who didn't vote for Paul ? Are they all just going to smoothly transfer their support to the new Republican candidate as if nothing untoward had happened ? How are the wider electorate supposed to feel about it ? A candidate who consistently polled fourth or fifth in state after state during the primaries suddenly emerges as the 'winner' after widespread use of arcane shenanigans. Who the hell is going to want to vote for Paul in those circumstances ? The Republican party would be a laughing stock.

Spot on! Best post I've read here . . . in years.

If Paul wants to speak at the convention, I've no issue with that. If he's trying to steal the nomination, it will be a debacle for all concerned.

Guapo wrote:Excellent. But that's not a farce.

1. re: "holding up signs" That's how a convention works in American politics. They hold up signs (or ballot sheets) in order to have a method of counting the votes. Just raising an arm is tricky. Whose to say I won't hold up two?

I was referring to the councilwoman holding up a sign during her statement. That wasn't for voting.

2. re: "shouting at each other" right, and you've seen the house of commons, right?

Yes, and it can be quite funny too. Your point was to be more than just a tu quoque was it?

[quote[3. re: "handing out fake lists" I agree. Romney is a turd.[/quote]Ahem. The guy who supported him was a turd. Any proof Romney was involved?

4.re: "quorum" but there was a quorum. After the quorum was obtained, it was voted on that no challenges would be accepted. In fact, that rule was passed so that the party business could go on without people stalling it. You can see videos on youtube of what exactly happened at both Maine and Nevada state conventions. The Romney camp was trying to delay, delay, delay. They were the ones trying to manipulate the process--because they were sorely outnumbered.

Whatever. Whoever was behaving like kids, it was farcical.

And because of that awful behavior, The Republicans should repudiate Romney. It's a disgrace what they tried to do.

They won't. They will nominate him in round 1 at the RNC.

Sassenach wrote:Jeff, why are you still banging on about this ?

Well, you started it. You played Doubting Thomas and said you'd believe it when you saw it. You all said it was a fantasy then. But it happened. So, I obliged your request. Ron Paul won Iowa...and Nevada...and Minnesota...and Maine...

And he took almost half of Romney's delegates in his own home state. Did I mention that they also voted down Romney's former LT Gov as a committee person?

Sassenach wrote: I really don't see why you continue to get excited about the idea of a Ron Paul convention ambush since it would obviously be a humiliating disaster for all concerned.

That's your opinion. But I think you over-estimate how much the majority of voters pay attention to anything. It would be anything but a disaster for Paul. Even if he won the nomination and lost to Obama (I think Obama's re-election is inevitable, unless Paul is the GOP candidate), if his strategy works, his delegates write the platform, elect new party leadership and now control the party.

Sassenach wrote: Let's say all these mystery delegates do somehow contrive to swing it for Paul against the stated wishes of the Republican primary voters, how is that likely to make people feel who didn't vote for Paul ? Are they all just going to smoothly transfer their support to the new Republican candidate as if nothing untoward had happened ?

Yes. Republican voters have already shown that they will roll over to whoever the nominee is. If you've paid any attention, you know how unpopular Romney is even within his party. People are voting for him because they think it's over. They've surrendered. Nobody will care when he's ousted at the convention. They didn't really like him anyway, or he'd have clinched by super Tuesday, like every other candidate has since, what 1948? The Republican rallying cry has been much more "beat Obama" than "thank God it's Mitt". How many of Romney's 5 million votes had him as their #1 choice? Very few. Again, they're voting on a prayer based on the belief that he can beat Obama.

Sassenach wrote: How are the wider electorate supposed to feel about it ? A candidate who consistently polled fourth or fifth in state after state during the primaries suddenly emerges as the 'winner' after widespread use of arcane shenanigans. Who the hell is going to want to vote for Paul in those circumstances ? The Republican party would be a laughing stock.

How about---energized!! The argument before was that Ron Paul couldn't win because the party bosses are too strong. Grassroots campaigns fail. The big man crushes the little man.

Who will vote for Paul?
1. All of his supporters
2. everyone that wants Obama out, and
3. anti-war democrats/progressives (Naomi wolf, kucinich style)

Who will vote for Romney?
1. Everyone who wants Obama out,
0. less Ron Paul's supporters, and
-1. less anti-war democrats.

How does that make Mitt the better candidate?

The point is, either way, a minority will decide the candidate. It always does. Very rarely does a majority of a party's membership vote in its primaries--I don't know of one, but I'm not discounting the possibility that it's happened.

And remember, this is intra-party politics, not a general election. They have completely different purposes, hence the different systems.

You guys don't get that luxury. If I'm not mistaken, your party system is structured wholly top down. You don't get to pick who, you just vote for a party and hope for the best. That's not how it works here.

Guapo wrote:Who will vote for Paul?
1. All of his supporters
2. everyone that wants Obama out, and
3. anti-war democrats/progressives (Naomi wolf, kucinich style)

Who will vote for Romney?
1. Everyone who wants Obama out,
0. less Ron Paul's supporters, and
-1. less anti-war democrats.

How does that make Mitt the better candidate?

Let's test that thesis with comparitive polling...

This month, Rassmussen had four Paul v Obama polls. One was a tie. The others had Obama ahead by at least 4 points. Before then and since then, Rassmussen has polled on Romney v Obama and had Obama behind by 3-5 points.

I'm not sure that many anti-war democrats would vote for Paul, for example. And perhaps they are less of a factor in the key states than in places like NY and CA. I'm also not sure you've considered whether anyone might be put off by Paul.

Doctor Fate wrote:Why couldn't Paul win even one?

It's quite simple. He didn't try to--with the exception of maybe Iowa, where he came within 2 or 3 percentage points of the perceived winner (remember that whole thing?)

Ron has limited resources. He's not backed by Goldman Sachs. He has had to play with the cards he has. So his strategy was based on that. His message to his supporters was more about getting involved than getting the word out. Why? Because he knew the only way he could win was by using his passionate base to get him delegates. The media had been ignoring him, so do what you can to get noticed. Control what you can control.

Doctor Fate wrote:You want to point to these as wins, but you know they're not generally regarded as such.

By whom? The people that are clueless about how the process works?

Doctor Fate wrote:They are bound on the first ballot, yes? If they abide by that, no problem. If they don't, they should be booted. Period.

The quick answer, is no. This is where it gets fun. Bear with me, because it's going to be difficult to explain.

Remember the whole federalism thing? Well, it applies to party politics, too. States decide their rules, state parties decide theirs, and national parties decide theirs. In a sense, think of the delegates as being subject to 3 different jurisdictions. What happens when rules conflict? Whoever has jurisdiction decides.

In other words, state rules apply to delegates in the jurisdiction of the state or state party. But once they go to the national convention, they are subject to the national rules. is it bizarre? yes, but so is our federal system It's not unlike medical marijuana, it's legal in California and Arizona, but according to the feds, it's illegal for the entire nation.

Remember that the state parties are affiliates of the national party. They are NOT the same thing. Consider the state party affiliated with the DNC in Minnesota. It's called the Democratic-Farm-Labor party, I believe.

Ok, all that said, all the Paul delegates have to do at convention is 1. vote to unbind the delegates (pursuant to GOP Rule 38) during the party business portion, or 2. Abstain in the first round.

Doctor Fate wrote:Which is far more than Paul has. In fact, you seem to be arguing that fighting the insiders' game and winning should determine who gets the nomination. So, a handful of Paulistas should decide who the rest of registered Republicans are allowed to vote for?

No. Everyone has the same opportunity to stick around and continue voting. Romney got 50% of the initial vote in Nevada. Why didn't enough of his supporters stick around throughout the process? Remember, Nevada is a caucus state.

1. they're either ignorant of the process in their own state party, or
2. they were too apathetic

Neither of those sound like a vote of confidence to me.

Perhaps you can understand this analogy (even as it opens an old scar for me): In 2004, the Yankees opened up the ALCS with a commanding 3-0 lead in the series. Should they have called it off because the win was "inevitable"? Who did Curt Schilling think he was?

Or how about this: Remember the George Brett pine tar incident? A technicality!! It's a travesty!

The point is, if you're going to play, expect to play the whole game. If you're going to play, expect to be held accountable to the rules of the game. Everybody has the same opportunity in these caucuses.

Actually, baseball might provide a better analogy for the whole "jurisdiction"/delegate binding issue. In Major League baseball, is the Designated Hitter a legal position? Does the pitcher bat? Well, it depends on what teams are playing, and where. Does that make sense?

danivon wrote:

Guapo wrote:Who will vote for Paul?
1. All of his supporters
2. everyone that wants Obama out, and
3. anti-war democrats/progressives (Naomi wolf, kucinich style)

Who will vote for Romney?
1. Everyone who wants Obama out,
0. less Ron Paul's supporters, and
-1. less anti-war democrats.

How does that make Mitt the better candidate?

Let's test that thesis with comparitive polling...

This month, Rassmussen had four Paul v Obama polls. One was a tie. The others had Obama ahead by at least 4 points. Before then and since then, Rassmussen has polled on Romney v Obama and had Obama behind by 3-5 points.

I'm not sure that many anti-war democrats would vote for Paul, for example. And perhaps they are less of a factor in the key states than in places like NY and CA. I'm also not sure you've considered whether anyone might be put off by Paul.

It's not just anti-war democrats. Obama's civil liberties record is atrocious. Look up what people like Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Uygar and Naomi wolf have to say about him. They are all leftists, and have a strong voice among a specific group of democrats--some of the same democrats that helped get him elected over Hillary--who was the more "moderate" candidate in 08.

I've been to Occupy protests. They don't exactly love Obama anymore. They're leftists, and many of them like Ron Paul. None of those groups would vote for Romney. They think Romney is a mean, evil capitalist--something that doesn't rub off on Paul, ironically. Because he rails against the Fed, he appears more populist than capitalist. Because he takes up the cause of student debt, he's appeared as fighting for the little man. Obama seems to have rolled over to Wall St to many of these leftists. They WILL vote for Paul over Obama, but not Romney.

The people who are most put off by Paul are the neocons. Yes, they'll switch to Obama, but they are a dying breed. In fact, they didn't even really have a candidate in this go-round (Huntsman was probably the closest). Romney is a Rockefeller Republican, but not a neocon. Social conservatives went along with neocons, but they are more concerned with abortion and gay marriage than pursuing democracy around the world. Newt is a technocrat. McCain was the last neocon GOP presidential candidate.

But I challenge you to find me one current faction (you can identify them by one of the original GOP candidates) that is so put off by Paul that they'd switch to Obama.